NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

28 January 2016

 

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:

 

Nambucca Shire Council believes that the opportunity for any person to address the Council in relation to any matter which concerns them is an important demonstration of local democracy and our values.  Accordingly 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.

 

In relation to regulatory or enforcement matters it needs to be understood that the Council has certain legal obligations which will generally prevent the Council from providing an immediate response to any concerns or grievances which may be raised in the public forum.  In particular the Council has to provide procedural fairness and consider all relevant information.  Generally this cannot be done with matters which have come direct to Council via the public forum.  So the fact that the Council may not immediately agree to the representations and seek a report instead should not be taken to indicate disagreement or disinterest.

 

In the public forum 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 - 28 January 2016

 

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.

 

 

2.00 pm       Site Inspection – McHughes Creek Road – Roadside Vegetation Maintenance

(Departing Council at 2.00 pm)

 

4.00 pm       Workshop – Council Chambers

Community Workshop - Shoaling Investigation

 

 

AGENDA                                                                                                   Page

 

1        APOLOGIES

2        PRAYER

3        DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4        CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES —

Ordinary Council Meeting - 14 January 2016................................................................................. 6

5        NOTICES OF MOTION

5.1     Bluett LOCAL GOVERNMENT HANDBOOK (New South Wales) - (SF256).......................... 15

6        Notices of Rescission

6.1     Rescision Motion - Item 9.15 from 15 December 2015...................................................... 16  

7        PUBLIC FORUM

 

i)           Mr Lachlann Ison on behalf of Rural Fire Service

 

ii)          Mr Brendan Goswell on behalf of Old Coast Road Overpass in memory of David and Ryan Goswell

8        ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE   

9        QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

10      General Manager Report

10.1   Public Forum Address by Mr Brendan Goswell - Background Information.......................... 33

10.2   Outstanding Actions and Reports.................................................................................... 38

10.3   NSW Ombudsman - Updated Enforcement Guidelines and Model Enforcement Policy for Councils..................................................................................................................................... 49

10.4   Consultation on Phase 1 Amendments to the Local Government Act 1993......................... 51

10.5   Amendment to Housekeeping Planning Proposal............................................................. 90

10.6   Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months OR where submissions received - 7 - 21 January 2016  92

10.7   JRPP Nomination........................................................................................................... 96

10.8   Outstanding Item no 27 - Provision of Councils Flood Data to the insurance Council of Australia 98


 

11      Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

11.1   Approval of loan to Macksville Ex-Services Junior Cricket Club for purchase of lawn mower 100

11.2   Investment Report to 30 November 2015........................................................................ 102

11.3   Schedule of Council Public Meetings............................................................................. 107

11.4   Nambucca Shire Council Contract Register..................................................................... 108

12      Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

12.1   Waste Management Quarterly Report October - December 2015...................................... 120

12.2   NSW Rural Fire Service Proposed 2016/17 Budget 'Bid'.................................................. 126

12.3   World Rally maintenance costs...................................................................................... 135

12.4   Roadside Vegetation Management................................................................................ 138     


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 14 January 2016

PRESENT

 

Cr Rhonda Hoban (Mayor)

Cr John Ainsworth

Cr Martin Ballangarry OAM

Cr Brian Finlayson

Cr Paula Flack

Cr Kim MacDonald

Cr Bob Morrison

Cr Anne Smyth

Cr Elaine South

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT

 

Michael Coulter (General Manager)

Scott Norman (AGM Corporate Services)

Clint Fitzsummons (Acting AGM Engineering Services)

Joanne Hudson (Manager Human Resources)

Lorraine Hemsworth (Minute Secretary)

 

 

 

APOLOGY

 

Paul Gallagher (AGM Engineering Services)

 

 

 

PRAYER

 

Pastor Peter Lott, Christian Life Centre, offered a prayer on behalf of the Nambucca Minister's Association.

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

 

Mr Michael Coulter (General Manager) declared a pecuniary interest in Item 12.2 Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Total Remuneration Package for Contract commencing 10 January 2016 under the Local Government Act as the determination may affect the negotiation of his Total Remuneration Package when his Contract  falls due on 1 April 2016.  Mr Coulter left the meeting for this item.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council Meeting

 

SUBJECT:   CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council Meeting 15 December 2015

1/16 2/16 MOTION: (Flack/Smyth)       

 

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of 15 December 2015 be confirmed.

 

Amendment:       (Morrison/Ainsworth)

 

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of 15 December 2015 be confirmed with the exception of Item 9.15 – page 3.

 

The Amendment was lost and motion was put:

 

3/16 Resolved:            (Flack/Smyth)

 

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of 15 December 2015 be confirmed.

 

Cr Morrison requested that his vote be recorded against the Motion as he believes that the minutes pertaining to Item 9.15 are invalid and cannot be ratified for the following reasons:

 

 

a        The motion was inconsistent with that passed at a previous meeting

b        No formal notice (refer Code of Meeting Practice)

c        Inconsistent with the agenda Item heading

d        Withholding information from the applicant

e        The applicant was misled as they came to address the motion in the agenda (Due Process/Natural Justice)

f        Abrogation of our rights to determine the matter when the matter was turned over to Crown Lands for their decision/support/recommendation

g        Perceived voting irregularities (procedural fairness/due process)

h        Ambiguity of the motion

 

 

LATE NOM1 – SF2049  - Request for Leave - Cr Kim MacDonald

4/16 Resolved:            (MacDonald/Flack)

 

That Cr Kim MacDonald be granted leave of absence in accordance with Section 234(d) of the Local Government Act for the period 23 January 2016 to 29 January 2016.

 

 

    PUBLIC FORUM AND DELEGATIONS

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the following public forum and delegations be heard:

 

PUBLIC FORUM

 

i)           Item 12.3      Address in Public Forum – Penalty Infringement Notices Issued under the Companion Animals Act – LATE REPORT

Mr Scott Kennedy and Ms Belinda White

 

 

5/16 Resolved:            (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

That Council note the presentation by Mr Scott Kennedy and Ms Belinda White and that a further report be provided to Council in relation to the matter, and particularly concerning the number of dogs which should be allowed to be kept at the property.

 

 

ii)          NBN Fixed Wireless Telecommunications Facility - Gumma

Mr Tony Lewis

 

 

6/16 Resolved:            (Flack/Finlayson)

 

That Development Application DA2015/195 come to Council for determination and that a site inspection be scheduled.

 

 

DELEGATION:

 

iii)         Item 9.8  Request for an Extension of Time to Remediate Pistol Shooting Range - 816 to 846 Gumma Road, Gumma

Mr Elwyn Lock

 

 


 

ITEM 9.8      LF780                 140116      Request for an Extension of Time to Remediate Pistol Shooting Range - 816 to 846 Gumma Road, Gumma

7/16 Resolved:            (Ainsworth/Morrison)

 

1           That Council give the Nambucca Valley Pistol Club, 816-846 Gumma Road, Gumma two (2) years to clean up the site.

 

2           That the $506 administration fee for the clean-up notice be waived on the basis that the money would be better spent on remediation.

 

Cr Flack requested her vote be recorded against as Part 1 of the Motion because she doesn’t support leaving a known polluted site for two (2) years without confirmation as to whether or not there is any polluted run-off leaving the site.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

     

Closed Items 12.1 - Tender No. T2015-33 - Sewer Main Replacement - Tender Assessment, 12.2 - Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Total Remuneration Package for Contract commencing 10 January 2016, 12.3 - Address in Public Forum - Penalty Infringement Notices Issued  under the Companion Animals Act

 

8/16  Resolved:           (MacDonald/Ainsworth)

 

That the Confidential Reports be brought forward.

 

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL IN CLOSED MEETING (CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC)

9/16 Resolved:            (Ainsworth/South)

 

1        That Council consider any written representations from the public as to why the Meeting should not be Closed to the public.

 

2        That Council move into Closed Meeting to discuss the matters for the reason(s) listed.

 

Reason reports are in Closed Meeting:

 

 

 

 

General Manager Report

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 12.1    SF872                140116      Tender No. T2015-33 - Sewer Main Replacement - Tender Assessment

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

 

 

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 12.2    SF2182              140116      Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Total Remuneration Package for Contract commencing 10 January 2016

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals.

 

 

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 12.3    LF13                  140116      Address in Public Forum - Penalty Infringement Notices Issued  under the Companion Animals Act

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

 

 

 

CLOSED MEETING

 

The Ordinary Council Meeting's Meeting IN CLOSED MEETING commenced at 7.09 pm.

 

RESUME IN OPEN MEETING

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Ordinary Council Meeting resume in Open Meeting. The Ordinary Council Meeting resumed IN OPEN MEETING at 7.26 pm.

 

 

FROM COUNCIL IN CLOSED MEETING

 

 

Michael Coulter (General Manager), Scott Norman (AGM Corporate Services) and Clint Fitzsummons (Acting AGM Engineering Services) left the meeting for the Closed Items including 12.2 at 7.09 pm and returned after the conclusion at 7.26 pm.

 


General Manager Report

 

ITEM 12.1    SF872                140116      Tender No. T2015-33 - Sewer Main Replacement - Tender Assessment

10/16  Resolved:                  (Ainsworth/MacDonald)

 

That Council note the information provided in this report in Open Council as per the recommendation in the related item in open meeting.

 

 

 

ITEM 12.3    LF13                  140116      Address in Public Forum - Penalty Infringement Notices Issued  under the Companion Animals Act

11/16  Resolved:         (Ainsworth/MacDonald)

 

That the information concerning the address in public forum about the issue of penalty infringement notices under the Companion Animals Act be received.

 

 

 

7.16 pm Cr Flack left the meeting and did not return for the remainder of the meeting.

 

 

ITEM 12.2    SF2182              140116      Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Total Remuneration Package for Contract commencing 10 January 2016

12/16Resolved(Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

That the value of the Total Remuneration Package for the Assistant General Manager Engineering Services’ contract commencing 10 January 2016 be $187,500.

 

 

 

Adjournment of Meeting

 

13/16 Resolved: (MacDonald/South)

 

That the meeting be adjourned at 7.27 pm for dinner.

 

 

 

7.50 pm       The Meeting resumed after dinner

 


General Manager Report

ITEM 9.1      SF1208              140116      Public Forum Address by Mr Brendan Goswell - Background Information

 14/16 Resolved:         (Hoban/Ainsworth)

 

That the report be deferred until Mr Brendan Goswell can be in attendance.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.2      SF959                140116      Outstanding Actions and Reports

15/16 Resolved: (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

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

 

 

 

ITEM 9.3      SF1370              140116      Planning Proposal Nambucca LEP 2010 – Nomination Of Heritage Items Stage 1

16/16 Resolved: (Smyth/Ainsworth)

 

1        That Council support a planning proposal for the nomination of stage 1 heritage items for submission to the Minister of Planning for Gateway Determination in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

2        That the Macksville Railway Station and Station Masters Residence be added to the heritage places.

 

3        That the property owners be advised of the proposed listing.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.4      SF2038              140116      Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months OR where submissions received - 5 December 2015 - 4 January 2016

17/16 Resolved: (Finlayson/MacDonald)

 

That the information be noted by Council.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.5      SF2038              140116      2015 December - Received Development Applications Received and Complying Development Applications

18/16 Resolved: (Ainsworth/Smyth)

 

That the Development Applications and Complying Development Applications received in December 2015 be received for information.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.6      SF2038              140116      2015 December - Approved Construction Certificates and Complying Development Certificates

19/16  Resolved:         (MacDonald/South)

 

That the Construction and Complying Development Certificates approved for December 2015 be noted and received for information by Council.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.7      DA2015/182        140116      Proposed 2 lot subdivision of Lot 92 DP 109953870, 70 Seaforth Drive, Valla Beach

20/16 Resolved: (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

 

That Council as the consent authority, pursuant Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, grant consent for Development Application 2015/182 for a two lot subdivision of Lot 92 DP 109953870 – 70 Seaforth Drive, Valla Beach, subject to the schedule of conditions outlined in attachment 2 of this report.

 

For the Motion:               Councillors Hoban, Morrison, Ballangarry, Smyth, Finlayson, Ainsworth,

                                      MacDonald and South     (Total 8)

Against the Motion:         Nil

 

 

ITEM 9.9      SF787                140116      Annual Summary - Indian Myna Control Project - 2014-2015

21/16  Resolved:         (MacDonald/Smyth)

 

That the information be noted by Council.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.10    SF42                  140116      Council Boundary Reviews

22/16 Resolved: (Smyth/Ainsworth)

 

That the information concerning the proposed arrangements for the Council boundary reviews be received.

 

 

 

 


Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

ITEM 10.1    SF544                140116      Developer Contributions Plan: Adoption of Final Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure

23/16  Resolved:         (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

 

That Council adopt the Final Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Developer Contributions Plan and it becomes effective from 21 January 2016 following public notification in the Guardian News on that day.

 

For the Motion:               Councillors Hoban, Morrison, Ballangarry, Smyth, Finlayson, Ainsworth,

                                      MacDonald and South     (Total 8)

Against the Motion:         Nil

 

 

ITEM 10.2    SF102                140116      Draft Final Cycleway Plan 2016

24/16  Resolved:         (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

That Council adopt the Final Cycleway Plan (2016).

 

 

 

25/16  Resolved:         (Smyth/Ainsworth)

 

That the Engineering staff consider and report on an overall plan for the parking of bicycles.

 

 

 

ITEM 10.3    SF329                140116      Crosswinds Wetlands Nature Reserve Committee of Management - Minutes of Annual general Meeting - 29 October 2015

26/16  Resolved:         (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

 

That Council endorse the Minutes of the Committee of Management for the Crosswinds Wetlands Nature Reserve’s Annual General Meeting held on 29 October 2015 and thank the Committee for continued good work in the past twelve months.

 

 

 

ITEM 10.4    SF336                140116      Taylors Arm Hall Committee of Management - Minutes of Annual General Meeting - 10 December 2015

27/16   Resolved:        (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

 

That Council endorse the Minutes of the Committee of Management for the Taylors Arm Hall Annual General Meeting held on 10 December 2015 and thank the Committee for their continued good work in the past twelve months.

 

 

 

 

ITEM 10.5    SF251                140116      Schedule of Council Public Meetings

28/16  Resolved:         (MacDonald/Ainsworth)

 

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    SF872                140116      Tender No. T2015-33 - Sewer Main replacement - NOROC Panel Contract

29/16  RESOLVED:         (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

 

That:

1          Council adopt the panel of contractors listed in the discussion section of this report as “Pre-Approved Providers” for the T2015-33 – Sewer Main Replacement NOROC Panel contract for a period of one year, with an option at Council's absolute discretion to extend the contract for a further two, one year periods.

 

2        The General Manager be authorised to award individual projects on the basis of the tendered schedule of rates and any necessary minor amendments or variations required to complete the work.

 

3        The General Manager be authorised to exercise the options to extend the contract for up to two, one year periods subject to satisfactory performance of the contractors.

 

4        That the information concerning the individual tenders listed in the report in closed meeting be adopted.

 

For the Motion:               Councillors Hoban, Morrison, Ballangarry, Smyth, Finlayson, Ainsworth,

                                      MacDonald and South     (Total 8)

Against the Motion:         Nil

 

 

Contract Register

 

30/16  Resolved:         (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

That the Contract Register be presented to Council once a year for information.

 

 

CLOSURE

 

There being no further business the Mayor then closed the meeting the time being 8.37 pm.

 

Confirmed and signed by the Mayor on 28 January 2016.

 

CR RHONDA HOBAN

MAYOR

(CHAIRPERSON)

    


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                28 January 2016

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.1      SF2183            280116         Bluett LOCAL GOVERNMENT HANDBOOK (New South Wales) - (SF256)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Bob Morrison, Councillor         

 

Summary:

 

No summary required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the latest edition of the handbook entitled "Bluett LOCAL GOVERNMENT HANDBOOK (New South Wales) be purchased for each of the present councillors and for any new councillor being elected to this Council in the future.

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

This handbook consolidates most of the information required by a councillor on being elected as a councillor in New South Wales.  It provides in readable form an explanation of the Local Government Act and other acts of Parliament administered by Council together with the Conduct of Meetings of Council's and together with the Conduct of Meetings of Council's and Council Committees, including the Local Government (meetings) Regulations. The handbook also brings in material on other Acts of Parliament which have some reference to local government.

 

As a bit of background, this book was conceived and published by the late A R Bluett in 1920, and new additions of this handbook with updates have been published every few years since. Bluett conceived and compiled the handbook as a useful introduction for those entering the service as Councillors for the first time, and also as a quick ready means of reference for serving Council members, Council staff and the general public. The original purpose of the handbook has been fully retained with the passage of years.

It should be noted that other councils provide a copy of this handbook to new Councillors on being elected to their respective Shire Councils.

 

I wish here to mention a proposal from the G M as listed in our last council meeting papers on the 14/01/2016:

"It is proposed that the General Manager draft some guidelines for Council's consideration in relation to the operation of the public forum. These guidelines will cover matters such as procedural fairness, compliance with Council's code of conduct and the inadvisability of Council prejudging how they may determine a matter without all of the relevant information."

 

This handbook would support the GM with his proposal and to assist councillors in basing their judgement on matters of procedure and the law, thereby avoiding the recent events of submitting INVALID "Thought Bubble" motions that has no basis in regard to our procedures and the Law.

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                28 January 2016

Notice of Rescission

ITEM 6.1      SF2183            280116         Rescision Motion - Item 9.15 from 15 December 2015

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Bob Morrison, Councillor         

 

Summary:

 

That the resolved motion item 9.15 in the minutes dated 15 December 2015, "That Council does not support the sale of the land but supports a lease, license or easement of the said land for a period sufficient to allow the Leckie's to undertake remedial work on their land and that there be no cost (rent) to the Leckie's", be rescinded.

The rescission motion was endorsed by Councillors Morrison, Ainsworth and Finlayson on 21 January 2016.

If the rescission motion is successful, the following motion is foreshadowed:

1        "That Council in accordance with Crown Lands recommendation, resolve to sell 290 m² area of land (as previously defined) to the Leckie's in accordance with Crown Lands recommended procedure as laid down in Crown Land letter dated 14th of January 2014 and for Council to document its reasons for selling the land."

2        That the valuation of the portion of land to be sold be determined by an accredited valuer agreed to by both Council and the Leckies.

 

Recommendation:

 

The resolution of Council concerning item 9.15 from its meeting on 15 December 2015, “that Council does not support the sale of the land but supports a lease, licence or easement of said land for a period sufficient to allow the Leckies to undertake remedial work on their land and that there be no cost (rent) to the Leckies”, be rescinded.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Background Information

 

1.      In a decision from Council, it was resolved to send the matter of the "the sale of 290 m² of Crown Land to the Leckie's" up to the Crown Land for recommendation/decision.

 

2.     On the 12/06/2013 the following resolution was passed by Council;

 

"That Council respond to Crown Lands Division providing a copy of all of the submissions from the Leckie's; their expert advice; submissions from the public; the reports to and resolutions of Council; as well as copies of newspaper reports and request that the Crown Lands Division determine the matter as per councils resolution of 16 January 2013."

 

          Council’s letter to Crown Lands relating to the above was as follows;

 

"Council considered the matter at its meeting on 12 June 2013 and resolved To provide you with all the expert evidence in support of the disposal of the land; submissions from the public; the reports to and resolutions of Council; as well as copies of newspaper reports to demonstrate transparent public consultation. Please find attached the relevant information.

 

With this information Council advises that whilst it does not generally support the sale of community land, it does recognise that there is a need to reconstruct the failing retaining wall and Council supports the Crown lands division advertising the application for public comment.

 

Council would be pleased if Crown lands could now proceed with their statutory processes for the disposal of the land to Mr and Mrs Leckie."

 

3.       Mr Kevin Cameron, Area Manager, Crown Lands, Far North Coast was consulted on this matter in his capacity as the Minister's delegate. Mr Cameron supports Ms Leekie's request for purchase of.the larger area (approximately 290 m2) on the basis of the advice received from de Groot & Benson Pty Ltd that the smaller area may not contain enough of the slope to prevent mass movement of the sloping land; and, that the risk of failure of the slope is quite high with the responsibility for the failure of the slope presently resting with the Crown through the Trust Manager for the reserve.

 

4.       Mr Cameron has suggested that the Trust should proceed with the sale of the affected land to Ms Leckie pursuant to the terms of Section 102 of the Crown Lands Act 1989 (the Act); and, that he would be willing to support a submission to the Executive General Manager for the disbursement of proceeds from the sale of the land for the use of the Nambucca River Foreshore Reserve Trust under Section 106 of the Act. The suggested disposal process will shorten the overall time necessary to bring the disposal to fruition and lessen the number of administrative steps.

 

5.       The above determination and recommendation is clear, concise and without ambiguity.  There is no caveat, no bureaucratic obstructionism.  What is even more surprising is that Crown Lands agreed to an even larger (290m2) disposal of land to the Leckies.  The moment we placed the matter in the Crown Lands Office hands for determination we abrogated our rights to determine this matter.    It was put in the hands of Crown Lands Office to make the appropriate recommendations/decisions on this matter.

 

The Land Situation

Attached is a report from de Groot & Benson Pty Ltd which states:

"After reviewing the contents of Coffey's Geotechnical report dated September 2015 in relation to the landform on the eastern side of No.2 Nelson Street. In addition we have reviewed Council Business Paper Item "ITEM 10.4 LF 4225 – 291015 – Geotechnical Investigation – 2 Nelson Street".   Their opinion is stated as follows:

"In my opinion, the report confirms conclusions that we have separately formed, namely that:

·            The retaining wall on the eastern boundary of the property has failed and will eventually need replacement with a properly engineered wall or series of retaining walls running basically parallel with the eastern boundary of the property.

 

·            The slope which is on the downhill side of the wall and is on Council controlled land has evidence of past landslides, soil creep and mass movement and is susceptible to ongoing slippage. In our opinion, this slippage potential exists regardless of the presence of the retaining wall.

 

·            The slippage is most likely to occur when the clay layer which sits over a weathered shale substrate becomes saturated during a significant storm event.

 

·           The potential for saturation is exacerbated by uncontrolled runoff from Council controlled land in Nelson Street which flows over the embankment. This is exemplified by a section of the slope immediately to the south of the road reserve (ie at the eastern end of the Nelson Street road formation) which has slumped sometime in the past. The facts are that the steep slope to the end of Nelson Street together with the storm water runoff from Nelson Street have contributed to the mass movement in the southern corner of the Leckie's property ­this was identified by Douglas and Partners which noted cracking to the South east corner of the house at No.2 Nelson Street and distress to the retaining wall located along its eastern site boundary. Soil creep movement was assessed as the likely cause of the observed displacement and the risk of further soil creep landslide impacting on the property was assessed to be high.

 

·           In addition, Coffey states "Cracks within the concrete footpath and distorted timber sleepers indicate that some mass movement has occurred within the southern corner of the property."

 

My concern as expressed in this and, previous letters, is to the potential liability that Council may face in the future due to the nature of the slope.

I consider that it is a case of "when" not "if" there will be slippage of the slope in the Council Reserve. Coffey acknowledge this in their report by stating "Any natural hillslope and colluvium is susceptible to ongoing failure". As such Council is likely to have some liability for damage caused when this occurs, particularly when exacerbated by added risk posed by the uncontrolled stormwater runoff from Nelson Street.

One of my consistent recommendations in the past, which is only reinforced by the Coffey report, is that Council should seek to limit its liability when slippage occurs, with its consequent impacts on private property.

Reasons for the Leckie's taking the present action

 

a.       The landslip problem as described above.

 

b.       Collateral Damage - The approval of a 22 lot Serviced Apartments development at the side of the Leckie's property with the following problems as expressed by the Leckie's;

 

i.        "It breached the height limit, depth and setbacks as defined in the DCP". However Council were allowed a discretionary factor which allowed the height limit, depth and setbacks to conform to the DCP (my comment).

 

ii.       Overshadowing problems – which will no doubt affect the Leckie's privacy and in winter it will provide them with even less sunlight in the winter months and according to them will have a definite effect between 9 AM and 3 PM.

 

iii.      Can you imagine living close to a block of 22 serviced apartments at the time of construction of these apartments which could probably take up to a couple of years.

 

iv.      Can you imagine living on the fringe to a block of 22 serviced apartments with people moving in and out with limited parking available.  With the people who probably use these apartments and bringing their whole family who no doubt are out for a good time.  One should know what that means in holiday times.

 

It should be noted that I voted in favour of the 22 lot serviced apartments. I had definite concerns and questioned some staff and councillors. Personally, as an accountant I am against advising any persons to purchase serviced apartments as I consider from experience that people who buy these apartments are left in a worse financial situation. I was also concerned about non conformity with the DCP. However I was convinced by one Councillor and staff member that with applying Council's discretion in this matter it would comply with the DCP.  I made my decision strictly on a commercial benefit to the Shire/Council, namely that Council would benefit by having additional Council and water rates paid which were needed for Council's running funds and future development. There can be little doubt that the Leckie's were COLLATERAL DAMAGE with this approved development.

 

c.       The area of Crown land adjoining the Leckie's residence is basically a useless piece of land area, overgrown, not maintained, and basically serves no useful purpose – it is an eyesore.

 

d.       The wall at the bottom of the property is collapsing and appears to be one of the causes for the landslip as mentioned above. This wall needs replacement.

 

e.       The ingress of water from the top of the Leckie's block is a council responsibility which contributes to the mass movement of some of the bank in the southern corner of the Leckie's property.

 

 

Possible Problems Facing Council

 

A.      The Leckies in their email dated 18 January 2015 have stated as follows "as nothing has been decided by Council I seek forthwith that Council attend to the rectification works at its sole expense. I further put Council on notice that any damage to my property resulting from Council's neglect to attend to rectification will be claimed in damages" and further states;

 

"please further note that due to councils non-attendance to this matter and poor decision making regarding adjoining development site resulting in my loss of human amenities, I now feel that I have no choice but to approach the Land and Environment Court and media for assistance.

 

B.      The Leckie's complaining to the Ombudsman about the way Council has treated with their application pointing out the deficiencies and lack of due process/natural justice in Council's procedures. Based on my nine pages of comments, which were forwarded to Council concerning Council ignoring due process requirements and ignoring the provision of natural justice to the Leckie's. I regard my nine pages of comments would certainly prove that the Leckie's have been treated unfairly by this Council.

 

 

Financial Comparison between "To Sell & Not to Sell

 

1.       If the land is not sold to the Leckie's

 

Council and Crown lands would be responsible for the following costs;"(Some estimates, some quotes)

 

a.       Rectification or rebuilding of the wall.  (Quote 4.5 years ago $29,986) now maybe             $35,000

 

b.       Rectification of the ingress water problems at the top of the property                               $20,000

 

c.       Repairs to the damage of Leckie's property (Quote 4.5 years ago $6,970) Maybe now       $15,000

 

d.       Answering the complaint from the Ombudsman in Council staff time and legal advice       $15,000

 

e.       If it goes to the Land and Environment Court and with legal advice and staffs time            $30,000

 

f.       Ongoing litigation Costs - Who knows

 

g.       It would be councils continued responsibility to maintain Crown lands section of Gordon Park

 

Worst case scenario it could cost Council around $110,000 (totally rough estimate without basis) plus future maintenance costs.

 

 

2.       If the land is sold to the Leckie's

 

a.       The Leckie's in their email dated 18 January 2015 have stated "as you are aware my Husband and I were agreeable to purchase the land in front of our property and pay for the necessary measures to rectify the issues.

 

b.       The sale of the land would be at valuation and for this exercise let us say the valuation was $25,000 which would be put to the maintenance and rectification of Gordon Park.       

 

c.       The Leckie's as owners of the land would be responsible for the maintenance of the land in question. Also being part of their property I have no doubt that environmentally and aesthetically it should be an improvement to the dilapidated and eyesore condition of the property at present.

 

d.       Then there should be no outstanding issues as regards the Leckie's property and the matter hopefully will be resolved for the present.

 

 

Financial Conclusion

 

Based on the above figures Council would be better off by selling the land by $135,000, details as follows;

 

i.                They would not have to expend money to rectify the issues as listed above ($110,000)

 

ii.                Council would receive the sale money ($25,000)

 

iii.      Future Maintenance would be carried out by the Leckie's.

 

 

Opposing Views

 

The following opposing views have been put forward many times and I would like to comment on them in detail:

 

1.       Crown Land should never be sold

 

I basically agree with that comment and I was one of the councillors who voted for this to be sent to the Crown Lands Department for decision. The parcel requested in its present state is a useless piece of dirt, of benefit to no one and an eyesore, with the need for a lot of remedial work. I found this a hard decision to make and was happy to send the matter up to Crown lands for recommendation/decision. At that point I felt Council had abrogated their right to make the decision on that land. If it is allowed under the Crown Lands Act/Local Government Act and the proper procedures are followed, I feel it is totally unjust that other Councillors could oppose that recommendation and that the applicant be given "A FAIR GO". Due process had not been accorded to the applicant.

 

 

2.       It Might Create a Precedent

 

I find a statement like that stifles change and can leave us in a state of limbo. It can quite obviously be perceived that a statement like that is nothing more than bureaucratic mismanagement tool to put an end to even the most positive of initiatives. Matters such as the present problem should be judged on its merits and that those merits can be defended. Considering that this Council has approved the construction of 22 serviced apartments bordering on the applicants home and considering the Collateral Damage effects that this approved construction will have on the amenity and the living conditions of the applicant, what type of Council have we become when we don't include JUSTIFIED COMPASSION in our decision-making process.

 

 

3.       I Make this Decision on behalf of the Community

 

I find this as an arrogant reason. To think one of us can represent and know the feelings of the whole community. The community is made up many types of groups, with varying opinions, political leanings and some just want to be left alone. As an example the community I mix with include members of the RSL, the Lions Club, U3A, Bowling Club where I play regularly, the unemployed and low income persons where I have done their tax for the last 10 years as a volunteer in the Australian Tax Office – Tax Help Program and also where I have previously assisted some small businesses in setting up their financial systems.    I don't think you will ever hear me say that I Represent the Community.

 

My feeling is that the majority of the community have no real interest in Council affairs. Very few turn up to our meetings and even on such important issues of rate rises, very few come to the meetings to make comments. Basically I feel that the residents of this Shire expect Council to provide proper services to the best of their ability and to run the affairs of Council in accordance with the relevant laws. Many residents at the last council elections expressed a negative view of Council and the government making voting compulsory was an inconvenience.

 

As an elected representative of Council, I take my role seriously in accordance with section 232 (b) of the local government act "to represent the interests of ratepayers and residents" I do not regard myself or act as if "I am Council" I regard myself as a representative of the Shire residents who have voted me into Council as their representative.  I am supporting the Leckie's in their application as I regard they have not been fairly treated by Council.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

2210/2016 - Justification for the following comments - Leckie

 

2

2212/2016 - De Groot Benson Report 29 October 2015 15 (3)

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 January 2016

Rescision Motion - Item 9.15 from 15 December 2015

 

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS

 

"I did not regard that there was due process/natural justice accorded to the Leckies in arriving at Council's decision in this matter."

 

Preamble

 

I am disappointed that I have again been made to justify my comments as to why I have regarded that Procedural Fairness/Natural Justice has not been fairly applied to the process of an application submitted by the Leckies concerning their property and the sale of a small portion of Crown Land.    Councillors may recall that on the 7th February 2014, I forwarded a 3 page summary to all Councillors and the GM stating my reasons why I considered that Procedural Fairness /Natural Justice had not been applied to the Leckies application.   I have consistently tried to put forward the same views in Council on this matter.    I will again justify my comments in deference to the unreasonable demand placed on me at the last Council meeting, but in this reply I will also provide a detailed analysis based on the information I have available in the hope that my views are fully clarified and that deficiencies in Council procedures are fully addressed.

 

Background

 

1.       Prior to the present matter there was a proposed development of serviced apartments next door and close to the Leckie's house.   As an accountant, I had concerns about serviced apartments as many people who purchase such apartments were  left high and dry.  There were also problems with permanent residents having to suffer the continual annoyance of new people moving in for short periods and causing disruption to the other residents.   It was obvious that the Leckie's  property would be a victim of this.     I supported this application because I had trust in Council staff in that it ticked all the boxes of our DCP, and I felt any adverse decision could have led us ending up in the land and environment court, where we could possibly lose.

 

The Leckies were certainly collateral damage and disadvantaged with this new development.     Their house being very close to the 22 apartments would restrict their sunlight and some views.   In Mrs Leckies email to Council she stated "council has been provided with the correct shadow diagram from our expert and the developers architect has concede he made a mistake.   The shadowing is extensive" .....They (the Leckies) "will not receive the minimum right to daylight access of 2 hours."  I felt there was a lack of  compassion or thought given to these matters at our meeting.

 

2.       There were problems occurring with the Leckie property as follows:

 

a.       There was a land movement problem on their property.   A previous report commissioned by Council concluded that the problem of the movement of land was as a result of poor drainage at the top of the property at Nelson Street with water flooding onto the Leckies property.  This was a Council responsibility.

 

b.       From the De Groot  report, it found that further movement of land was caused by the damaged condition of the retaining wall (a Crown Lands responsibility).   This land movement has caused a crack in the house wall. As such it is assumed that any damage caused becomes a trust responsibility.

 

Justification of Comments

 

The Leckie's made an application to Council to purchase a small section of Crown Land adjoining their property which encompassed a damaged retaining wall causing land movement on their lot. The Leckie's had agreed that if they could purchase this small area of land, that they would fix the retaining wall and take full responsibility for fixing up the various problems associated with their property which would alleviate any future costs and responsibility of Council and Crown Lands to fix the problems associated with the Leckie's property.

 

I did have concerns, namely that I did not believe we have a right to sell crown land.   As trustees we should protect that land.

 

A major dilemma  appeared in my thoughts.  On the one hand to oppose the selling Crown land and on the other hand recommending the purchase a small portion of Crown land that in no way detracted from the area thereby having the Leckie's repairing and restoring the retaining wall and absolving Council of any further problems and liability associated with the problems mentioned.

 

Legal Liability - Council could end up being legally liable for damage as a result of their inactivity in not fixing the problem and rectifying the damage caused to the Leckie's property in a timely manner.   COUNCIL'S LEGAL LIABILITY

 

This was not a decision I felt happy to make. I was very happy when a motion was passed to send this matter higher up to the Trade and Investments Crown Lands Office so that they could make the decision on our behalf, thereby absolving us from any backlash or further comment.   Council and I never in our wildest expectations ever expected that the Crown Lands office would come up with the decision and recommendations they made.

 

On the 12/06/2013 the following resolution was passed by Council;

 

"That Council respond to Crown Lands Division providing a copy of all of the submissions from the Leckie's; their expert advice; submissions from the public; the reports to and resolutions of Council; as well as copies of newspaper reports and request that the Crown Lands Division determine the matter as per councils resolution of 16 January 2013."

 

The Leckies had sent their reports and information to the Crown Lands office.   Council had done the same as confirmed in Council's letter dated 31 July 2015 as follows:

 

"Council considered the matter at its meeting on 12 June 2013 and resolved To provide you with all the expert evidence in support of the disposal of the land; submissions from the public; the reports to and resolutions of Council; as well as copies of newspaper reports to demonstrate transparent public consultation. Please find attached the relevant information.

 

With this information Council advises that whilst it does not generally support the sale of community land, it does recognise that there is a need to reconstruct the failing retaining wall and Council supports the Crown lands division advertising the application for public comment.

 

Council would be pleased if Crown lands could now proceed with their statutory processes for the disposal of the land to Mr and Mrs Leckie."

 

From any of the states Ombudsman's Guidelines on Natural Justice/Procedural Fairness , there is emphasise that any person or body who decides any matter must provide the opportunity for both sides to present their case.    This is exactly what has happened and up to this stage the guidelines of Procedural Fairness had been followed.

 

Council sent this matter up to the referee (Crown Lands Office), yes the referee for their determination and their determination (as listed in Crown Lands Letter dated 16 January 2014 was as follows:

 

Mr Kevin Cameron, Area Manager, Crown Lands, Far North Coast was consulted on this matter in his capacity as the Minister's delegate. Mr Cameron supports Ms Leekie's request for purchase of.the larger area (approximately 290 m2) on the basis of the advice received from de Groot & Benson Pty Ltd that the smaller area may not contain enough of the slope to prevent mass movement of the sloping land; and, that the risk of failure of the slope is quite high with the responsibility for the failure of the slope presently resting with the Crown through the Trust Manager for the reserve.

Mr Cameron has suggested that the Trust should proceed with the sale of the affected land to Ms Leckie pursuant to the terms of Section 102 of the Crown Lands Act 1989 (the Act); and, that he would be willing to support a submission to the Executive General Manager for the disbursement of proceeds from the sale of the land for the use of the Nambucca River Foreshore Reserve Trust under Section 106 of the Act. The suggested disposal process will shorten the overall time necessary to bring the disposal to fruition and lessen the number of administrative steps. I have included a summary of the disposal process at Annexure "A", and extracts from the Act at Annexure "B" for your information.

 

The first step in the process is for the Trust to consider an amendment to the resolution made by the Trust on 12th June 2013 so as to enable disposal of the larger (290m2) area to Ms Leckie. The Trust may also wish to consider at that time whether it would be appropriate for the Trust to support a Crown Lands offer of a Licence to Ms Leckie for the purposes of investigating the construction/re-construction of the retaining walls pursuant to Section 34A of the Act as an intermediate step to the disposal. -

 

The above determination and recommendation is clear , concise and without ambiguity.    There is no caveat, no bureaucratic obstructionism.  What is even more surprising is that Crown Lands agreed to an even larger (290m2) disposal of land to the Leckies.    The moment we placed the matter in the Crown Lands Office hands for determination we abrogated our rights to determine this matter.    It was put in the hands of Crown Lands Office  to make the appropriate recommendations/decisions on this matter.

 

What did this Council do?     We rejected the umpires decision and talked about putting a caveat to stop any future development of the land without any consideration of the construction/reconstruction of the retaining walls, the risk of failure of the sloping land causing damage to the Leckie's property and the problems of water inundation from the top of the land onto the Leckie's property causing possible further damage .  Also there was no consideration given to the  disruptions that approving a 22 flat serviced apartment might cause to the Leckies.      I felt our council was acting no better than the  "Star Chamber" of old.       As a council we had failed in providing procedural fairness in our decisions.

 

Council then invited members from the Crown Lands Office to address our Council on this matter.   A meeting was arranged for 12.30 on the 17 July to meet with council staff then for a council meeting starting at 1.30 pm.    Top of the agenda items to be discuss was;

 

"Proposed purchase of Crown land within Gordon Park (Leckie) involves the elected Council".

 

To my astonishment the Crown lands representatives at the meeting appeared to have verbally reversed their previous decision.    It is my contention that a person or persons prior to the meeting had convinced the Crown lands representatives to change their decision.    How is it conceivable that on the one hand the representatives of the Crown Lands Office make a written clear and unambiguous decision spelt out in detail from complete input from both parties and in the next instance in Council change that decision.    Whether we use the Pub Test, the Sniff Test or the Reasonable Person Test, it is inconceivable to think that no one had got to these members before the meeting.   In my former life as an analyst with the Joint Intelligence Organisation using very basic analytical skills, I would also have come to the same conclusion that someone had got to these representatives prior to the meeting.

Clearly against the guidelines of Natural Justice/Procedural Fairness.

 

Again I would like to quote from the ombudsman's guidelines:

 

What are the rules of natural justice?

 

"Any person who decides any matter without hearing both sides, though that person may have rightly decided, has not done justice. Any person whose rights, interests or legitimate expectations will be affected by a decision or finding is entitled to an adequate opportunity of being heard to properly present their case, the person is entitled to know the grounds on which the decision or finding is to be taken"

 

The Leckies also attended the meeting where the Crown Lands Office representatives had changed their recommendation.    At the Council meeting the Leckies were not invited to comment Nor Allowed Any Input.   THIS IS A CLEAR BREACH OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS.

 

It was suggested during the meeting that the Crown Lands Representatives could discuss this matter with the Leckies after the meeting.

 

What was totally outrageous was that a motion at the same meeting designed to provide some PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS was defeated.   The motion presented was;

 

 "that the matter be deferred until the Leckies have had sufficient time to talk to Crown lands about the matter to enable them (Crown lands) to either support their previous recommendation or otherwise"

 

CAN YOU BELIEVE IT? - YES THE MOTION WAS DEFEATED.   How can we in any way justify that we have accorded the Leckies Due Process and Natural Justice in this matter.

 

After the meeting, a meeting did again take place between the Crown Lands Representatives and the Leckies and it was explained to me later by the Leckies that the Crown Lands Representative had again changed their decision in supporting the original application.   As I understand , the Leckies would be prepared to produce a Statutory Declaration stating the facts and outcomes of that meeting.   It is important to know that false statements in a Statutory Declaration can lead to a penalty of up to 4 years incarceration.   

 

The offer of a lease to the Leckies

 

Concerning a motion proposing an easement or lease, the only documentation that I have seen is as follows , dated 21 November 2012 :

 

MOTION – "that Council seek advice as to whether the applicants would be prepared to submit the option of a lease, extending say 2m out from the retaining wall with restrictions on the removal of vegetation and restrictions on structures without further approval of Council".

 

The motion was LOST

 

On the 29 January 2015, the following is very interesting

 

General Manager Report

 

ITEM 9.1      SF959                290115      Outstanding Actions and Reports

 

Motion:      (Morrison/Ainsworth)

 

That, in relation to Item 11, Council ask the Leckies and Crown Lands if they would participate in a mediation session with the Mayor and General Manager representing Council.

The motion was LOST.

 

NOTE: Cr Morrison wished his vote to be recorded as against the decision because he believes that natural justice and due process has not occurred.

 

638/15 Resolved:        (MacDonald/Flack)

 

That, in relation to Item 11, the General Manager and the Assistant General Manager Engineering Services undertake a site inspection and then report to Council on whether advice should be sought from a geotechnical engineer.

 

639/15 Resolved:        (Hoban/Flack)

 

That Council write to Mr and Mrs Leckie reminding them of Council’s previous resolution to provide a recommendation to Crown Lands that a lease be entered into for the purpose of constructing a retaining wall to protect their property.

 

Comments on the above

 

1.       A motion proposed to mediate this matter between Crown Lands, The Leckies and Mayor and GM was LOST.     A fair motion and democratically beaten.     But to me personally, a show of ARROGANCE by Council.   A chance to solve the matter and have it go away badly missed.

 

2.       Notice the note to my objection

 

"NOTE: Cr Morrison wished his vote to be recorded as against the decision because he believes that natural justice and due process has not occurred."

 

Compare this to the present situation where the reason for my objection to a similar motion will not be included in the minutes unless  I can justify those comments which is the subject of this 9 page justification.   Before my comments were OK and now they are not

 

3.       It is worthwhile to comment on the following resolution:

 

That Council write to Mr and Mrs Leckie reminding them of Council’s previous resolution to provide a recommendation to Crown Lands that a lease be entered into for the purpose of constructing a retaining wall to protect their property.

 

I could not find the previous resolution, nor did the Leckies appear to have any knowledge of that resolution as shown by their reply below;

 

"I am not aware of any resolution to that effect.  the last we heard was that
council was awaiting a letter from Crown Lands re: their position.

With due respect we will not enter into a lease of the land and have to
pay for the lease plus pay for rectifying the issues to the land when the
land is not ours. The land is in the management of the council as the
trustees and hence your responsibility to fix.

As previously stated if we owned we would undertake to fix the issues
affecting our land".

 

We as a Council should have more respect for the applicant.   Why would they accede to such a detrimental and disingenuous offer?

 

 


 Our most recent meeting on the 24th September 2015

 

The following motion was passed at our most recent meeting ;

 

"that Council advise the Minister of its determination in relation to the land at Gordon Park and provide him with a copy of Council's resolution"

 

In accordance from information received from Council ,  I therefore presumed that the previous determination was as follows;

 

"that Council advise the Crown Lands Office that it doesn't generally support the sale of community land however Council does recognise there is a need to reconstruct falling retaining wall and Council supports the Crown Land Division advertising the application for public comment"

 

Did Crs. Flack & Smyth realise that the same motion had been  forwarded previously to;

a.       Manager Crown Lands Division on the 30 January 2013

b.       Mr Hurcum on the 31 July 2013

c.       The Minister Kevin Humphries 25 March 2015

d.       The Minister, Niall Blair on the 19 May 2015

 

Now it is proposed to send to send copies of the same motion again to the same Minister.

What total nonsense!   Surely our council is better than that.

 

Prior to this motion did we send copies of the Mayors letter to Minister Kevin Humphries on the  25 March 2015 to the Leckies.   Did we also send a copy to Minister Niall on the 19th May 2015 to the Leckies - to my knowledge - NO.    Have we sent a letter to the Leckies advising the receipt and copy of Minister Niall's   reply letter and also the latest motion passed at Council?   Not to my knowledge.

 

According to the Ombudsman Procedural Fairness (natural justice) applies to decisions that may negatively affect an interest of a person.   A critical part of procedural fairness is the hearing rule.   Put simply, hearing the other side of the story and that any negative information is disclosed.   You are entitled to and be aware of the issues and be given all the information.

 

Conclusion

 

If one follows the totality of the actions of Council in this matter, it can well be concluded that Council has not accorded PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS/NATURAL JUSTICE to the Leckies in their decision making in this matter. I regard the fault lies mainly  with the councillors as it has been their motions that have gone against the requirements of Procedural Fairness/Natural Justice. To put it bluntly we have as Councillors been TOTALLY INEPT in our decision-making in this matter. We as Councillors seem to have forgotten our roles in accordance to that set down in the Local Government Act 1933, where it defines the role of a councillor in two separate and distinct strains;

 

 First strain as a member of the governing body of the Council.   One of the aspects would include:

 

·    To direct and control the affairs of Council.   Surely this must also apply to following guidelines set out by the  Ombudsman in their requirement to follow and apply Due Process/Natural Justice in decision making processes.

 

And the second strain as an elected person which one of the aspects does include:

 

·    to represent the interests of the residents and ratepayers.

In this matter we as Councillors appear to have lost our way in our erratic decision making processes, ignoring due process and providing no natural justice to the applicant in this matter.

 

The decisions and motions by some Councillors may have achieved their political aims but the processes and methods of reaching a final decision has so far been nothing less than A DOG'S BREAKFAST.    I cringe at what we have put the applicant through in this process and the strains that this has had on the applicant, their family  and their future attitude towards this Council.

 

I would like this matter to be concluded as soon as possible. It is taken a lot of my time, your time and Council staff time which I regret. My personal opinion is that this matter should have been concluded after we handed the decision to Crown Lands Office with all the documentation from both Council and the Leckies and accepted their decision. Crown Land Office made the decision and set out a framework for the disposal of the land in very clear, concise and unambiguous terms. That should have been the end of the matter and nothing so far has convinced me any differently.

 

Basically this matter will not be amicably solved unless we as a council admit that our actions, motions and decisions have been less than adequate.     That in the last   3 years that appropriate procedural fairness has not been accorded to the applicant (the Leckies).    Without this acknowledgement, how can we restore the confidence of the residents of this shire and council staff who so ably and loyally support us in our decisions.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

As both parties have provided the Crown Land Office with all evidence to support their case, that Council now accept their recommendations and follow the process for the disposal of land  as set out in the above referenced letter with the Leckies then assuming responsible for rectifying the problems associated with their property.

 

Options

 

1.       For Council to immediately repair, and reconstruct the retaining wall at the bottom of Leckies property to avoid further slippage on their property, fix up the stabilisation problems, repair the  damage and secure the foundations to their house and solve the water problems flowing onto their place.

 

2.       For Council to sit down with the applicant and attempt to amicably come to a satisfactory resolution with the applicant.

 

3.       Continue on as present, ignoring the principle of Procedural Fairness/Natural Justice, ignoring the stress and strain to the applicant and be prepared for possible costly litigation in the future and its effects on Council and Councillors reputation.

 

Cr. Bob Morrison

30/09/2015


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 January 2016

Rescision Motion - Item 9.15 from 15 December 2015

 


    


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                28 January 2016

General Manager

ITEM 10.1    SF1208            280116         Public Forum Address by Mr Brendan Goswell - Background Information

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the background information on the public forum address by Mr Brendan Goswell be received.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The options are outlined in the email from Council’s Assistant General Manager Engineering Services in the attachment.

 

There is a further option being the consideration of a policy on the placement of roadside memorials.  Council’s policy is not to allow the placement of such memorials.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The purpose of this report is to provide some background information concerning a request by Mr Brendan Goswell to address Council in the public forum.

 

Email advice provided by Council’s Assistant General Manager Engineering Services and a related correspondence to Roads and Maritime Services is attached.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation in preparing this report.  The information has been provided to assist Council in considering the matters to be raised by Goswell in his address in the Public Forum.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

It is understandable that the family and friends of people killed in road accidents wish to secure a lasting memorial of their lives which were tragically lost.  The Pacific Highway and to a lesser extent Council’s local road network, has claimed the lives of many, many innocent people.  It is suggested that if memorial arrangements are to be considered on social grounds, they need to be in the context of a policy that provides equal opportunity for all rather than individual “ad hoc” decisions.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 


Risk

 

There are no identified risks.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no budgetary implications.

 

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

464/2016 - Naming Request - Old Coast Road Overpass

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 January 2016

Public Forum Address by Mr Brendan Goswell - Background Information

 




Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                28 January 2016

General Manager

ITEM 10.2    SF959              280116         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

A timeline has now been provided by WMA water as follows:

Mid Jan - draft study & plan to OEH and council for comment

Early Feb - WMA water revise draft

Mid Feb – draft study & plan provided to Council

Mid/Late Feb – study & draft plan considered by Estuary Committee.  Presentation by WMA water

March – report to Council to seek resolution to place on exhibition

March/April – exhibition of study and draft plan

Late April – consider feedback from exhibition

May – distribute feedback & any recommended changes

May – report to Council for adoption.

 

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

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.

 

 

AUGUST 2013

3

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

 

Deferred until September 2014 and a report will be prepared on the outcome of the meeting.

 

Policy has been redrafted and a new operations procedures manual developed. A memo with the updated policy and procedures will be provided to Councillors for comment at the end of December

 

Deferred with staff on leave - Guidelines and tree assessment form developed and now being trialled for tree assessment with the Policy and guideline review to be presented to Council for comment after trial – anticipate April.

 

Deferred until September after the budget, restructure and staffing levels settle.

 

Provided to Councillors on 29 October for comment.

 

Not provided to Councillors on 29 October - now propose to provide to Councillors mid December 2015 for comment.

 

NOVEMBER 2013

4

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.

 

Report deferred to second meeting in November 2014 pending a meeting with Noxious Weeds Inspector and DPI regarding any changes to the Act.

 

Deferred with staff on leave. Memo to Councillors now set for end February with other policy review, will be provided to Councillors for comment in accordance with adopted procedure.

 

Now deferred to April 2015.

 

Deferred until September after the budget, restructure and staffing levels settle.

 

Provided to Councillors on 29 October for comment.

 

Not provided to Councillors on 29 October - now propose to provide to Councillors mid December 2015 for comment.

 

Biosecurity Act 2015 No 24 – No further action will be undertaken on the Policy review pending advise on the new Act and a further report will be provided to Council.

Before the Biosecurity Act can commence, regulations, other legal instruments and policies and procedures need to be reviewed and developed, a Biosecurity Advisory Committee has been established. The present policy will remain current

The Biosecurity Act 2015 was assented to in September 2015 and is expected to come into effect in 2017. The regulations, other legal instruments, policies and procedures that will underpin the Biosecurity Act are currently being developed

The Biosecurity Act achieves a NSW Government commitment to introduce contemporary biosecurity legislation by 2015, and supports national commitments under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity.

The Biosecurity Act wholly or partly replaces 14 pieces of existing biosecurity legislation with a single, enabling Act. A consistent approach to managing biosecurity risks to the economy, environment and the community will make it easier for stakeholders and regulators to effectively manage biosecurity risks.

DECEMBER 2013

5

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.

Report produced.

Media release issued before 13 November Council meeting.

 

Second media release issued 20 May 2015.

 

Third media release issued 30 November 2015.

AUGUST 2014

6

SF595

28/08/14

That Council develop a plan of management for the ongoing maintenance of Hughes Creek.

 

GM

March 2015

Strategic planner seeking funding to engage a consultant to look at the entire system as part of the estuaries committee because of the nature of the creek system and its integration to the river PoM deferred pending funding.

 

OEH Estuary Grant application submitted in March 2015 (project value $20,000).  If successful a plan of management will be developed for Dawkins Lake to the Nambucca River via Hughes Creek.  A funding announcement is expected in 2015/16.

 

SEPTEMBER 2014

7

SF399

26/09/14

Pending the outcome of the Fit for the Future reform process Council consider reducing the no. of Councillors from 9 to 7 via a referendum.

 

GM

Deferred to late 2015 (next LG general election scheduled for September 2016).  Further deferred pending announcements from NSW Government as to proposed structural reforms (amalgamations) of Councils and the creation of JO’s and likely transitional arrangements which will apply.

 

DECEMBER 2014

8

SF929

11/12/14

Council seek expressions of interest from BSC and CHCC on an alliance to operate a regional focussed Visitor Information Centre (VIC) from the proposed highway service centre.

 

GM

Letters sent 18/12/2014

Response received from Bellingen Shire Council on 2 March 2015.  As at 31/3/15 no response from CHCC.

To be reported in June 2015.

 

A tender for the Highway Service Centre has been accepted.  The Manager Business Development has made an enquiry in relation to securing 100m2 of floor space for a Visitor Information Centre and associated retail.  Awaiting advice as to potential cost and will then be reported to Council.

 

DA for highway service centre currently on exhibition.  The plans show a “Council Area” of about 70m2.  The matter is being brought to the attention of Nambucca Valley Tourism as a final decision needs to be made on what, if any, tourism marketing will be conducted at the Centre.

 

MARCH 2015

9

SF841

12/03/15

Council make representations to the Member for Oxley, both pre and post 28 March 2015, for their support for the proposition that the bridges and major culvert structures which are located on the existing Pacific Highway through the Nambucca Valley should remain State assets and not be handed over to Council.

 

GM

Letter written w/e 20/3/2015.

 

As at June 2015 arrangements are being made for a consultant to assist Council staff in investigating the liability associated with the proposed handover of the existing Pacific Highway to Council.  Data provided by the RMS needs to be reviewed as well as a physical inspection of the road and bridge assets.

 

Mayor and GM met with the Member for Oxley on 18 September 2015.  Details of Council’s previous submissions forwarded to the Member for Oxley with a request that she make representations on behalf of Council.

 

APRIL 2015

10

SF959

30/04/15

That Council write to our Local Member and respectfully ask her if she could intervene to obtain answers to Council’s questions regarding fishing matters in the Nambucca River as listed in Council’s letter on 19 February.

 

GM

Letter sent 6/05/2015.

 

Follow up letter sent 30 June 2015.

 

Following the letter from the Minister for Primary Industries the GM has telephoned Fisheries staff in Coffs Harbour seeking their attendance at a Council meeting.  The Fisheries staff member requested that they be provided with a list of the questions to be asked.  The GM has now written to the Fisheries office with a list of questions.  Letter sent 3 September 2015.

 

JUNE 2015

11

SF2049

25/06/15

Council make a submission to the Dept. of Primary Industry in relation to the proposed changes to the Fisheries Management Act 1994.

 

GM

Submission sent to Dept. on 26/6/15

AUGUST 2015

12

PRF72

13/08/15

Council investigate opportunities to assist in the management of the (Kingsworth Lake) reserve and the matter be reported back to Council in 6 months.

 

GM

Report in February 2016

13

SF674

13/08/15

Council write to the appropriate Minister drawing attention to the history of the matter (negotiations to extend Council’s Waste Depot) and particularly Council’s investment in studies made in good faith as well as the importance of the facility to the growth and security of our local community.

 

AGMES

Letter to be drafted to appropriate Minister.

 

Letter sent week ending 30 September 2015.

 

Nil response from the Minister to date, another letter sent 3 December 2015.

 

Response received from Minister and report to a meeting in February 2016.

SEPTEMBER 2015

14

SF2116

10/09/15

That there be a report regarding options to maximise returns on Council’s Invested Funds from Corporate Services and if Council requires a change in the investment portfolio to invite its financial advisers to address Council.

 

AGMCS

Report in November 2015.

 

Report when CPG available to attend Council.

15

SF959

24/09/15

That Council advise the Minister of its determination in relation to the land at Gordon Park and provide him with a copy of Council’s resolution.

 

GM

Letter sent 22/10/2015.  Response received and attached to this report along with the letter from the Mayor.

16

Q17/2015

24/09/15

That Council receive a further report and briefing from Greg Powter Consulting once an independent assessment has been completed (re the Pacific Highway Assets Handover)

 

AGMES

Council briefing planned for February 2016

 

Consultants engaged. RMS reviewing data supply.

OCTOBER 2014

17

SF2071

15/10/15

In relation to the 2015 World Rally, that Council receive a further report from the AGMES regarding the damage to roads and roadside furniture; the compensation offered, and also the insurance status of the cars.

 

AGMES

Report November 2015

 

Report to December 2015

 

Report to January 2016

18

SF95

15/10/15

Following the 6 month trial period of nose-to-kerb parking arrangements in River Street adjacent to the river bank, that Council receive a further report on the outcome of the trial period.

 

AGMES

Report late 2016

19

LF780

15/10/15

Gumma shooting range – issue of a direction to take clean-up action in accordance with S91 of the POEO Act.

 

GM

Report on progress in December 2015

Actions 1 and 2 of Councils direction to take clean up action require site investigation reports to be submitted to Council by 21 December 2015 (TRIM: 30527/2015).

 

The pistol club have advised that they have engaged a consultant to undertake the investigations. They have requested an extension in time to comply with the notice as they intend to apply for state funding to undertake the required actions. The Member for Oxley’s office has  telephoned Council to advise that they have agreed to provide the pistol club with information on potential grants which they may be eligible for. Applications for those grants would not open until next year.

 

The pistol club has been advised that if they intend to seek an extension on the timeframe to undertake the required investigations, they need to submit quotes for the actions to be undertaken and details of grant applications they intend to apply for to be considered by Council.

 

To date, a response from the pistol club has not been forthcoming.

 

An extension of time to undertake the work is reasonable considering confirmation of grant funding will be earlier and less costly than Council commencing proceedings for failure to comply with the notice.

 

Council considered matter at its meeting on 14 January 2016 and resolved that a period of two years be provided for clean-up action under the POEO Act.

 

20

SF1031

29/10/15

That Council take action regarding the unapproved shipping container at 21 George Street, Bowraville.

 

GM

Notice of Intention to Serve an Order has been issued (was issued prior to the Council meeting on 29/1015).

21

SF1031

29/10/15

That the General Manager follow up the question of the appropriate number of companion animals at 21 George Street, Bowraville, and the requirement for a DA for the shipping container.

 

GM

Inspection being arranged.  Report to Council in late November/early December.  Proposed to report to second meeting in January 2016.

NOVEMBER 2015

22

PRF30

12/11/15

That Council approach the Minister for Primary Industry, Land & Water advising him of the present situation (with the Rotary Lookout) and that Council is willing to providing matching funding to the funding provided by Rotary and requesting the Minister reconsider their allocation of funds…

 

GM

Letter sent 17/11/2015

23

SF1963

12/11/15

Council make representations to the Minister for Social Housing in relation to its concerns about the transfer of public housing to various non-government organisations and the substantial loss of rate income which will flow from such transfers….

 

GM

Letter sent 17/11/201531

Response received from LGNSW supporting Council’s representations and indicating they will also lobby in relation to the issue.

24

SF2068

12/11/15

Council receive a future report on the preferred treatment options & procurement process to gain the most economical outcome for the recycled water scheme at the Bowraville STP.

 

AGMES

Report in 2016

25

SF1855

26/11/15

That a report come to Council regarding any options for traffic lights at River Street and Cooper Street following the completion of the Macksville by-pass.

 

GM

Report late 2017

DECEMBER 2015

26

 

15/12/15

That Council provide in principle support to Royal Far West projects within the Shire and receive a report on what further level of support Council may be able to provide.

 

GM

Report January 2016

 

Report to February 2016 meeting

27

SF1958

15/12/15

That the provision of Council flood data to the Insurance industry be deferred so that a report can come to Council on the information to be supplied.

 

GM

Report January 2016

JANUARY 2016

28

LF13

14/1/16

Council note the presentation by Mr Scott Kennedy & Ms Belinda White and that a further report be provided to Council in relation to the matter, and particularly concerning the number of dogs which should be allowed to be kept at the property.

 

GM

Report either 28 January 2016 or the first council meeting in February.

29

SF102

14/1/16

That the Engineering staff consider and report on an overall plan for the parking of bicycles.

 

AGMES

Report to meeting in April 2016

 

Report to be presented to the March 2016 Council meeting.

Attachments:

1

1195/2016 - Response from The Hon Rick Colless MLC regarding acquisition of section of Gordon Park by Mr & Mrs C Leckie

 

2

33279/2015 - Letter from Mayor

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 January 2016

Outstanding Actions and Reports

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 January 2016

Outstanding Actions and Reports

 

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR

 

Enquiries to:     Cr Rhonda Hoban

Phone No:       6568 0214

Mobile:            0408 661 412

Email:              mayor@nambucca.nsw.gov.au

Our Ref:            LF4225

Your Ref:           IM15/15396

 

 

 

20 October 2015

 

 

 

The Hon Niall Blair MLC

Minister for Primary Industries

Minister for Lands and Water

Level 19, 52 Martin Place

SYDNEY   NSW   2000

 

 

Dear Minister

 

MR CLINT & MRS KELLIE LECKIE—REQUEST TO ACQUIRE A SMALL SECTION OF GORDON PARK, NAMBUCCA HEADS, ADJOINING THEIR PROPERTY AT 2 NELSON STREET, NAMBUCCA HEADS

 

I refer to your letter (enclosed) which was considered by Council at its meeting on 24 September 2015.

 

Your letter indicates that Nambucca Shire Council as Trust Manager has not finalised its decision or notified the Department of Primary Industries—Lands of its decision of granting an interest to Mr and Mrs Leckie in the affected section of Gordon Park.

 

The Council resolved that I write to you to clarify a misunderstanding in that it is Council’s adopted position from its meeting held on 16 January 2013 that whilst it does not generally support the sale community land, the Council does recognise there is a need to reconstruct the failing retaining wall and Council supports the Crown Lands Division advertising the application for public comment.  Please find enclosed a copy of Council’s resolution from its meeting held on 16 January 2013.

 

Council has now received a geotechnical report for the site prepared by Coffey Geotechnics and I enclose a copy for your information.

 

As far as Nambucca Shire Council is concerned, we request that the Crown Lands Division now advertise Mr and Mrs Leckie’s application to acquire a section of Gordon Park for public comment.

 


 

2

 

The Hon Niall Blair MLC

Minister for Primary Industries

 

 

 

Besides Council’s resolution of 16 January 2013, I have also enclosed copies of the recent correspondence as background information.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

RHONDA HOBAN

MAYOR

 

RH:ms

 

Enc  Council’s resolution of 16 January 2013 (highlighted)

          Letter to the Hon Kevin Humphries MP dated 25 March 2015

          Letter to the Hon Niall Blair MLC dated 19 May 2015

          Letter to Rhonda Hoban from the Hon Niall Blair MLC dated 8 September 2015

            Report prepared by Coffee Geotechnics Pty Ltd for the east facing slope immediately below No. 2 Nelson Street Nambucca Heads


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                28 January 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.3    SF996              280116         NSW Ombudsman - Updated Enforcement Guidelines and Model Enforcement Policy for Councils

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council review its Compliance, Enforcement and Prosecution Policy based on the NSW Ombudsman 2015 Enforcement Guidelines for Councils.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can elect not to review its Compliance, Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has recently received an update of a very useful publication by the NSW Ombudsman on enforcement guidelines as well as a model enforcement policy for councils.  The Ombudsman’s Guidelines are an excellent reference document in identifying key legal principles and in improving councils’ approach to compliance and enforcement.

 

As Councillors can become involved in compliance and enforcement matters as a consequence of receiving representations from complainants and offenders or in having to determine higher level enforcement action, the Ombudsman’s views on best practice may be of interest.  The document titled “Enforcement guidelines for councils” and dated December 2015 can be found on the NSW Ombudsman’s website www.ombo.nsw.gov.au

 

In relation to the role of councillors in enforcement the Ombudsman comments as follows:

 

“Decision making relating to the investigation of reports alleging unlawful activity and taking enforcement action is the responsibility of appropriately authorised council staff or the council itself.

 

Individual councillors do not have the right to direct council staff in their day-to-day activities.  Councillors can help individuals who raise concerns with them by satisfying themselves that their council’s policies are being carried out correctly, however they cannot ignore or alter a policy in order to satisfy the demands of special groups.

 

The general manager may present certain decisions to be ratified by the elected council if this is necessary or desirable, and the councillors may also have the right to call for a report about particular issues to a council meeting”

 

It is proposed that Council review its Compliance, Enforcement and Prosecution Policy based on the updated enforcement guidelines.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The matter has been discussed with Council’s Technical Officer – Planning who was in any case intending to update Council’s Compliance, Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.  One proposal which is being considered is having a standard interview template to be recorded in Council’s document management system which would document all compliance related interviews and provide evidence of considerations in in relation to procedural fairness, cautioning, conflict of interest and the like.

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no direct implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no direct social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic considerations.

 

Risk

 

The Ombudsman’s Guidelines and Council’s policy are concerned with implementing good administrative practices.  But ultimately the implementation of good administrative practice is about minimising financial and reputational risks to Council in undertaking enforcement action.  Whilst there will always be some subjectivity in relation to the application of such Guidelines, using best practice will reduce reputational and financial risk.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no budgetary implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There are no implications for working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no service level implications.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                28 January 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.4    SF42                280116         Consultation on Phase 1 Amendments to the Local Government Act 1993

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

The Hon. Paul Toole, Minister for Local Government has released proposed phase 1 reforms of the NSW Local Government Act 1993.    The Minister advises that the Phase 1 reforms focus mainly on changes to the governance and strategic business planning processes of councils.  Later phases will focus on how councils raise revenue and how they exercise their regulatory functions, as well as a program of restructuring and updating the local government legislation.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council make a submission on the proposed Phase 1 amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 as per the comments in this report subject to any additions, deletions or alterations identified by the Council.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can make a submission on the Phase 1 amendments of the Act as it sees fit.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The NSW Office of Local Government has released an explanatory paper on proposed Phase 1 Amendments to the Local Government Act 1993.  A copy of the explanatory paper is attached.

 

The Circular from the Office of Local Government (OLG) advises that the Phase 1 reform program focuses mainly on changes to the governance and strategic business planning processes of councils.  Phase 2 will focus on the way in which councils raise revenue and exercise their regulatory functions.

 

There is the opportunity to provide feedback on the Phase 1 consultation via an on-line survey.  Consultation on phase 1 amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 will close on 15 March 2016.

 

Some comments on the proposed amendments follow.

 

1.1     Purposes of the Local Government Act

 

There is a change in language and some change in emphasis but otherwise the proposed provision is more concise than the existing provision.

 

1.2     Role of local government

 

As per 1.1 there is a change in language but otherwise no substantive change.

 

1.3     The guiding principles of local government

 

The new principles include reference to integrated planning and reporting but otherwise are similar to the existing provisions.

 

1.4     The role of the governing body

 

The existing provision being Section 223 simply states that the role of the governing body is to direct and control the affairs of the council in accordance with the Act.  The amendments proposed a more expansive list to describe the role of the governing body.  There is nothing in the list which the Council would not already accept as their role.

 

2.2     The number of councillors

 

The existing Section 224 prescribes the numbers of councillors a council may have (between 5 and 15) and the manner in which that number is to be determined.  The proposed amendment is only to require that councils have an odd number of councillors and mayor.  The change is to reduce the risk of the mayoralty being determined by lot (in those councils which do not have a popularly elected mayor) and decisions being made on the casting vote of the mayor.

 

2.3     Rural Councils

 

It is proposed to allow for small rural councils to apply to the Minister for Local Government for one-off approval to reduce councillor numbers and abolish wards without the need for a constitutional referendum and reduce the number of council meetings to be held in a year to less than the 10 currently required under section 365.  The provisions for small rural councils do not apply to Nambucca Shire Council.

 

2.4     The role of the Mayor

 

It is proposed to describe the role of the Mayor in more detail than exists in the current provision (section 226).  However the proposed amendments do not go as far as those recommended by the Independent Local Government Review Panel.

 

3.2     The mayor’s term of office

 

The current length of term for a mayor is one year for mayors elected by councillors or four years for mayors elected by the electors.  It is proposed to change this so that mayors elected by councillors hold office for a minimum of two years, with the option of electing a person to the office for the whole four year term.  In response to community concerns about too many mayors being chosen via pulling a name from a hat, it is proposed that it be compulsory for councillors to vote in a mayoral election.  Whilst it has no impact on this Council, given the nature of the proposed amendments it is queried whether or not it would be better to simply mandate popularly elected mayors, ie mayors elected by the electors.

 

3.3     The role of councillors

 

Section 232 currently sets out a “dual role” for councillors as members of the governing body and as elected representatives and the Office of Local Government has commented that this has been a source of confusion.  It is proposed to recast section 232 so that it focuses on individual responsibilities of councillors, rather than their responsibilities as members of the governing body of a council.  It is agreed that the proposed wording is an improvement on the existing provision.

 

3.4     Councillors’ term of office

 

Section 234 prescribes the circumstances in which a civic office becomes vacant.  It will be amended to clarify that a vacancy will occur in the civic office of a councillor where they are elected to another civic office in the council, ie the office of a popularly elected mayor.  Agreed.

 

3.5     Oath or affirmation of office

 

Based on practices in Victoria and Queensland it is proposed to require all councillors, including the Mayor to take an oath or affirmation of office within 1 month of their election to office.  The OLG believes that an oath or affirmation of office operates as a mechanism for inducting councillors and reinforcing the serious nature of the role and the responsibilities and duties it entails.  Whilst there is no disagreement to reinforce the serious nature of the role, in their rationale the OLG has lumped NSW councillors together with their highly paid and full time counterparts in Queensland.  If the responsibilities of the councillors in both States are equally serious why does one State provide professional remuneration whilst the other treats councillors as undertaking a relatively minor part time job?

 

3,6     Councillors’ expenses and facilities

 

Currently Councils have to annually exhibit, adopt and report to the OLG an expenses and facilities policy (even if there is no proposed change).  As a means of reducing red tape it is proposed to replace the annual requirement with one simply requiring councils to adopt a policy within the first 12 months of their terms.  Agreed.

 

3.7     Mayor/councillor professional development

 

New provisions will require councils to develop an induction program for newly elected and returning councillors and also an ongoing professional development program for the mayor and each councillor to assist them in the performance of their functions to be delivered over the coming year.  The content of the induction and on-going professional development program is to be determined in consultation with the mayor, the council as a whole and individually with each of the councillors.  The details of the programs and whether or not councillors participated is to be listed in the council’s annual report.

 

Given the role of councillors it is not agreed that professional development should be mandated nor that the annual report be used as a means of judging the performance of councillors based on whether or not they participated in training.

 

3.8     Role and functions of administrators

 

A proposed amendment will address an ambiguity in the existing Act by aligning the role of the administrator with the proposed prescribed role of the mayor and councillors.  Agreed.

 

3.9     Financial Controllers

 

It is proposed to allow the Minister for Local Government to appoint a financial controller to a council that is performing poorly with respect to its financial responsibilities and/or is at high financial sustainability risk, in conjunction with issuing a performance improvement order.  Where a financial controller is appointed, a council may only make payments that are authorised or countersigned by the financial controller.

 

There are of course many factors which contribute to a Council’s financial performance including but not limited to the service levels provided by the Council and expected by the community; the organisation structure; investment returns; debt recovery activity; revenue raising; staff performance; use of technology; financing arrangements; asset management; and capital works cycles to name a few.  The Council receives advice about its financial performance from its staff and auditors and periodically through reviews commissioned by the Government.  The proposal to impose a financial controller on a poorly performing council does seem to be a fairly crude means of addressing what is likely to be a complex administrative and political problem.  Controlling the payments made by a council will only address one aspect of the problem.  However if the financial problems of a council are so dire, then the appointment of a financial controller to assist the Council would be preferable to the Council being sacked.

 

3.10   Meetings

 

The proposed amendments will provide that the Model Code of Meeting Practice may include mandated and non-mandatory “best practice” provisions.  Agreed.

 

3.11 Delegation of functions

 

It is proposed to remove the restriction on the delegation of tenders as a means of reducing red tape.

 

It is also proposed to allow councils to delegate the provision of community financial assistance where the financial assistance is part of a specific program; the programs details are included in the operational plan and the program applies uniformly to all persons within the council’s area.  This new provision won’t be of much assistance in dealing with the many ad hoc requests for assistance which Council receives through the year.

 

Interestingly, it is flagged that amendments may be required to facilitate councils delegating a regulatory function to another council or joint organisation of councils, to support future collaboration and resource sharing.

 

4.1     Extension of the option of universal posting voting to all councils

 

It is proposed to amend the Act to provide that the option of universal postal voting is available to all councils after the next ordinary election.  Nambucca Shire Council has previously made representations in support of this initiative.  It will potentially save the Council significant cost in the conduct of elections, although the recent significant increase in the cost of postage will reduce the potential benefit.

 

5.1     Determination of the organisation structure

 

It is proposed to remove the existing ambiguity about the respective roles of general managers and councils in determining the organisation structure.  Under the existing legislation, Nambucca Shire Council has acted in accordance with legal advice that the organisation structure to be determined by Council includes every staff position.  Notwithstanding this legal advice, many Councils only adopt an organisation structure down to a manager level based on the notion that the functions of other staff are an operational matter.

 

It would appear that the ambiguity is being resolved in favour of the general manager’s authority.  The proposed amendment is that adopted structure may only specify the roles and relationships of the general manager, designated senior staff and other staff reporting directly to the general manager.  The general manager is responsible for determining the balance of the organisation structure but must do so in consultation with the governing body. 

 

As the operational costs of staff are often more than 50% of a Council’s expenditure and the amendments otherwise provide new focus on financial accountability, it does seem inconsistent to largely remove the authority of the governing body to effectively control a large component of their budget.

 

5.2     The role of general managers

 

The new provisions incorporate the authority of the general manager to appoint staff in accordance with an organisation structure and resources approved by the governing body.  However the organisation structure will only include those staff directly reporting to the general manager.

 

5.3     The requirement to report annually to the council on senior staff contractual conditions

 

It is proposed to omit the requirement under section 339 for general managers to report annually to the council on the contractual conditions of senior staff.  The justification provided for this is that senior staff are now all employed under the approved standard contract for senior staff rendering this requirement redundant.

 

The justification is not agreed as there are of course significant differences in the remuneration packages available under the approved contracts.  As long as the packages continue to be listed in the annual report it is agreed that the annual reporting to Council is redundant.  But for the reason of accountability for the expenditure of ratepayer funds, there does need to be some public reporting of the remuneration packages.

 

6.1     Consolidation of the prescription of ethical standards

 

The provisions in the Act and the Regulation relating to the disclosure of pecuniary interests and the management of pecuniary conflicts of interests will be replicated in the Model Code of Conduct.  Agreed.

 


6.2     Investigation of pecuniary interest breaches

 

This is a minor procedural change to incorporate the investigation of complaints alleging breaches of pecuniary interest provisions as part of the existing misconduct provisions.

 

7.1     Integrated planning and reporting principles

 

New provisions will be included to establish overarching Integrated Planning and Reporting principles and require councils to undertake strategic business planning in accordance with those principles.  Agreed.

 

7.2     Streamlining the existing integrated planning and reporting provisions

 

There are some minor changes proposed to the setting out of the Integrated Planning and Reporting provisions.

 

7.3     Council’s integrated planning and reporting to reflect regional priorities

 

Amendments are proposed to ensure that regional priorities are reflected in individual councils’ strategic business planning.  In particular, amendments are proposed to require delivery programs to address key regional strategies including council actions and any proposed joint programs agreed regionally.

 

These provisions will obviously work in tandem with the proposed Joint Organisations (JO’s).  So far there has been no emphasis on forming JO’s which will be democratically based and exercise authority to resolve parochial local interests.  How this will translate into the enunciation of clear regional strategies is open to question.

 

7.4     Expanded scope of delivery programs

 

Section 404 is being amended to clarify that delivery programs are to capture all council activities.

 

7.5     Fiscal sustainability

 

It is proposed to amend the Local Government General Regulation to provide that the annual statement of revenue policy in the operational plan be amended to require councils to establish revenue policies with a view to ensure fiscal sustainability and to provide a clear rationale for how rating systems are structured and what they are designed to achieve.

 

That a revenue policy should be about fiscal sustainability is akin to saying that a recipe book should be about cooking.  No problem there. 

 

Few people understand the NSW local government rating system and to place an obligation on Councils to provide a clear rationale on how the system is structured and what it’s designed to achieve does not even provide lip service to its inherent complexity which is outside the control of councils.

 

7.6     Expanded scope of councils’ community engagement strategies

 

It is proposed to amend the Act to require the adoption of a community engagement strategy to inform all council activities, not only those associated with the Council’s Integrated Planning and Reporting framework.  It is proposed that the community engagement strategy meet minimum prescribed requirements.  This requirement for a broadened strategy will be an additional planning and reporting requirement for council.  Without knowing the minimum prescribed requirements it is difficult to assess what burden it may impose.

 

8.1     Annual reports

 

It is proposed to require the information reported in councils’ annual reports to be endorsed as factually accurate by an internal audit committee.  Much of the financial information in Council’s annual report is already endorsed by its auditor.  Whether or not the Internal Audit Committee will be reviewing information which has already been subject to audit by the external auditor is not specified.  Regardless this is an additional reporting requirement which will come at a cost.

 

8.2     State of the environment reports

 

The requirement for a state of the environment report to be prepared every four years is proposed to be replaced with a requirement to report on environmental issues relevant to the objectives established by the community strategic plan.  This is a more integrated approach to reporting on a Council’s performance and is supported.

 

8.3     Performance measurement

 

The provision will allow for the introduction of a performance management and reporting framework akin to one recently adopted in Victoria.  Agreed.

 

8.4     Internal Audit

 

It is proposed to introduce a mandatory requirement for councils to have an internal audit function.  It is proposed that the Chair of the Audit Committee must report at least biannually to a council meeting on the organisation’s performance in financial management, good governance and continuous improvement.  One pleasing feature of the proposal is that Councils will be permitted to have joint arrangements for internal audit and to share audit committees.

 

8.5     Sector-wide performance audits by the Auditor-General

 

To identify trends and opportunities for improvement across the sector as a whole, it is proposed to compliment the mandated requirement for internal audit by empowering the Auditor-General to conduct issue based performance audits in key areas of local government activity.  No objection.

 

8.6     Financial Management

 

It is proposed to adopt a more “principles based” approach to the management of council funds by moving detailed requirements to the Regulation and the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting, which is prescribed under the Act.  Agree.

 

8.7     Financial Reporting

 

This is a companion provision to item 8.6 above with reporting requirements to be specified in Regulation and Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting instead of in the Act.

 

8.8     External Audit

 

It is proposed to place local government audits under the aegis of the NSW Auditor-General.  Transitional arrangements will be required to ensure that existing auditor appointments can be brought to an orderly conclusions, with minimal disruption to councils, current auditors and the Audit Office of New South Wales. 

 

The Government believes that giving the Auditor-General oversight of council financial audit will improve quality, consistency and timeliness and financial management.  There are extensive regulatory and accounting requirements which already control external audits and any potential benefit which Auditor-General oversight may provide needs to be weighed against the cost of providing this.  This cost will no doubt need to be borne by councils and their ratepayers.

 

Summary

 

If the proposed amendments are viewed in their totality against a criterion as to whether or not they will increase or decrease the amount of governance work required by councils, unfortunately on balance it would seem that the overhead costs of running a Council will increase.  Whilst there are some good initiatives to reduce overhead costs such as the proposed option of postal voting and the removal of the need for the annual review of councillors expenses and facilities, these are probably more than outweighed by the new requirements for councillor professional development; the requirement for an overarching community engagement strategy; as well as the new requirements for internal audit and the endorsement of Council annual reports by the Internal Audit Committee.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been a brief discussion of this report in Manex.

 

 

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 to the Council in providing feedback on the phase 1 amendments to the Local Government Act.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

At this stage there are no budgetary impacts.

 

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

 

At this stage there is no service level or resourcing implications.

 

Attachments:

1

1060/2016 - Phase 1 Amendments - Local Government Act

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 January 2016

Consultation on Phase 1 Amendments to the Local Government Act 1993

 

































Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                28 January 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.5    SF2173            280116         Amendment to Housekeeping Planning Proposal

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Lisa Hall, Technical Officer Planning         

 

Summary:

 

On 27 August 2015, Council resolved to make a number of housekeeping amendments to the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010, including amending the land use table for the RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural Landscape zones by including dual occupancies (detached) as permissible with consent and to permit Secondary Dwellings in the R5 zone. The purpose of this report is to add “Dual Occupancies – detached” as permitted with consent in the R5 Large Lot Residential Land Use Table.

 

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:

 

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

 

a        Amend the Land Use Table for the R5 Large Lot Residential zone by including dual occupancies (detached) as permissible with consent.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may choose not to support the recommendation.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Under the current NLEP 2010, the erection of an attached dual occupancy (two dwellings of any size attached to each other) is permissible with consent within the R5 Large Lot Residential zone. However, a detached dual occupancy is prohibited. Some detached secondary dwellings are already permissible under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP and Council has already resolved to prepare a planning proposal which would make a wider range of secondary dwellings permissible with consent on R5 Large Lot Residential zoned land.

 

As previously reported to Council, dual occupancies can provide positive outcomes such as affordable alternative accommodation for ageing property owners who wish to live near their family without living on top of them, low cost accommodation to supplement the income of property owners who rent out the second dwelling, and minimising the number of illegal dwellings which result in Council needing to take regulatory action.

 

It is considered that amending the land use table of the NLEP 2010 to permit detached dual occupancies with development consent in the R5 zone would result in the same positive outcomes as attached dual occupancies, while allowing landowners greater freedom in the development of their land.

 

It is to be noted that potential impacts on the natural, social, and economic environments associated with the construction of a detached dual occupancy are very similar to that of an attached dual occupancy or a detached secondary dwelling; all of which would be considered by Council prior to determining the development application. It should also be noted that Council’s current development controls within the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 (DCP) and relevant State Environmental Planning Policies are sufficient to ensure the development of detached dual occupancies will not result in any significant impacts on the natural, social or economic environments of the locality in which they are located.

 

Furthermore, due to the current ability to have an attached dual occupancy and some secondary dwellings within the R5 zone, it is not considered that permitting detached dual occupancies will result in any increased demands on public infrastructure or services, or any significant increase in housing supply than what could already occur.

 

Please note that under Council’s current development contribution plans, the establishment of a detached dual occupancy will attract payment of development contributions as part of any development consent for a detached dual occupancy. Furthermore, the existing subdivision development standards will remain in force. This means that the subdivision of land to locate the detached dwellings onto separate allotments will only be permissible if it is already permissible to subdivide the land.

 

As such, it is recommended that Council amend the land use table for the R5 Large Lot Residential zone by including dual occupancies (detached) as permissible with consent.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Manager Development & Environment

Coordinator Strategic Planning & Natural Resources

Senior Town Planner

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Any environmental impacts resulting from dual occupancies in R5 zoned land will be assessed and dealt with during the development application process.

 

Social

 

Enabling property owners to construct detached dual occupancies will provide more options for extended families to live on the same property without living in each other’s pockets.

 

Economic

 

Having more flexible development options will enable property owners of R5 zoned land to maximise the value of their property and earn additional rental income.

 

Risk

 

Nil

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The approval of additional dual occupancies on R5 zoned land will increase Council’s rates revenue and provide for additional Section 94 contributions.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

Nil

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                28 January 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.6    SF2173            280116         Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months OR where submissions received - 7 - 21 January 2016

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Lisa Hall, Technical Officer - Development and Environment         

 

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).

 

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 information be noted by Council.

 

 

 

TABLE 1: UNRESOLVED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN EXCESS OF 12 MONTHS OLD

 

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

 

TABLE 2: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS NOT YET DETERMINED WHERE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/099

2 July 2015

132 Lot Residential Subdivision

Lot 1 DP 1119830, Marshall Way, Nambucca Heads

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED

Two public submissions has been received – they oppose the development:

 

·        The increase in expected traffic raises major concerns re safety (particularly for the elderly and the young), congestion, parking within the Plaza and speeding.

·        Concerned that there isn’t enough local infrastructure and services to support new residents eg doctors.

·        A community forum should be held to gauge dissatisfaction with the proposal

·        Spring Street isn’t wide enough to cope with the increased traffic

·        Stormwater in Spring Street and surrounding areas is already a problem

·        Concerned about the safety of turning out of Spring Street, when Marshall Way is a through road

STATUS:

Awaiting applicant’s response to Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH), Rural Fire Service (RFS) and Council’s outstanding issues concerning flora & fauna and asset protection zones.  There are also on-going discussions with the applicant concerning the applicable contribution plans which will apply to this subdivision and also the previously approved subdivision involving the Link Road.

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/144

15/09/2015

73 Lot Subdivision

Lot 176 DP 1190467, Seaforth Drive, Valla Beach

Ten submissions have been received by Council – all oppose aspects of the proposal

·           There should be parks, public open space as part of the development – children already play on Seaforth Drive as there is nowhere else for them to play

·           Road in and out of the estate should be higher quality and suitable for evacuation in the case of bushfire – two exits instead of just one would be preferable

·           Fauna in the wetland reserve (to the south of the proposal) will suffer if it is approved

·           Overall, the scale of the development is too large

·           There should be footpath provided to link the development to the shops, bus stop and preschool

·           Visual and noise pollution will result because bush to be cleared provides a buffer for the noise of the railway and the highway

·           There is an endangered ecological community (Coastal Salt Marsh) within the proposed area

·           Acid sulphate soils could be disturbed and leach into Deep Creek

·           An earlier, preliminary flora and fauna report referred to a 65 lot subdivision – this would be more appropriate

·           4.1 hectares of native vegetation should be retained and an SIS required

·           Loss of habitat will negatively impact on macropods

·           Hollow bearing trees shouldn’t be removed

·           Wildlife corridors be maintained

·           Hydrological studies be carried out in relation to disturbance of Acid Sulfate Soils\

·           Section 94 contributions should be levied

·           What research has been done in relation to climate change and sea level rise impacts?

·           APZs should all be on private land

·           A perimeter road should be included as it would provide a good buffer between the residential lots and the wetland

·           Can Council guarantee that the block between this proposal and the pre-school won’t be developed and no further connecting road will be built to Valla Beach Road?

 

STATUS:

Awaiting applicant’s response to OEH and Council issues relating to open space, flora & fauna, stormwater and buffer issues.

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/188

16/11/2015

Dwelling Additions

Lots 218 & 494 DP 755550, 3 Quarry Street, Nambucca Heads

One submission has been received by Council – it opposes the proposal

·           The proposed development will result in loss of views and amenity

STATUS:

Opportunity to make comment from adjoining owner notification closed on 4/12/2015.  Concern about loss of views to be assessed.  Otherwise no other issues.

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/195

26/11/2015

NBN Fixed Wireless Telecommunications Facility

Lot 2 DP 1039123, 401 Gumma Road, Gumma

One submission from eight property owners and seven other submissions have been received by Council – they oppose the proposal

·             Reduce property values

·             Environmental impacts

·             Exact site unclear

·             Additional infrastructure will be required

·             EIS inadequate

·             Cultural assessment inadequate

·             Developments in the area should be low density

·             May lead to further similar developments

·             Destroys visual amenity

STATUS:  Called in by Council

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/198

27/11/2015

Demolition of Existing Building and 40 Lot Community Title Subdivision

24 Bellevue Drive, North Macksville

Nineteen submissions have been received by Council – all oppose the proposal

·             Health impacts whilst building is being demolished

·             McLennons Lane is an inappropriate road to service the proposed development – too narrow

·             No landscaping proposed

·             Not enough onsite parking

·             Too many lots proposed

·             Unattractive dwellings proposed

·             May worsen flooding impacts – flood information in DA is out of date

·             Stormwater run-off will impact adjoining properties

·             No areas for children to play

·             Increased traffic will be dangerous for local children

·             Emergency vehicular access inadequate

·             Density of dwellings will lead to increased fire hazard

·             Impacts on fragile river bank – erosion concerns

·             Privacy impacts on adjoining properties

·             Too many extra dwellings for a flood-prone area

·             Not enough public facilities provided – parks, toilets, etc

STATUS:  Withdrawn 15 January 2016

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/197

26/11/2015

Piggery

Lot 22 DP 828660, 652 Boat Harbour Road, Yarranbella

Two submissions have been received by Council – they oppose the proposal

·             Not enough information in application

·             Concerned about run-off, odours, contamination, fencing and noise from the development

·             Untidy huts and pigs are already located on the property

STATUS:  Awaiting additional information from applicant - due by 15 February 2016

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/068/01

30/11/2015

Garage

Lot 202 DP 616619, 32 Liston Street, Nambucca Heads

One submission has been received by Council – it opposes the proposal

·             Inadequate information about new window

·             Concerns re overlooking and loss of privacy

STATUS:  Being assessed

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2014/198/01

04/12/2015

26 Lot Subdivision

Lot 42 DP 711098, Old Coast Road, North Macksville

Six submissions have been received by Council – they oppose the modification

·           Connecting Florence Wilmont Drive and Old Coast Road will bring too much traffic and noise into the community.

·           Lumsdens Lane should be used instead

·           Florence Wilmont Drive is already in poor condition in some spots – this would make it worse

·           All residents of Kingsworth Estate should have been notified, not just properties fronting Florence Wilmont Drive

·           Linking Florence Wilmont Drive to Old Coast Road will provide many short-cut opportunities

·           Detrimental to koala habitat

STATUS:  Notification till 15 February 2016

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/214

14/12/2015

Demolish existing dual occupancy and erect new dual occupancy

Lot 11 Section D DP 17707, 22 Waratah Street, Scotts Head

Four submissions have been received by Council – they oppose the proposal

·           Excessive site coverage could lead to runoff problems for properties below the development

·           8.5m height limit is exceeded – overshadowing impacts. Ground level has been artificially raised

·           Notification period should be extended – difficult to obtain professional advice about the proposal over the Christmas/New Year period

·           Not enough information on Council’s website

·           Floor area calculations include external open areas which would be easy to enclose at a later date

·           View loss for adjoining property

·           Unclear as to whether deep soil zone, setback and excavation requirements in DCP will be complied with

·           Current building contains asbestos – removal needs to be done according to requirements

·           Safety concerns with access to the site

·           Proposed design out of character with Scotts Head village

STATUS:  Applicant advised to reappraise design based on submissions

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/202

01/12/2015

Function Centre & Secondary Dwelling

Lot 832 DP 736673, 111 Valla Road, Valla

One submission has been received by Council – it opposes the proposal

·           There should be restrictions concerning the type of functions held, time of day permitted, length of time, number of functions and sale/service of alcohol

STATUS:  Approved 19 January 2016

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/215

15/12/2015

Dwelling-House

Lot 342 DP 1186161, 19a Bent Street, Nambucca Heads

One submission has been received – it opposes the proposal

·             View loss

·             Privacy/overshadowing

·             Stormwater runoff

STATUS:  Applicant advised of submission amendments to design required to address privacy

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                28 January 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.7    SF1406            280116         JRPP Nomination

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Daniel Walsh, Senior Town Planner         

 

Summary:

 

Council is required to appoint two members to the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) which has been established to determine development proposals of regional significance. This is due to the previous nominations expiring last year.

 

Council has previously appointed two members from Kempsey Shire Council as part of a reciprocal arrangement to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Given the success of this arrangement, it is recommended that Council re-appoint those two members from Kempsey Shire Council.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council re-appoint Kempsey Shire Councils Mayor Liz Campbell and Director Sustainable Environment Robert Pitt as Nambucca Shire Councils members on the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1. Re-appoint Kempsey Shire Councils Mayor Liz Campbell and Director Sustainable Environment Robert Pitt as Nambucca Shire Councils members on the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel.

 

2.   Appoint two other Council members to the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPPs) have been established to determine development proposals of regional significance as outlined in schedule 4A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

There are six JRPPs within NSW. Nambucca and Kempsey Shire Councils are within the area of the Northern JRPP. The Northern JRPP is made up of five members, including three members appointed by the Minister and two members appointed by the Council in which the development to be determined is located.

 

In the past, both Nambucca and Kempsey Shire Councils have entered into a reciprocal arrangement where both Councils appoint two members from the others Council to avoid potential conflicts of interest. This has seen Nambucca Shire Councils Mayor and Senior Town Planner been appointed by Kempsey Shire Council as their members and Kempsey Shire Councils Mayor Liz Campbell and Director Sustainable Environment Robert Pitt been appointed by Nambucca Shire Council.

 

However, these nominations expired last year and Nambucca Shire Council is required to either provide new nominations or re-nominate the previously appointed members to the JRPP.

 

Given the experience of Kempsey Shire Councils Mayor and Director Sustainable Environment and the success the current reciprocal arrangement has had with regards to providing sound determinations of development applications and avoiding potential conflicts of interest; it is recommended that Council re-appoint Kempsey Shire Councils Mayor and Director Sustainable Environment as Nambucca Shire Councils members on the Northern JRPP.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

N/A

 

Social

 

N/A

 

Economic

 

N/A

 

Risk

 

N/A

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

Nil

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

Nil

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

Nil

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                28 January 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.8    SF1958            280116         Outstanding Item no 27 - Provision of Councils Flood Data to the insurance Council of Australia

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Grant Nelson, Coordinator Strategic Planning & Natural Resources         

 

Summary:

 

On the 15th December 2015 a report was presented to Council recommending Council make our recently prepared flood data available to the insurance Council of Australia, subject to standard fees and charges. Council deferred the matter noted as item 27 in the outstanding Actions and Reports.

 

The purpose of this report is to address the additional request from Council.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

Council provide flood data to the Insurance Council of Australia or other interested insurance companies as per our fees and charges requirements and subject to Council standard data agreements.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may choose not to provide the data. In this instance staff have been advised that a GIPPA application would be made.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

On the 15th December 2015 a report was presented to Council recommending Council make our recently prepared flood data available to the insurance Council of Australia, subject to standard fees and charges.

 

Council resolved the following and the matter was deferred:

 

That this item be deferred so that a report can come to Council on the information to be supplied including whether or not it includes provision for sea level rise.

 

During the preparation of the flood studies, Councils consultants run a number of computer models for different sized flood events and with varying attributes.

 

For instance there is information modelled for 1 in 5 year ARI event up to the Possible Maximum Flood (PMF) including the 1% AEP Flood Event (also known as the 1 in 100 year event). The modelled events include:

 

10% AEP event;

2% AEP Event;

1% AEP (Design Event);

0.5 % AEP Event;

0.2 % AEP event, 

0.05% AEP Event;

PMF

 

Additional modelling for the design event has also been undertaken to account for various climate changes scenarios and including:

 

1% AEP event with a 10% rainfall increase

1% AEP event with a 20% rainfall increase

1% AEP event with a 30% rainfall increase

1% AEP event with a 2050 sea level rise scenario (0.4m)

1% AEP event with a 2090 sea level rise scenario (0.9m)

This modelling was undertaken in accordance with OEH recommendations and guidelines at the time of preparing the reports.

 

In respect to the sea level rise scenarios, the influence of sea level rise during a flood has little influence beyond Watt Creek (Kingsworth Estate). This can be observed through examination of the 1% AEP event and the 1% AEP event that considers the influence of sea level rise on the model.

 

It is noted that Council has previously endorsed the 1% AEP design event incorporating a 0.9m sea level rise scenario for planning purposes and this is presently being implemented successfully by staff during environmental assessments. By doing this Council would be seen to be acting in good faith and in so doing should protect itself from future liability as per section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

It is intended to provide all the modelling data to the insurance council of Australia (ICA). It would be at the discretion of the ICA and individual insurance companies how that information is applied to individual properties and to develop appropriate premiums as per the legislation that governs the insurance industry. Council’s role in these decisions should be limited to simply providing the most up to date information to the ICA.

 

The ICA or individual insurance companies may apply through a GIPPA application to retrieve the data we have available which is considered public information.  There would seem to be no public interest reason by which Council could refuse an application under the Government Information (Public Access) Act.

 

CONSULTATION:

General Manager

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

 

NIL

 

Social

 

NIL

 

Economic

 

A fee will be charged each time the data is requested.

 

Risk

 

NIL

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

A fee will be charged each time the data is requested.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

NIL

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

Staff will be required to retrieve the data and make it available in an appropriate format.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                28 January 2016

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

ITEM 11.1    SF1120            280116         Approval of loan to Macksville Ex-Services Junior Cricket Club for purchase of lawn mower

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Colleen Henry, Grants and Contributions Officer         

 

Summary:

 

This report seeks Council approval of no interest loan to the Macksville Ex-Services Junior Cricket Club to purchase a lawn mower for use at Donnelly Welsh Playing Fields if the Club secures a grant from Cricket NSW.

 

 

RecommendationS:

 

That Council approve a no interest loan of $41,000 to the Macksville Ex-Services Junior Cricket Club for the purchase of a lawn mower if the Club for an agreed term for the purchase of the lawn mower receives a grant from Cricket NSW for the remaining portion of the cost

 

 

 

Discussion

 

The Macksville Ex-Services Junior Cricket Club (MESJCC) has applied for funding from Cricket NSW for the partial cost of purchasing a lawn mower for the upkeep of three cricket fields at Donnelly Welsh Playing Fields (DWPF).

 

The cost of the mower, for which the Club has received two quotes, will be $61,435.95 (including GST). The mower is expensive because of its ability to cut grass to the short length required for cricket, and its ease of use. The mower will replace the current equipment, which is ten years old and which requires repairs totalling approximately $5000 each year.

 

The DWPF are maintained by the Club’s volunteers who mow the fields, sometimes twice a week during the cricket season, on behalf of Council. It is reasonable that Council assist the Club to meet the cost of the equipment via the loan.

 

If the Cricket NSW grant is successful, Council will enter into an agreement with the management committee of the MESJCC to establish a loan repayment schedule. The agreement should include provision for the mower to be made available to other users of the DWPF or Council staff if required.

 

A separate grant application has been made to the Commonwealth Department of Social Services for $5000 to support volunteers’ efforts. While a small amount of money, it would at least decrease the overall loan amount.

 

The loan repayment amounts will be free of interest, but will be indexed to CPI.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

Manager Infrastructure Services

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are no environmental impacts associated with this report.

 


Social

There are social benefits associated with making volunteers’ jobs easier, as it will keep volunteers from getting discouraged about the lack of adequate equipment to maintain Council resources..

 

Economic

There are no economic impacts associated with this report.

 

Risk

There is a risk that other Committees of Management and community groups will approach Council for such loans, however very few would be able to generate an income stream sufficient to repay the loan, and other groups do not have the requirement for such specialised equipment.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

The loan provision would require a budget variation.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

There are no changes to service levels or resourcing/staff implications.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                28 January 2016

Corporate Services

ITEM 11.2    SF2116            280116         Investment Report to 30 November 2015

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Faye Hawthorne, Accountant         

 

Summary:

 

The return on investments from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 is expected to be around $988,140.

 

The budget allocation for the financial year “2015/16” is $1,039,900.

 

Council currently has $30.816 Million invested:

 

·      $   5.806   Million with Managed Funds

·      $   3.095   Million with On Call Accounts

·      $ 21.915    Million on Term Deposits

 

This report details all the investments placed during December and Council funds invested as at 31 December 2015.

 

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

 

C P Doolan

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the Accountants’ Report on Investments placed to 31 December 2015 be noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


OPTIONS:

 

This report is for information only.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

This report details all the investments placed during December 2015 and Council funds invested as at December 2015.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Grove Research and Advisory

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental implications.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

Risk

 

That Council may not meet its budget returns for 2015/2016 based on current performance.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

A review of budgeted interest returns for 2015/2016 will be completed with the December 2015 Budget Review and GPG Research & Advisory will provide Council with the updated interest rates.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Interest on investments will be assessed with the December 2015 Budget Review, Variances will be distributed between the Water, Sewerage and General Funds for the financial year each quarter.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

Not applicable

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                28 January 2016

Corporate Services

ITEM 11.3    SF251              280116         Schedule of Council Public Meetings

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Lorraine Hemsworth, Executive Assistant         

 

SUMMARY:

 

The following is a schedule of dates for public Council meetings.  The meeting dates may change from to time and this will be recorded in the next available report to Council.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

 

2016

MEETING

DATE

VENUE

COMMENCING

Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting

2 February

Committee Room

10.30 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

11 February

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

Vehicular Access to Beaches Committee Meeting

12 February

Council Chambers

1.30 PM

Access Committee Meeting

23 February

Council Chambers

2.00 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

25 February

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

17 March

Missabotti Hall

5.30 PM

Access Committee Meeting

22 March

Council Chambers

2.00 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

31 March

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

14 April

Valla Rural Public Hall

5.30 PM

Access Committee Meeting

26 April

Council Chambers

2.00 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

28 April

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

12 May

Tewinga Community Centre

5.30 PM

Access Committee Meeting

25 May

Council Chambers

2.00 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

26 May

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

9 June

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

Access Committee Meeting

28 June

Council Chambers

2.00 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

23 June

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                28 January 2016

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

ITEM 11.4    SF707              280116         Nambucca Shire Council Contract Register

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Scott Norman, Assistant General Manager Corporate Services         

 

Summary:

 

Council requested the Contracts Register be reported to Council at least once a year.  A list of current contracts on the Register is attached for Council’s information.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council receive this report on the Nambucca Shire Council Contract Register for information.

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

At the Council Meeting of 14 January 2016 Council requested that the Contracts Register be presented to Council at least once a year.  An extract of current contracts from the Register is attached.  The Register in its current form commenced in 2010. The full Register can be found on the Council Website at http://www.nambucca.nsw.gov.au.  A list of the contracts for a particular year is also included in the Annual report.  It is proposed to regularly report the Register to Council each August as part of the preparation of Council’s Annual Report.

 

For Council’s further information a list standing offer contracts is included below – these contracts don’t reach the threshold for inclusion in the Contract Register.

 

GENERAL BIENNIAL CONTRACTS

1 OCTOBER 2014 – 30 SEPTEMBER 2016

 

NUMBER

DESCRIPTION

CONTRACTOR

Q004/2014

Cleaning of Beaches

NIL – QUOTATIONS REQUIRED

Q005/2014

Columbarium Services

T M & L Johnson

Q006/2014

Builder/Carpenter – Panel

Beyond Expectations

 

 

T M & L Johnson

 

 

Boulus Constructions Pty Ltd

Q007/2014

Electrician – Panel

Gary Welsh Electrical and/or

 

 

Trisleys Electrical Pty Ltd

 

 

Whatalec Electrical & Communication

Q008/2014

Painter

One Plus Two Painting & Decorating

Q009/2014

Plumber - Panel

Hightide Plumbing

Q010/2014

Welding Services - Panel

Sable Engineering & Metaland P/Ltd

Q011/2014

Kerb & Gutter Construction

All Kerb Pty Limited

Q012/2014

Effluent Collection – Various

NIL – QUOTATIONS REQUIRED

Q013/2014

Tree Lopping/Chipping

Langham’s Tree Services

Q014/2014

Turf

NIL – QUOTATIONS REQUIRED

Q015/2014

Bridge Timbers -(Sawn & Girders)

Lumara Timber Sales Pty Ltd

 

Bridge Timbers - (Sawn)

Campbell Sawmills

 

Bridge Timbers - (Piles)

Leonard J Williams (Timber)

 

Bridge Timbers - (Piles)

Coffs Harbour Hardwoods (Trading) Pty Ltd

Q016/2014

Security Services

Strudwick Security Pty Ltd

Q017/2014

Essential Fire Safety Services

Douse Fire Protection

Q018/2014

Plant Maintenance NSW RFS Brigade Vehicles

Nambucca Exhaust & Brake Pty Ltd

Q019/2014

Provision of Pest Control Services

Amalgamated Pest Control

 

GENERAL TRIENNIAL MOWING CONTRACTS

1 OCTOBER 2014 – 30 SEPTEMBER 2017

 

NUMBER

DESCRIPTION

CONTRACTOR

Q020/2014

Boultons Crossing

Tidy Grounds

Q021/2014

Cemeteries

Valley Lawnmowing & Garden Services

Q022/2014

Eungai Creek

Tidy Grounds

Q023/2014

Eungai Rail

Tidy Grounds

Q024/2014

Princess Street Properties

Tidy Grounds

Q025/2014

Scotts Head

Tidy Grounds

Q026/2014

Taylors Arm

Valley Lawnmowing & Garden Services

Q027/2014

Unkya Reserve (Eungai)

Brett Moe Lawns

Q028/2014

Valla Beach

Tidy Grounds

Q029/2014

Fire Trails and Vacant Lots

Country Road Mowing

T030/2014

Mowing & Slashing Rural Sealed Roadsides

Australian Environmental Services P/Ltd

 

 

 

 

PLANT and TRUCK (DRY) HIRE 2015/2016

 

MACHINE TYPE

Contractor

BACKHOE

Mid North Coast Contractor Pty Ltd

CRANE

Coffs City Cranes and Rigging

EXCAVATOR

Mid North Coast Contractor Pty Ltd

Sharpe Bros.

Kennards Hire

Ezyquip Hire

GRADER

Ezyquip Hire

LOADER

Nil

LOW LOADER

Nil

ROAD BROOM

Nil

ROLLER – RUBBER TYRED

Rollers Aust

Ezyquip Hire

ROLLER – VIB PADFOOT/SMOOTH DRUM

Rollers Aust

Kennards Hire

Ezyquip Hire

J&J Bilson

SKIDSTEER LOADER

Kennards Hire

SLASHER/TRACTOR

Rollers Aust

STREET SWEEPER

NIL

OTHER – Skid Steer with Broom Sweeper Bucket

Schmik Excavations

OTHER – PROFILER, STABLISER, SURFACE MINER, FLEXIPAVER, SHOULDER PAVER

Sharpe Bros

OTHER – CRIBB ROOM, ABULTIONS

Rollers Aust

OTHER - STABLISER

Sharpe Bros

WATER CARTER

Rollers Aust

TRUCK / MISC / TRUCK & TRAILER

DT & KB GRAY

Mid North Coast Contractor Pty Ltd

Schmik Excavations

Sharpe Bros

Porter Plant

Contractors with Schedules of Plant

Coates Hire, Conplant, EA Negri, Kennards, Regional Plant Hire, Sherrin Rollers, Tutt Bryant Hire, Universal Mobile Tower Hire.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLANT and TRUCK (WET) HIRE 2015/2016

 

MACHINE TYPE

Contractor

BACKHOE

Barry Hezlett

Mid North Coast Contractor Pty Ltd

Ditchfield Contracting

Fortade Earth Moving

CRANE

Coffs City Cranes and Rigging

Nambucca Valley Equipment

EXCAVATOR

Mid North Coast Contractor Pty Ltd

North pipe Constructions

Fortade Earth Moving

Blanch Earthmoving Pty Ltd

Barry Hezlett

Kerr Earthworks and Road Constructions

Blue Dog Earth Moving

Sharpe Bros

Ezyquip Hire

Archie Turners Excavations

Dutchfield Contracting

GRADER

Ezyquip Hire

Barry Hezlett

Hawke Earthmoving

Kerr Earthworks and Road Constructions

Fortade Earth Moving

Dutchfield Contracting

LOADER

Hawke Earthmoving

Howle Earthmoving

Ditchfield Contracting

LOW LOADER

Howle Earthmoving

Hawke Earthmoving

Fortade Earth Moving

ROAD BROOM

Nil

ROLLER – RUBBER TYRED

Nil

ROLLER – VIB PADFOOT/SMOOTH DRUM

Kerr Earthworks and Road Constructions

North pipe Constructions

J&J Bilson

SKIDSTEER LOADER

North pipe Constructions

Fortade Earth Moving

Blue Dog Earth Moving

Sharpe Bros

SLASHER/TRACTOR

Blue Dog Earth Moving

Bucca Ck Pastoral Co

STREET SWEEPER

NIL

OTHER – PROFILER, STABLISER, SURFACE MINER, FLEXIPAVER, SHOULDER PAVER, SCAPER

Ellis Consolidated

Ezyqip Hire

Northpipe construction

Stabilised Pavement Aust

OTHER - CHERRY PICKERS - TOWERS

Universal Mobile Towers

TRUCK / MISC / TRUCK & TRAILER

DT & KB GRAY

Mid North Coast Contractor Pty Ltd

Schmik Excavations

Sharpe Bros

Porter Plant

BJL Water Deliveries

Fortade Earth Moving

North pipe Constructions

Kerr Earthworks and Road Constructions

Howle Earthmoving

Wayne Noble

Archie Turner Excavations

Luke Pell Towing

Nambucca Valley Equipment

JP Cranes – Coffs City Cranes & Rigging

Contractors with Schedules of Plant

Ditchfield

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Nil – This report is information

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Nil – This report is information

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Nil – This report is information

 

 

Attachments:

1

2111/2016 - Contracts Register - June 2015

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 January 2016

Nambucca Shire Council Contract Register

 







 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                28 January 2016

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 12.1    SF453              280116         Waste Management Quarterly Report October - December 2015

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Simon Chapman, Civic Services Coordinator         

 

Summary:

 

A report be presented to Council on a quarterly basis for the status of waste management issues for the Nambucca Shire.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council approve the proposed trial of the changes to the kerbside bulky goods collection with the introduction of a voucher system from 4 July 2016.

 

2        That Coffs Coast Waste Services and Council undertake extensive marketing on the change to the bulky goods collection arrangements, including providing information with the rates notices to be mailed out in July 2016.

 

3        That Council receive and note the information provided in the Waste Management Quarterly Report for the period 1 October – 31 December 2015.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1        For information only

2        Approve the proposed trial of the changes to the kerbside bulky goods collection

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

CCWS Bulky Goods Collection Services

 

As a result of increased illegal dumping, unsightly nature and the potential health and safety risks associated with the scheduled kerbside bulky goods collection service, Council has an opportunity commencing 4 July 2016 to move away from the scheduled collection service and trial the use of a voucher system.

 

The voucher system would be administered under Coffs Coast Waste Services (CCWS) and rolled out to all property owners throughout the Shire being town and rural residents making it a much fairer and equitable system for all. It is proposed that each property will receive two (2) tipping vouchers per calendar year. Each voucher will define conditions of use being maximum 3 cubic meters (6x4 trailer load) per voucher, disposal at the Nambucca Waste Management Facility 711 Old Coast Road Nambucca Heads, all disposal items must be separated i.e. domestic waste, recycling, green waste, building demolition, scrap metals and hazardous materials.

 

If Council endorses the proposed trial of the voucher system, the last kerb side pick will be this May/June as the properties located on the kerbside waste collection route have been notified of the following scheduled bulky goods collection dates in the 2016 education mail out:

 

•        Week Starting        30 May 2016  - Area 17

•        Week Starting          6 June 2016 - Area 18

•        Week Starting        13 June 2016 - Area 19

•        Week Starting        20 June 2016 - Area 20

•        Week Starting        27 June 2016 - Area 21

 

Therefore the proposal is to complete the previously committed services to these areas, and then commence the voucher system from Monday 4 July 2016.  All residents whether owner or renter of a property would then be eligible to phone the CCWS Hotline 1800 265 495 and request one voucher for the remaining six months of 2016. After 1 January 2017, the resident of the property could then request a further two (2) vouchers through the Call Centre for the 2017 calendar year. The Vouchers will be recorded against the property address to ensure that only a maximum of two vouchers are issued.

 

It is not proposed to mail the vouchers to the property owner as the property may be rented premise and the occupant may not receive the voucher from the property manager or owner.

 

The proposed changes to the collection will require extensive marketing on the change to the bulky goods collection arrangements by both Coffs Coast Waste Services and Council, including providing information with the rates notices that will be mailed out in July 2016.

 

CCWS Kerbside Waste Collection Services

 

Kerbside collections for the last quarter being 1 October to 31 December 2015 across the Coffs Coast region indicated the hotline received a total of 3046 calls during the period for the whole regional area.

 

Nambucca Shire had a total of 8201 properties receiving a waste collection service, 15 new services were implemented with repairs/damaged or stolen bins totalling 26. A total of 2,355.78 tonnes of kerbside and transfer station materials were collected and transported for reprocessing at the Coffs Coast Resource Recovery Park from the Nambucca Shire.

 

Kerbside bulky goods collections were undertaken throughout the Nambucca Shire during the quarter with 257.70 tonnes of material being collected and disposed of to landfill.

 

The table below reflects Nambucca Shire’s waste streams and tonnages over the last quarter:

 

Waste Stream

Source

Tonnes

Destination

Co-mingled recycling

Kerbside

519.76

CCWS Recycling Facility

Green waste organics

Kerbside

793.38

CCWS Biomass Facility

Mixed waste

Kerbside

863.86

CCWS Biomass Facility

Bulky goods

Kerbside

257.70

Nambucca Landfill

Reject & residual

Kerbside

326.65

Coffs Harbour Landfill

Co-mingled recycling

Transfer station

81.16

 CCWS Recycling Facility

Green waste organics

Transfer station

50.54

 CCWS Biomass Facility

Mixed waste

Transfer station

47.08

CCWS Biomass Facility

Batteries

Transfer station

3.52

Matthews Metal Management

Scrap metal

Transfer station

134.34

Matthews Metal Management

Motor oil (lts)

Transfer station

3100

Australian Waste Oil

Chemical containers (farm drums)

Transfer station

0

Drum Muster

Concrete & masonry

Transfer station

356.08

Reprocessing at Nambucca Landfill

E-waste

Transfer station

0

Matthews Metal Management

Asbestos

Landfill

5.56

Nambucca Landfill

Biosolids (grit)

Landfill

14.16

Nambucca Landfill

Building demolition

Landfill

994.30

Nambucca Landfill

Clean fill

Landfill

21.26

Nambucca Landfill (daily cover)

Commercial domestic waste

Landfill

0

CCWS Biomass Facility

Commercial building waste

Landfill

297.68

Nambucca Landfill

Charity groups

Landfill

19.74

Nambucca Landfill

Dead animals (small)

Landfill

0.28

Nambucca Landfill

 

The table below reflects the successful charities that applied under Councils Donations Policy and the disposal tonnages from each organisation for the last quarter.

 

Charitable Organisation

Source

Tonnes

Destination

Anglican Op Shop Nambucca

Self Hauled

6.80

Nambucca Landfill

Anglican Parish Macksville

Self Hauled

1.28

Nambucca Landfill

Camp Quality

Self Hauled

1.18

Nambucca Landfill

Care “n” Ware

Self Hauled

2.82

Nambucca Landfill

Nambucca Valley Phoenix

Self Hauled

0.00

Nambucca Landfill

Nambucca Heads Men’s Shed

Self Hauled

0.00

Nambucca Landfill

St Vincent De Paul

Self Hauled

0.00

Nambucca Landfill

Salvation Army

Self Hauled

8.84

Nambucca Landfill

 

Total

20.92

 

 

The kerbside contamination program continued throughout the quarter with some properties in the following areas identified in the table below having contamination warnings issued:

 

Date

Address

Suburb

Bin

Offence No

Comment

01/10/2015

Barrie Street

Macksville

Organics

1st

Contaminated

05/10/2015

Nambucca Street

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

05/10/2015

McDonald Drive

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

05/10/2015

Nelson Street

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

12/10/2015

Seaview Street

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

12/10/2015

Centenary Pde

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

12/10/2015

Foreshore Close

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

15/10/2015

Gumma Road

Macksville

Recycling

1st

Contaminated

19/10/2015

Alexander Drive

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

22/10/2015

Preston Drive

Macksville

Organics

1st

Contaminated

22/10/2015

Tilly Willy Street

Macksville

Organics

1st

Contaminated

26/10/2015

Jacaranda Ave

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

26/10/2015

John Street

Scotts

Organics

1st

Contaminated

26/10/2015

Bellwood Drive

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

27/10/2015

Meadow Cres

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

29/10/2015

Graham Close

Macksville

Organics

1st

Contaminated

02/11/2015

Marshall Way

Nambucca

Organics

 1st

Contaminated

04/11/2015

Bellevue Drive

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

06/11/2015

Tuna Street

Valla Beach

Organics

 1st

Contaminated

06/11/2015

Hibiscus Drive

Valla Beach

Organics

1st

Contaminated

09/11/2015

Riverside Drive

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

09/11/2015

Bismark Street

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

09/11/2015

Riverside Drive

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

10/11/2015

Julie Ann Court

Hyland Park

Organics

1st

Contaminated

10/11/2015

Meadow Cres

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

11/11/2015

Nambucca Street

Macksville

Organics

1st

Contaminated

17/11/2015

Loftus Lane

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

23/11/2015

Royal Tar Crescent

Nambucca

Recycling

1st

Contaminated

23/11/2015

Marshall Way

Nambucca

Recycling

1st

Contaminated

23/11/2015

Alfred Close

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

23/11/2015

Ridge Street

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

24/11/2015

Mann Street

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

24/11/2015

Newman Street

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

24/11/2015

Charlton Street

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

24/11/2015

Bellinger Street

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

01/12/2015

Mann Street

Nambucca

Organics

2nd

Contaminated

03/12/2015

Wall Street

Macksville

Organics

2nd

Contaminated

04/12/2015

William Street

Bowraville

Organics

1st

Contaminated

07/12/2015

Marshall Way

Nambucca

Recycling

2nd

Contaminated

08/12/2015

Raleigh Street

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

08/12/2015

Brahminy Street

Nambucca

Organics

2nd

Contaminated

10/12/2015

Sturdee Street

Macksville

Yellow

1st

Contaminated

21/12/2015

Egan Street

Nambucca

Organics

1st

Contaminated

10/12/2015

Old Coast Road

Macksville

Organics

2nd

Contaminated

15/12/2015

Mann Street

Nambucca

Yellow

1st

Contaminated

17/12/2015

Frank Street

Macksville

Organics

1st

Contaminated

25/12/2015

Bowra Street

Nambucca

Organics

2nd

Contaminated

28/12/2015

Bismark Street

Nambucca

Organics

2nd

Contaminated

31/12/2015

East Street

Macksville

Organics

1st

Contaminated

31/12/2015

Sharwill Drive

Valla

Recycling

1st

Contaminated

 

CCWS Materials Recovery Facility

 

The table below reflects the Coffs Coast regional recycling tonnages processed through the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) during the quarter at Coffs Coast Resource Recovery Park. Contamination levels range seasonally between 4% and 9% with ongoing current markets for recovered glass fines still developing:

 

Tonnes Processed

Usable Product

Total Waste

Glass Waste

Days of Operation

4721.34

4338.46

382.88

63.76

68

 

CCWS Educational Activities

 

The tables below reflect the Coffs Coast Waste Services educational activities carried out during the last quarter:

 

Education

 

Month

School or Group

No’s Attending

October 2015

Nil

Nil

November 2015

Corindi Public School

60

December 2015

Kylie Ford Family Day Care

5

 

Media Releases

 

Month

Articles

Method

October 2015

2

Newspaper

November 2015

8

Newspaper

December 2015

3

Newspaper

 

Website

 

Month

Visits

Social Media

October 2015

1886

508 likes

November 2015

1020

509 likes

December 2015

1001

513likes

 

NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy

 

The NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy (WARR) was developed by State Government to provide direction for local councils to reduce waste generated, optimise the recovery of usable resources from waste and manage the disposal of residual waste in an environmentally responsible way in the following waste streams:

 

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) – the solid component of the waste stream arising from household waste placed at the kerbside for Council collection and waste collected by Council from municipal parks and gardens, street sweepings, Council engineering works and public Council bins.

 

Commercial and Industrial Waste (C&I) – Inert, solid or industrial generated by business and industries (shopping centres, restaurants, office warehousing, manufacturing, repair workshops retail outlets, hotels and clubs) along with institutions (schools, hospitals, universities, nursing homes and government offices).

 

Construction and Demolition (C&D) – materials in the waste stream which arise from construction, refurbishment, demolition and excavation activities.

 

The table below identifies the updated NSW 2013-21 targets set for each of the waste streams identified above and the status of Nambucca’s compliance during the last quarter:

 

Waste Stream

NSW Target

Landfilled

Tonnes

Diverted

Tonnes

Diversion

%

Municipal (MSW)

70% recovery by 2022

598.51

2314.86

79.5

Commercial  Industrial (C&I)

70% recovery by 2022

745.26

178.78

19.5

Construction Demolition (C&D)

80% recovery by 2022

999.86

377.34

27

 

Community Recycling Facility (CRC)

 

NSW Environmental Trust approved a grant for the construction of a Community Recycling Centre for Nambucca Shire under the Improved Systems for Household Problem Wastes – Community Recycling Centre (drop offs) Grants program.

 

The Environmental Trust’s goal of the program is to assist communities to look after their own neighbourhoods and environments through the establishment of a network of Community Recycling Centres to make it easier for people to recycle and remove problem wastes from their households.

 

Nambucca Councils CRC facility is located at the Nambucca Waste Management Facility and was commissioned on 1 July 2015. The table below identifies the household problem wastes that are now acceptable at the centre:  

 

Problem Waste Streams

Source

Kgs

Destination

Acid

CRC drop Off

23

Tox Free

Alkali

CRC drop Off

24

Tox Free

Batteries (nicad)

CRC drop Off

39

Tox Free

Fluorescent Tubes

CRC drop Off

55

Tox Free

Gas Cylinder (propane)

CRC drop Off

577

Tox Free

Gas Cylinder (other)

CRC drop Off

0

Tox Free

Hydrocarbon / Fuel

CRC drop Off

60

Tox Free

Smoke Detector

CRC drop Off

2

Tox Free

Paint (water based)

CRC drop Off

939

Tox Free

Paint (oil based)

CRC drop Off

690

Tox Free

Toxics

CRC drop Off

53

Tox Free

 

Along with existing contracts in place, Tox Free has been engaged by the NSW EPA as its preferred collection contractor for the collection and processing of household problem wastes presented at the facility.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Handybin Waste Services

Tox Free

Matthews Metal Management

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

 

Environment:

 

All kerbside waste materials are collected and reprocessed through the materials recycling facility and the biomass plant with only the reject and residual materials being landfilled. Self hauled wastes are sourced separated and recycled or landfilled accordingly.

 


Social:

 

Potential increased costs.

 

Economic:

 

Potential increases in the domestic waste management charge and landfill gate fees.

 

Risk:

 

No identifiable risks.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets:

 

Potential increases in the garbage service and landfill gate fees per year.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds:

 

Additional income will need to be sourced from the annual domestic waste management charge.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications:

 

No identifiable changes or implications at this point.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                28 January 2016

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 12.2    SF84                280116         NSW Rural Fire Service Proposed 2016/17 Budget 'Bid'

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The NSW Rural Fire Service (NSW RFS) Zone Manager for the Lower North Coast Zone has been invited to address Council at the Council meeting scheduled on 28 January 2016 to present the NSW RFS draft “BID” for 2016/17.

                                                             

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council receive a presentation from the NSW Rural Fire Service Zone Manager for the Lower North Coast Zone on the proposed 2016/17 NSW Rural Fire Service “BID”, plant replacement and capital works for buildings and amenities.

 

2        That Council thank Mr Ison for his presentation.

 

3        That Council receive a further report at the 11 February 2016 Council meeting to formally endorse the 2016/17 NSW Rural Fire Service “BID”.

 

4        That Council amend the 2015/16 RFS budget to reflect the increase of $41,039.00 in the RFS contribution above that resolved by Council on 12 February 2015 and adopted budget for 2015/16.

 

5        That Council write to the Commissioner for the NSW Rural Fire Service, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and the Deputy Premier, The Hon Andrew Stoner MP advising of Council’s disgust and dismay with the increase of $41,039.00 for the 2015/16 RFS contribution, when every endeavour has been made by Council to become financial sub sustainable with the Fit for the Future the Local Government reforms and imposition of rate pegging.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1        Accept the proposed “BID” as presented being a 12.2% increase on the present budget

2        Accept the draft “BID” indexed as per the rate pegging levy and amend the “BID”.

3        Council determine a compromise on the “BID” above/below the rate pegging levy within the affordability of Council and seek a revised “BID”.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The NSW RFS Zone Manager for the Lower North Coast Zone has been invited to address Council at the Council meeting scheduled on 28 January 2016 to present the NSW RFS draft “BID” for 2016/17.  Following Council’s deliberation on the “BID” it is then proposed to present a further report to Council at the meeting scheduled for 11 February 2016 to formally endorse the 2016/17 NSW RFS “BID”. 

 

The NSW RFS Liaison Committee has been presented with the draft for 2016/17 “BID” for consideration in advance of Council receiving the “BID”.  The Liaison Committee advised the Zone Manager that the RFS BID is to be indexed as per the rate pegging levy placed on Local Government and the proposed NSW RFS bid should reflect a similar index. The Zone Manager advised the Committee that PART B being the State Government component was based on the previous year and subject to change. The BID being presented to Council reflects a 12.2% increase.

 


The NSW RFS budget attached comprises of two sections:

 

·      PART A     The regional operational costs for the Lower North Coast Zone for Nambucca Shire 

·      PART B     The operational state costs for the NSW RFS

 

Council are required to contribute 11.7% of the total budget.

 

YEAR ALLOCATION

PART A

PART B

TOTAL

11.7% Council Contribution of TOTAL A & B

2009/10

$    529,558.00

$    830,754.00

$ 1,368,312.00

$ 160,092.50

2010/11

$    927,303.00

$ 1,004,482.00

$ 1,931,085.00

$ 225,936.95

2011/12

$ 1,071,139.00

$ 1,164,555.26

$ 2,235,946.10

$ 261,605.69

2012/13

$    940,674.00

$ 1,199,357.00

$ 2,140,034.00

$ 250,840.00

2013/14

$    963,274.00

$ 1,029,250.00

$ 1,992,524.00

$ 233,125.30

2014/15

$    889,485.00

$    911,348.00

$ 1,800,833.00

$ 210,697.46

2015/16 adopted bid by Council (resolution 679/15)

 

 

 

$ 220,200.00

2015/16 - BUDGET figures supplied by RFS Commissioner 25 November 2015 and increase of $41,039.00 or 18.6%

$ 1 282,024.00

$ 1,180.830.00

$ 2,233 854.00

$ 261,259.00

DRAFT BID 2016/17 being present for  Council consideration

$1,288,704.00

$1,216,255.00

$2,504,959.00

$ 293,080.00

 

Council at its meeting on 12 February 2015 resolved to:

 

“endorse Option 4 being an allocation outside the realms of rate pegging levy imposed by the State Government for the Rural Fire Service “BID” for 2015/16 financial year being an amount of $220,220.00 - a net increase of 4.5% from the 2014/15 budget”

 

Clearly Council’s financial position and stance with respect to the RFS was not considered by the State Government in their correspondence received on 25 November 2015 advising that the 2015/16 RFS budget contribution for Council is $261,259.00 (TRIM 38221/2015) an increase of $41,039.00 or 18.6%

 


Below is an extract from the Commissioner’s letter advising that:

 

 

Council also resolved to request that the Zone Manager provide a proposed plant replacement program and a capital works for buildings and amenities.  These are attached in this report and will be expanded upon by Mr Ison at the Council meeting.

 

The proposed 2016/17 “BID” has increases are;

 

·      Additional station costs associated with WHS audits

·      Introduction of 24/7 fire permit notification system

·      Increased local media

·      New Personal Protective Clothing (PPC)

 

The proposed plant replacement within the 2016/17 “BID” encompasses:

 

·      Replacement for Valla 1 via Talarm 1 (1995)

·      Replacement for North Arm 9 (1995)

·      1 replacement vehicle scheduled for 2016/17

 

Note: The draft BID for 2016/17 includes an estimate only of the state program charges as these are outside the control of the NSW RFS Zone Manager for the Lower North Coast Zone.  Past history would indicate that the state will increase their component.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

NSW RFS

NSW RFS Liaison Committee

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 


Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

The economic implications associated with the ability of Council to fund NSW RFS contribution increases are offset against the reduction of Council services to Nambucca Valley communities to compensate for the increase.

 

Risk

 

There is the risk of an increase on the draft “BID” once it leaves the regional office and forwarded to the state. In the event that the budget is over expended by the NSW RFS, Council will be required to pay for the over expenditure.

 

This draft “BID” will include proposed plant replacement.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The 2016/17 budget incorporated the NSW RFS contribution based on advice of the NSW RFS Area Zone Manager for the Lower North Coast Zone and Council in February 2015 and council endorsed Option 4 being an allocation outside the realms of rate pegging levy imposed by the State Government for the Rural Fire Service “BID” for 2015/16 financial year being an amount of $220,220.00 - a net increase of 4.5% from the 2014/15 budget” Council noted the draft “BID” once it leaves the regional office and forwarded to the state may increase as has consistently occurred in previous years

 

There now a direct impact on the 2015/16 budget with an increase of $41,039.00 on the draft “BID” once it leaves the regional office and forwarded to the state as has consistently occurred in previous years.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

A variation of $41,039.00 to working funds for this financial year is required,

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

An increase in the NSW RFS contribution will have an effect on the budget and other Council infrastructure when determining the budget.

 

 

Attachments:

1

2199/2016 - NSW RFS 2016-17 V3 Budget

 

2

2223/2016 - Proposed NSW RFS 2016/2017 BID Stations Nambucca

 

3

2202/2016 - Eungai Station Internal Photograph

 

4

2200/2016 - Eungai Station External Photograph

 

5

2269/2016 - Proposed NSW RFS 2016-2017 Bid Plant Nambucca - Report Attachment

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 January 2016

NSW Rural Fire Service Proposed 2016/17 Budget 'Bid'

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 January 2016

NSW Rural Fire Service Proposed 2016/17 Budget 'Bid'

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 January 2016

NSW Rural Fire Service Proposed 2016/17 Budget 'Bid'

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 January 2016

NSW Rural Fire Service Proposed 2016/17 Budget 'Bid'

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 January 2016

NSW Rural Fire Service Proposed 2016/17 Budget 'Bid'

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                28 January 2016

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 12.3    SF2071            280116         World Rally maintenance costs

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Clint Fitzsummons, Manager Assets         

 

Summary:

 

Council resolved to receive a report from the Engineering Department regarding the damage to roads and roadside furniture following the 2015 World Rally.

 

The affected roads used as the rally route were inspected by Council staff in conjunction with a rally representative following the World Rally Championship Round within the Nambucca Shire. A schedule of maintenance works have been identified which are attributed to the rally above that of a normal maintenance grading undertaken by Council’s routine maintenance.

 

The works identified include the replacement of a number of guide posts that were damaged or knocked out from the rally vehicles and the replacement of gravel pavement loosened and shifted from the road pavement onto the road shoulders and table drains which is outside of routine maintenance grading.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council invoice Rally Australia the amount of $ 11,755.50 in compensation for damage that has occurred to Council roads and infrastructure as a direct consequence of holding the World Rally event within the Nambucca Shire Area.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council could choose to absorb the cost of the damage within Council’s current budget, in recognition of the increased spend and publicity received during the Rally event.

 

Council raise an invoice for the cost of the additional work required outside of the routine maintenance grading.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The following items were identified in a post event inspection, undertaken by Council’s Technical Assistant – Assets:

 

Road Name

Description

Lower Buckrabendinni Road

Pot hole formed

Rutted

North Arm Road

Rutted

Graces Road

Gravel chopped up

Rough

Dyers Loop Road

Rough

Taylors Arm Road

Rutted badly (last section between bridge and Boat Harbour Road)

Some lost gravel

Bakers Creek Road

Gravel on sealed section

Intersection with Greenhills Road requires work

Greenhills Road

Rutted

North Bank Road

The western end is rutted

Sections of road have no gravel

Rhone Creek Road

Rutted from intersection Congarinni Road North to top of hill

Gravel on sealed section

William Hills Road

All inside corners cut.

 

As per past rally events, Council were requested to hold off on the routine maintenance grading on the roads identified for the rally route. The maintenance works required on the rally routes is a higher level of service above that of Council’s normal routine maintenance grading, requiring additional grader work to reform the pavement with the gravel from the shoulder and table drains as well as the replacement of a large number of guide posts outside of normal routine maintenance.

 

The estimated cost impact to council as a result of the rally is shown below:

 

Cost Guide posts                         $   3,055.50

Cost of additional grading            $   8,700.00

TOTAL                                         $ 11,755.50 (exc. GST)

 

If council absorbs the cost of repairs, the amount equates to approximately 9.4km of maintenance grading, as the works would be charged against the maintenance budget.

 

A debriefing meeting was held between Council Staff, Councillors and Senior Representatives of World Rally Australia 9 December 2015. The meeting concentrated on the positives and the negatives of the 2015 event, and included discussions on the incidents that occurred on the reconnaissance days.

 

The Representatives from World Rally Australia acknowledged the occurrences of vehicle accidents on the route reconnaissance days undertaken by the drivers prior to the race event and advised that the drivers were monitored via a GPS system which showed that they were travelling at a pace within the speed limit on the roads (under 100km/h), however they did not elaborate whether any compensation was made to the other parties affected or the extent of damages.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services

General Manager

Manager Infrastructure Services

Roads Coordinator

Technical Assistant – Assets

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

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

 

Social

 

A perceived impact on residents’ rural lifestyle creates a negative image of the Rally to the Community. Compensation for damage occurred, may improve this negative image.

 

Economic

 

There is additional maintenance expense required by Nambucca Shire Council as a result of holding the event within the Nambucca Shire. The event brings increased spend within the community, during and after the event. The world-wide exposure increases tourism over a longer period.

 

Risk

 

Increasing costs may make the Rally unviable or prompt a move to a new location.

 

 


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The added maintenance burden impacts on current unsealed maintenance budgets. Future budgets may need to be adjusted to incorporate rally costs if compensation is not sort.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Maintenance grading is funded from unsealed road maintenance. Recovery of funds will allow for other maintenance activities to occur that may otherwise need to be deferred until the next financial year.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

Nil changes to service level and resourcing

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                28 January 2016

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 12.4    SF444              280116         Roadside Vegetation Management

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Matthew Leibrandt, Manager Infrastructure Services         

 

Summary:

 

The report discusses the recent innovations implemented to improve the condition of the Nambucca Shire Council rural road network and offers a way forward and attempts to find a refined and balanced approach that maximises the benefit to the community and minimises the negatives associated with this approach.

 

An onsite inspection of the works on McHughes Creek Road has been organised for Councillors on Thursday 28 January 2016 prior to the Council meeting.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council receive and note the information.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Receive and note the report and make due comment after on site inspection.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Comment from AGMES

 

Council adopted the recommendations within the report “time for change” for the organisation restructure within Infrastructure Services in April 2015. The restructure resulted in a number of positions being made redundant and recruitment of new, trained and motivated staff to backfill a number of positions.  The recruitment of staff has almost been completed with only the concrete labourer and Team Leader in the Green Spaces team to be filled.

 

Work has begun on changing a number of work practices, within the financial constraints of council. The majority of plant has been procured emanating from the report, in particular and one of the most productive purchased being the water tanker and the self propelled smooth drum roller, which has seen remarkable changes to the maintenance grading program and significant compliments from rural residents

 

The restructure is now moving towards the next phase to further enhance the work practices with the implantation of best practice principles developed by ARRB (Australian Road and Research Board) using the following manuals:

 

·    Sealed Local Roads Manual – Guidelines to good practice: design: construction; maintenance; and rehabilitation of pavements

·    Unsealed Roads Manual – Guidelines to good practice

 

Council has received a number of emails from a resident on McHughes Creek road complaining about the extent of works undertaken by council on the management of the road verges and criticising staff on the maintenance management practices being used, in particular those relating to the vegetation management along the road verge.

 

The Manager Infrastructure has prepared some background information on the works and a site inspection has been organised for Councillors to see firsthand the extent of the works with photos of the road prior and after the works.

 

This report advises on past, present and future vegetation maintenance of verges within Council’s rural road network.

 

Council staff have been implementing a series of improvements to procedures across its operations with the intent of improving safety and efficiency when undertaking construction and maintenance activities.  Improving work practices across a diverse organisation takes time and often requires continuous assessment with gradual improvements implemented along the way. Some successes to date have been in the area of bridge construction, green space maintenance and unsealed road maintenance.

 

In the area of bridge construction we have implemented the use of safety netting under work areas, incorporating the utilisation of elevating work platforms, changed the allocated plant and equipment to improve flexibility and we have moved materials to site in bulk. These improvements have seen significant savings on a number of projects and improved safety for staff.

 

In the area of unsealed road maintenance we have built up the crews plant with the addition of a roller and water cart to complement the grader. We are performing heavy grading and patch gravelling where required and are currently working on sourcing appropriate gravel material.

 

In the area of Green Space maintenance we are planting out areas in public spaces that were previously maintained by hand and had site access issues.  We have also been utilising a wheeled 12T excavator with a mulching head to perform roadside vegetation maintenance activities for the past nine months.

 

Recently, due to continued complaints from a resident in McHughes Creek Road the continued use of this practice has been questioned.

 

When

 

Council started this method of roadside vegetation maintenance work in May 2015.  Our records indicate that we have completed work on approximately 105km of road across 21 roads. Council staff have received four complaints regarding this type of work. Three of these complaints related to a disagreement regarding the extent of works that were required and the reduction in amenity and environment of the road reserve. The other complaint was in relation to using machinery adjacent to livestock without written notification. Three of the four complaints emanated from McHughes Creek Road. Two of the four resident complaints were resolved with those residents satisfied with the outcome.  Works started in McHughes Creek Road in early January 2015

 

Why

 

Using this methodology not only maintains the vegetation reached in previous cycles by a tractor reach mower combination, but also maintains vegetation growing above the road below the vehicle envelope of approximately 5m - 5.5m, generally within the outer edge of each table drain. The strategy behind this work is to improve the road in the following ways:

 

1    Allow trucks, plant and equipment to utilise the road without being damaged by protruding vegetation;

 

2    Make it easier for our crews to undertake the rehabilitation works by improving access;

 

3    Improves sight distance for road users;

 

4    Reduces after hours call outs to deal with fallen trees and debris;

 

5    Avoids the high cost of removal of damaged and diseased trees in the future;

 

6    This process also opens up the road to allow sunlight and airflow to improve the roads ability to dry out wet areas; and

 

7    Works undertaken to overhanging vegetation are expected to be effective for 5 - 6 years.

 

Previously we have utilised a tractor with a reach mower attachment that reaches from 1.5m to 3m into the verge. This methodology maintained grasses and woody weeds, but for some time vegetation growing across the road within the clear zone were rarely attended to. When they were attended to, it was either done by hand, utilising a pole saw, or with the bucket of an excavator. These methodologies were either awkward or high risk with regard to hand work and destructive and potentially detrimental to the health of the tree when performed by the excavator bucket.

 

How

 

Procedure for works:

 

1    Roads Coordinator advises Green Space Coordinator of upcoming works.

2    A road inspection is undertaken by the Green Space Coordinator (driven).

3    Herbicide treatment is applied to table drains approximately 2 - 3 weeks before the grader crew is due to arrive.

4    Mulching work undertaken by Contractors to the degree advised by The Green Space Coordinator.

5    The unsealed road maintenance crew undertake maintenance grading and gravelling works as required.

 

We have targeted grasses and woody weeds, Wattles growing in embankments, self-seeded gums, and low branches and vegetation protruding across the road.  This methodology has remained unchanged since May 2015 with the exception of dealing with the vegetation protruding across the road.  Generally the branches targeted are those within the outer edge of each table drain and below 5.5m from ground level.  The machine undertaking the work has a vertical reach of approximately 6m.

 

We have used two methodologies, in the beginning we utilised a technique that completely mulched the targeted branches working from the outer end of the branch to the trunk. This methodology had the benefit of not leaving behind larger vegetative material to be placed in the verge and was better for the tree, faster and safer than previous practices.

 

As we progressed with the program, we started utilising a methodology on larger branches where we cut the branch near the trunk, mulched the lighter vegetation on the branch but left the thicker part of the branch on the verge.

 

The benefits of this methodology when compared to the methodology we began the program with is that it is faster and therefore cheaper, and it leaves varied habitat behind. Some issues with this methodology are that the material left behind can detract from the visual amenity of a road, if placed in an unsuitable location it has the potential to block drains or roll on to private property.

 

Issues to solve

 

The flowing issues have been caused by the execution of these works and require finding solutions with varying degrees of difficulty.

 

1   Temporary Loss Amenity (4-6 weeks)

2   Drainage blockages caused by mulched material,

3   Degree of manual handling to remove problem material,

4   Herbicide spraying adjacent to organic properties.

5   Rural property owners have cleared their private land and use the road reserve as a vegetated buffer to reduce, noise, dust and the potential for overspray.

6   Changing widths of road verges. Some sections are narrow and there is little to no room to leave material onsite.

The following additional issues were experienced at McHughes Creek Road but have the potential to happen at other locations:

 

Due to unexpected illness in the maintenance grading crew and the unavailability of replacement staff, some of the hand clearing work usually performed was unable to be undertaken. This material was left onsite until after an upcoming site meeting to show Councillors the actual site conditions before dropped material was dealt with. It’s planned that the appearance of the road verge with material placed in awkward places or hanging on fences would be removed either while the mulching crew is onsite or by the labourer working within the unsealed maintenance grading crew.

 

Solutions

 

The amenity of the vegetation post mulching improves with time. After 4-6 weeks the ascetic improves greatly and many people wouldn’t realise what works were done. The only indication of the extent of works carried out are the obvious improvements to access, sight distance and other areas highlighted in this report and can last for 5 - 6 years with minimal maintenance inputs.

 

If we can find the right balance between the full mulching of branches and partial mulching of branches we will start to see even better outcomes. We can partially mulch branches and place the remaining material within the verge where there is appropriate road width and grade. At locations where there isn’t enough space we can mulch the entirety of the branch leaving only mulch. This will reduce manual handling, and loss of amenity. Scheduling mulching activities ahead of maintenance grading and gravelling works will improve drainage outcomes by reducing the time that material may have an opportunity to block drains.

 

Controlled spraying in appropriate weather conditions will reduce the chance of overspray. The creation of a procedure, with appropriate stakeholder engagement, to deal with road reserve vegetation adjacent to organic properties will also improve outcomes.

 

What the industry is doing

 

We are gradually improving our processes to incorporate those found in the ARRB Unsealed Roads Manual and working with better quality and more efficient outcomes than those in place prior to the implementation of improvements in this area.

 

Generally, if we work towards meeting that goal it is expected that many of the concerns with our methodology raised during recent correspondence will be addressed over the next 12-18months as we continue to make improvements.

 

Some Council’s such as Kyogle have implemented a roadside vegetation management plan that sets standards in work practices and treatment methodologies in relation to environmental outcomes. A large proportion of the content of these reports is based on material found in the ARRB manual and includes information found during ecological surveys targeting the identification of threatened species. The cost of putting together such a plan includes approximately $20,000 to $25,000 for the report $10,000 to $50,000 for the survey work, depending on the scope and costs associated with training, the creation of a handbook and implementation costs.

 

To have a better understanding of how this issue is being handled across the industry, more time is needed to make the appropriate enquiries.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services

Green Space Coordinator

General Manager

 

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There is a perceived environmental impact from the initial works however this methodology leaves trees in a healthy state when only minor limbs have been mulched and removes regrowth from the understory but provides a mulch and habitat in the same area.

 

Social

 

There is a potential from residents to feel a loss of perceived amenity with the reduction of vegetation, however the road reserve returns to normal appearance within 4 to 6 weeks after the mulching activity.

 

Economic

 

There are economic implications to Council if works are not undertaken with potential claims to damage of vehicles from overhanging limbs and or accidents attributed to lack of sight distance.

 

Risk

 

There is a potential risk to the public if Council do not undertake vegetation control work for impairment for sight distance and damaged to vehicles from over hanging tree limbs.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no direct impact on the current budget as there is an allocation for vegetation control on rural roads for reach mowing and slashing.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There are no variations required.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

Level of service has the potential to be improved as practices are implemented.

 

Attachments:

1

2313/2016 - McHughes Creek Road photos

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 January 2016

Roadside Vegetation Management

 

 

MCHUGHES CREEK ROAD PHOTOGRAPHS - 2015

 

 

Protruding vegetation showing condition of road prior to mulching activities