NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

25 February 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 - 25 February 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.

 

 

TIME

DESCRIPTION

WHERE

3.45 pm

Depart Council Chamber

 

Item 9.8

Proposed Telecommunications Facility

Onsite at Gumma

At 4.00 pm

 

AGENDA                                                                                                   Page

 

1        APOLOGIES

2        PRAYER

3        DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4        CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES —

Ordinary Council Meeting - 11 February 2016......................................................................................... 7

5        NOTICES OF MOTION  

6        PUBLIC FORUM

7        ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

7.1               Notice of Motion - Request for Leave - Cr Morrison (SF1788)............................................ 16   

8        QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

9        General Manager Report

9.1               Outstanding Actions and Reports.................................................................................... 17

9.2               Proposed Placement of Low Powered FM Broadcasting Antenna at the Valla Beach Tennis Club 23

9.3               Council Representatives on Committees of Management - 2016........................................ 30

9.4               2016 Customer Satisfaction Survey................................................................................. 34

9.5     Approval to take a Dividend from the Surplus in the Water Fund....................................... 47

9.6     Kelli Leckie - Notice of Proposed Legal Action against Council and Crown Lands.............. 50

9.7     Public Waterfront Structure - Licence No 407880.............................................................. 54

9.8     Modification DA2012/011 Nambucca Gardens Estate
Lot 2 DP 1119830 Alexandra Drive Nambucca Heads....................................................... 56

9.9     Bellwood Local  Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Development Contribution Plan 2009 - withdrawal..................................................................................................................................... 64

9.10   Use of Public Reserve as Asset Protection Zone for Proposed Development.................... 66

9.11   Proposed Telecommunications Facility............................................................................ 96

9.12   Modification to Development Consent DA2014/198........................................................ 190

9.13   Dawkins Park Improvements - DEFERRED TO 17 MARCH 2016 MEETING...................... 295

9.14   Royal Far West Shared Community Teletrial................................................................... 302

9.15   Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months OR where submissions received - 4 February - 17 February 2016............................................................................................................................. 306

9.16   Review of Donations Policy.......................................................................................... 310

9.17   Result Of Exhibition For Dcp Service Centre 5 Boggy Creek Road Valla.......................... 316


10      Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

10.1   Nambucca Shire Council - Asset Management Audit Preparedness Assessment ............. 343

10.2   December 2015 Budget Review..................................................................................... 358

10.3   2015/16 Borrowing Program.......................................................................................... 362

10.4   Schedule of Council Public Meetings............................................................................. 391

10.5   Valla Beach Tennis Club Inc Committee of Management - Minutes of AGM 1 February 2016 392

10.6   Scotts Head Events Committee of Management AGM - 7 October 2015 - Minutes and Financial Statement..................................................................................................................... 399    

 

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

11.1   General Manager Total Remuneration Package for Contract commencing 1 April 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.

  

            a      Questions raised by Councillors at 8 above

 

          i         MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING

          ii        PUBLIC VERBAL REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL

          TO CLOSE

          iii       CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS

                   iv       DEAL WITH MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING

12      MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

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

 

 

 

 

 


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

          (name)

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Council’s Facsimile Number – (02) 6568 2201

 

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

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

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

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

Ordinary Council Meeting

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Council Meeting HELD ON 11 February 2016

The following document is the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held 11 February 2016.  These minutes are subject to confirmation as to their accuracy at the next meeting to be held on Thursday 25 February 2016 and therefore subject to change.  Please refer to the minutes of 25 February 2016 for confirmation.

 

 

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)

Paul Gallagher (AGM Engineering Services)

Monika Schuhmacher (Minute Secretary)

 

 

PRAYER

 

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

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

 

Councillor PF Flack declared a non-pecuniary significant conflict of interest in Item 10.2 Second Report on the Draft NSW Rural Fire Service 2016/17 BID under the Local Government Act as Cr Flack is a member of the North Arm RFS Brigade. Council’s decision may affect RFS proposed budget with regard to replacement of North Arm Brigade Cat 9 Vehicle. Cr Flack left the meeting for this item.

 

Councillor B Morrison declared a non-pecuniary less significant conflict of interest in Item 10.8 Adoption of Plan of Management for Duffo's Restawhile on Link Road Nambucca Heads under the Local Government Act as Cr Morrison is a member of the Lions Club of Nambucca Heads.  He holds no Executive position in the Club and is not involved in any decision making committees.

 

Councillor B Morrison declared a non-pecuniary less significant conflict of interest in Item 11.1 Outstanding Water Account under the Local Government Act as Cr Morrison is a member of the organisation.  He holds no Executive position and is not involved in any decision making.. 

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council Meeting 28 January 2016

 

58 /16 RESOLVED:         (Flack/South)

 

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of 28 January 2016 be confirmed.

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR ballangarry—late

 

ITEM 5.3      SF2183              110216      Notice of Motion – Request for Leave – Cr Ballangarry

59/16 Resolved: (Ballangarry/Flack)

 

That Cr Ballangarry OAM be granted leave from 18 to 27 February 2016 inclusive.

 

 

DELEGATIONS

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the following delegations be heard:

 

Item 5.1       Notice of Motion - Climate Change

Mrs Janine Reed - Resident

 

Item 5.2       Notice of Motion - Sale of 290m2 of Gordon Park

          i)       Ms Georgette Allen—Objector

          ii)      Mrs Kelli Leckie—Applicant

 

 

Mrs Janine Reed addressed Council

 

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Finlayson

 

ITEM 5.1      SF2183              110216      Notice of Motion - Climate Change (SF1075)

Motion:      (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

 

1        That Council investigate and consider the impact of climate change (particularly relating to sea level rise and flooding) on Macksville, Nambucca Heads and Scotts Head.

 

2        If considered appropriate

 

a)       take steps to limit further development in those areas considered likely to be adversely affected by sea level rise and flooding and

 

b)       create by rezoning alternative sites for further development in areas not likely to be so affected and where provision of services will not be prohibitively expensive.

 

3        That as part of this consideration Council conduct an inspection of areas along Coronation Road and Bald Hills Road Macksville, Wellington Drive Nambucca Heads and the caravan park Scotts Head.

 

Amendment:       (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

 

That this matter be deferred to the first Council meeting in April 2016.

 

The amendment was carried and it became the motion and it was:

 

59/16 Resolved: (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

 

That this matter be deferred to the first Council meeting in April 2016.


 

 

DELEGATIONS continued (Item 5.2)

 

Mrs Kelli Leckie addressed Council.

 

Ms Georgette Allen addressed Council.

 

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Morrison

 

ITEM 5.2      LF4225               110216      Notice of Motion - Sale of 290m2 of Gordon Park

Motion:      (Morrison/Finlayson)

 

That Council in accordance with Crown Lands recommendation, resolve to support the sale of 290 m² area of land (as previously defined) to the Leckies in accordance with Crown Lands recommended procedure as laid down in Crown Lands letter dated 16 January 2014 and for Council to document its reasons for selling the land, being:  slippage of the land; costs of wall; cost of repairs to Leckies’ property which could be the liability of Council and the Crown; the damage to the house; cost of repairs estimated to be $100,000 to the house; ongoing liability; cost to repair the wall being $50,000; legal costs and possible future litigation if more damage occurs; accidents that may happen on the land.

 

2        That the valuation of the portion of land to be sold be determined by both Crown Lands Department and the Leckies.

 

Amendment:       (Ainsworth/Morrison)

 

That Council does not oppose the sale of the prescribed land.

 

The amendment was LOST.

 

The motion was put and it was

 

MOTION       (Morrison/Finlayson)

 

1        That Council in accordance with Crown Lands recommendation, resolve to support the sale of 290 m² area of land (as previously defined) to the Leckies in accordance with Crown Lands recommended procedure as laid down in Crown Lands letter dated 16 January 2014 and for Council to document its reasons for selling the land, being:  slippage of the land; costs of wall; cost of repairs to Leckies’ property which could be the liability of Council and the Crown; the damage to the house; cost of repairs estimated to be $100,000 to the house; ongoing liability; cost to repair the wall being $50,000; legal costs and possible future litigation if more damage occurs; accidents that may happen on the land.

 

2        That the valuation of the portion of land to be sold be determined by both Crown Lands Department and the Leckies.

 

Cr Flack seconded Cr Smyth called for a Division.  Upon being put to the meeting, the motion was declared LOST.

 

For the Motion:               Cr Morrison Total (1).

Against the Motion:         Councillors Ainsworth, Ballangarry, Finlayson, Flack, Hoban, MacDonald, Smyth and South                          Total (8).


 

 

ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

 

There were no questions with notice.

 

 

QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

 

There were no questions for Closed Meeting where due notice has been received.


 

 

General Manager Report

 

ITEM 9.1      LF4225               110216      Sale of 290m2 of Gordon Park

60/16 RESOLVED: (Smyth/Flack)

 

That Council thank Mrs Kelli Leckie for her enquiry but advise that it does not intend to support the sale of 290m2 of Gordon Park adjoining 2 Nelson Street, Nambucca Heads and therefore will not provide the Leckies with endorsement to Crown Lands to her request to acquire the said Crown land at Gordon Park.

 

Cr Flack seconded Cr Smyth called for a Division.  Upon being put to the meeting, the motion was declared carried.

 

For the Motion:               Councillors Ballangarry, Flack, Hoban, MacDonald and Smyth   Total (5).

Against the Motion:         Councillors South, Ainsworth, Finlayson and Morrison Total (4).


 

 

ITEM 9.2      SF2116              110216      Investment Report To 31 January 2016 & Presentation by Andrew Vallner From CPG

61/16 RESOLVED: (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

 

That the Accountant’s Report on Investments placed to 31 January 2016 be noted.


 

 

ITEM 9.3      SF959                110216      Outstanding Actions and Reports

62/16 RESOLVED: (Finlayson/MacDonald)

 

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


 

 

63/16 Resolved: (MacDonald/Ainsworth)

 

That Item 9.8 be brought forward as there are interested parties in the gallery.

 

 

ITEM 9.8      SF2070              110216      Boating Now - Shelly Beach Nambucca Heads

64/16 RESOLVED: (Flack/South)

 

That Council allocate $36,840 from s94 contribution funds to support the Boating Now project at Shelly Beach this financial year, rather in than in year 2016/17 and 2017/18 to complete all proposed works as one project.


 

 

ITEM 9.4      SF578                110216      IPART - Draft Report on Review of Reporting and Compliance Burdens on Local Government

65/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

1        That Council submit a strongly worded submission to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) in response to their recommendation no. 10 and in particular rejecting their generalised assertions as being applicable to Nambucca Shire Council and expressing strong opposition to recommendation no. 10 for the reasons discussed in this report.

 

2        That Council provide a copy of its submission to Local Government NSW.


 

The meeting adjourned at 7.36 pm.

The meeting resumed at 8.10 pm.

 

 

ITEM 9.5      SF2173              110216      Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months OR where submissions received - 22 January - 4 February 2016

66/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Flack)

 

That the information be noted by Council.


 

 

ITEM 9.6      SF2173              110216      2016 January - Received Development Applications Received and Complying Development Applications

67/16 RESOLVED: (MacDonald/Flack)

 

That the Development Applications and Complying Development Applications received in January 2016 be received for information.


 

 

ITEM 9.7      SF2173              110216      2016 January - Approved Construction Certificates and Complying Development Certificates

68/16 RESOLVED: (Flack/MacDonald)

 

That the Construction and Complying Development Certificates approved for January 2016 be noted and received for information by Council.


 

Item 9.8 was dealt with earlier.


 

 

ITEM 9.9      SF1148              110216      Council Ranger's Report January 2016

69/16 RESOLVED: (Flack/Smyth)

 

That Council’s Ranger’s report for January 2016 be received and noted by Council.


 

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

 

ITEM 10.1    SF1676              110216      Capital Works Report - December 2015

70/16 RESOLVED: (Flack/Ainsworth)

 

1        That the Capital Works Report for the second quarter of the 2015/16 financial ending 31 December 2015 be received and noted.

 

2        That Council provide an additional $200,000.00 to the budget for Bakers Creek Bridge from working funds and or the pending water and sewerage dividend to construct a concrete bridge structure instead of a conventional timber bridge structure.

 

3        That Council provide an allocation of $50,000.00 as seed funding for geotechnical investigation and design of concrete bridges over the next two financial years.

 

4        That Council endorse the proposed variations within the report.


 

 

Cr Flack the meeting for this Item at 8.25 pm and returned after the conclusion of the Item at 8.31 pm.

 

ITEM 10.2    SF84                  110216      Second Report on the Draft NSW Rural Fire Service 2016/17 BID

71/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Smyth)

 

1        That Council endorse an allocation outside the realms of rate pegging levy imposed by the State Government for the Rural Fire Service (RFS) “BID” for 2016/17 financial year being an amount of $274,322.00, a total increase to the 2015/16 budget of $13,063.00, or a net increase of 5.0% based on the revised budget handed down by the State Government in December 2015 which encompassed an increase of $41,039.00 or 18.6% to that resolved by Council on 12 February 2015.

 

2        That Council write to the Commissioner for the NSW Rural Fire Service, the Minister for Emergency Services and the Member for Oxley, advising that:

 

a)       Council considered the 2016/17 RFS “BID” presented by the RFS Zone Manager - Lower North Coast Zone at Council’s meeting held on 28 January 2015 and advise that Council was unable to fund the proposed 12.2% increase to the contribution as it was in excess of the realms of the rate pegging levy imposed by the State Government.

 

b)       Council is prepared to accept a nominal increase of 5.0% to the RFS 2016/17 “BID” being an increase to the 2015/16 budget of $13,063.00 or a contribution amount of $274,322.00 only by Council and further that Council will not endorse any additional increases to the draft bid as presented.

 

c)       Trust that the Commissioner for the Rural Fire Service and State Government will adhere to the same parameters of the rate pegging levy imposed onto Local Government and contain the expenditure to no more than a 5.0% increase.


 

 

ITEM 10.3    SF2159              110216      Council's Asset Management Journey - February 2016

72/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Ballangarry)

 

1        That Council receive and note the presentation from staff on the status of the Asset Management Journey.

 

2        That Council staff be congratulated on their informative presentation.


 

 

ITEM 10.4    SF85                  110216      Minutes of NSW Rural Fire Service Liaison Committee meeting 11 November 2015 - Service Level Agreement 2015

73/16 RESOLVED: (MacDonald/Ainsworth)

 

That Council receive, note the report and endorse the minutes for the RFS Liaison Committee Meeting Service Level Agreement – 2015 held on 11 November 2015.


 

 

ITEM 10.5    SF85                  110216      Emergency Services Annual Assessment Notice

74/16 RESOLVED: (Flack/Ainsworth)

 

That Council receive, note the information and adjust the budgets accordingly at the next quarterly budget review meeting.


 

 

ITEM 10.6    SF90                  110216      Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes - 2 February 2016

75/16 RESOLVED: (MacDonald/Ainsworth)

 

That Council:

 

1        Receive and note the agenda and minutes emanating from the Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee held on the 2 February 2016.

 

2        Install No Stopping Parking restrictions at the entry to Brotherhood Park, Pacific Highway, Nambucca Heads and 5m either side to allow acceptable sight distance.

 

3        Endorse a 6 month trial of nose-to-kerb on-street parking arrangements in River Street (West) Macksville adjacent to the river bank.

 

4        Note that Nambucca Local Traffic Committee support a mountable roundabout at junction of River Street and Princess Street Macksville.

 

5        Install a No Parking sign in front of the sewer pump station gates on Willis Street, Macksville.


 

 

ITEM 10.7    T023/2015           110216      Tender T023/2015 for the Design and Construction of a Concrete Bridge over Taylors Arm on Boat Harbour Road Utungun

76/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/MacDonald)

 

1        That Council accept the submission for T023/2015 Design and Construction of a Concrete Bridge over Taylors Arm, Boat Harbour Road, Utungun from Waeger Constructions Pty Ltd for Option 2 (45m long x 8.2m wide, 3 span bridge, 1.0m higher than the existing bridge).

 

2        That Council note the contract period and foreshadowed revote of funds for the completion of the bridge approaches and payment of contractor progress instalments.

 

That Council update the Contract Register.

 

For the motion:               Councillors Hoban, South, MacDonald, Ainsworth, Finlayson, Smyth, Flack,

                                      Ballangarry and Morrison (Total 9)

Against the motion:         Nil


 

 

ITEM 10.8    SF1092              110216      Adoption of Plan of Management for Duffo's Restawhile on Link Road Nambucca Heads

Motion:      (Ainsworth/Morrison)

 

1        That Council adopt the Plan of Management for the rest area on Link Road Nambucca Heads known as Duffo’s Restawhile.

 

2        That Council writes to the Lions’ Club of Nambucca Heads advising them that the Plan of Management was adopted by Council and advise that the installation of the timber barbecue is not suitable and not included within the Plan of Management and in regard to the birdbath that Council and the Lions Club of Nambucca Heads determine an appropriate location for the birdbath.  Further, that the location of the birdbath be addressed in the Plan of Management.

 

3        That Council allocate an amount of $5000 from the Environmental Levy towards the solar lighting, recycled materials for fencing, native vegetation plantings and development of the car park area on an annual basis until the works identified within the Plan of Management are completed.

 

 

That Council seeks a works proposal from the Lions Club of Nambucca Heads for the use of the $5000 allocation and advise them that all purchases must be made through Council to comply with Council’s purchasing policy and procedures.

 

Amendment:       (Flack/Smyth)

1        That Council adopt the Plan of Management for the rest area on Link Road Nambucca Heads known as Duffo’s Restawhile.

 

2        That Council writes to the Lions’ Club of Nambucca Heads advising them that the Plan of Management was adopted by Council and advise that the installation of the timber barbecue is not suitable and not included within the Plan of Management and in regard to the birdbath that Council and the Lions Club of Nambucca Heads determine an appropriate location for the birdbath.  Further, that the location of the birdbath be addressed in the Plan of Management.

 

3        That Council allocate an amount of $5000 from the Environmental Levy towards the solar lighting, recycled materials for fencing, native vegetation plantings and other appropriate works identified in the Plan of Management which have environmental benefit are included on an annual basis until the works identified within the Plan of Management are completed.

 

4        That Council seeks a works proposal from the Lions Club of Nambucca Heads for the use of the $5000 allocation and advise them that all purchases must be made through Council to comply with Council’s purchasing policy and procedures.

 

The amendment was carried and it became the motion and it was:

 

77/16 Resolved: (Flack/Smyth)

 

1        That Council adopt the Plan of Management for the rest area on Link Road Nambucca Heads known as Duffo’s Restawhile.

 

2        That Council writes to the Lions’ Club of Nambucca Heads advising them that the Plan of Management was adopted by Council and advise that the installation of the timber barbecue is not suitable and not included within the Plan of Management and in regard to the birdbath that Council and the Lions Club of Nambucca Heads determine an appropriate location for the birdbath.  Further, that the location of the birdbath be addressed in the Plan of Management.

 

3        That Council allocate an amount of $5000 from the Environmental Levy towards the solar lighting, recycled materials for fencing, native vegetation plantings and other appropriate works identified in the Plan of Management which have environmental benefit are included on an annual basis until the works identified within the Plan of Management are completed.

 

4        That Council seeks a works proposal from the Lions Club of Nambucca Heads for the use of the $5000 allocation and advise them that all purchases must be made through Council to comply with Council’s purchasing policy and procedures.


     

 

COUNCIL IN CLOSED MEETING (CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC)

78/16 RESOLVED: (MacDonald/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 11.1    SF848                110216      Outstanding Water Account

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


 

 

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 11.2    T023/2015           110216      Tender T023/2015 for the Design and Construction of a Concrete Bridge over Taylors Arm on Boat Harbour Road Utungun

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.


 

 

CLOSED MEETING

 

The Ordinary Council Meeting's Meeting IN CLOSED MEETING commenced at 9.05 pm.


 

 

RESUME IN OPEN MEETING

79/16 RESOLVED: (Flack/MacDonald)

 

That Ordinary Council Meeting resume in Open Meeting. The Ordinary Council Meeting resumed IN OPEN MEETING at 9.37 pm.

 

 

FROM COUNCIL IN CLOSED MEETING

 

General Manager Report

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 11.1    SF848                110216      Outstanding Water Account

80/16 RESOLVED: (MacDonald/South)

 

1        That the information concerning the outstanding water account be noted.

 

2        That Council waive all accruing interest on the outstanding balance of the customer’s water account for the financial year 2015/2016.

 

3        That the customer’s progress in reducing the outstanding balance on their water account be reviewed in July 2016 in a report to Council.

 

4        That the customer be requested to refrain from using water on non-essential aspects of the activity as per the commentary in the report.

 

Amendment:       (Morrison/)

 

That this matter be deferred until there has been discussion with the management of the facility as to whether or not they wish to have the matter considered in Open Council.

 

The amendment was LOST for lack of a seconder.


Note: Cr Finlayson left the meeting at 9.36 pm

 

 

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 11.2    T023/2015           110216      Tender T023/2015 for the Design and Construction of a Concrete Bridge over Taylors Arm on Boat Harbour Road Utungun

81/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Flack)

 

That the information be noted.


CLOSURE

There being no further business the Mayor then closed the meeting the time being 9.38 pm. 

Confirmed and signed by the Mayor on 25 February 2016.

CR RHONDA HOBAN

MAYOR

(CHAIRPERSON)        


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                              25 February 2016

Question with Notice

ITEM 7.1      SF2183            250216         Notice of Motion - Request for Leave - Cr Morrison (SF1788)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Bob Morrison, Councillor         

 

Summary:

 

Cr Morrison requests leave from 21 March to 8 April 2016 inclusive

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Cr Bob Morrison be granted leave of absence in accordance with Section 234(d) of the Local Government Act for the period 21 March 2016 to 8 April 2016 inclusive.

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.   


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                              25 February 2016

General Manager

ITEM 9.1      SF959              250216         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

The draft Floodplain Risk Management Plan has been circulated to Councillors and the Estuary Committee.

 

Council has received a preliminary draft of the flood Risk Management Study and Plan which is presently being reviewed. The report will be distributed to Council and the Nambucca Rivers Creeks and Coastline Management Committee after this review is complete.

 

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

The project is awaiting the completion of the floodplain risk management matrix.

 

Council has received a preliminary draft of the flood Risk Management Study and Plan which is presently being reviewed. The report will be distributed to Council and the Nambucca Rivers Creeks and Coastline Management Committee after this review is complete.

 

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. 

 

 

DECEMBER 2013

 

4

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

 

5

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

 

6

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

 

7

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

 

8

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.

 

The early estimates of annual depreciation for the northern section of the Pacific Hwy (Nambucca Heads to Oyster Creek) assets proposed to be transferred is approximately $1million per annum. 

 

 

APRIL 2015

 

9

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

 

10

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

 

11

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

 

12

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 March 2016.

 

SEPTEMBER 2015

 

13

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.

 

 

CPG will be in attendance this Council meeting and will be a delegation.

 

14

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 April 2016

 

Consultants engaged. RMS reviewing data supply.

 

Still being assessed; report not complete; briefing now scheduled for April 2016.

 

 

OCTOBER 2014

 

15

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

 

16

DA2015/

191

 

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 29/10/15).

 

Letter sent.10 February 2016.

 

The number of cats were reduced to an acceptable number but an inspection in January indicated that breeding cages were being used.  A notice of intention to serve an order will be served.

 

 

17

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.

 

 A letter has been sent requiring the lodgement of a DA for the continued use of the container.

 

NOVEMBER 2015

 

18

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

 

19

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.

 

20

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

 

21

SF1855

26/11/15

That Council receive a report 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

 

22

 

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

 

JANUARY 2016

 

23

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.

 

An inspection is being organised prior to Council’s meeting on 25 February 2016.

 

Inspection deferred due to another DA inspection.  Scheduled for 25 March 2016.

 

24

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.

 

25

SF996

28/1/16

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

 

GM

Report March 2016

 

FEBRUARY 2016

 

26

SF2183

11/2/16

That the Notice of Motion concerning climate change be deferred to the first Council meeting in April 2016.

 

GM

List for Council meeting on 14 April 2016

 

27

SF848

11/2/16

That the customer’s progress in reducing the outstanding balance on their water account be reviewed in July 2016 in a report to Council.

 

GM

List for a meeting in July 2016

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                              25 February 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.2      SF1327            250216         Proposed Placement of Low Powered FM Broadcasting Antenna at the Valla Beach Tennis Club

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council endorse in principle the proposed placement of a low powered FM broadcasting facility at the Valla Beach Tennis Club subject to checks being made in relation to the appropriate rental and Radio 4GG Gold Coast Pty Ltd entering into an appropriate lease or licence.

 

2        That the Valla Beach Tennis Club be remitted all rent for the facility.

 

3        That Council’s seal be attached to any lease or licence if required.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council could advertise the proposal to adjoining owners and/or in the media.  Given the low wattage of the transmitter and the staff time and expense involved in a notification process it is recommended that the Council proceed with the proposal without community consultation.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council’s Valla Beach Tennis Club Committee of Management has been approached by the owner of a FM narrowcast licence for Valla Beach who wishes to use the lighting pole closest to the tennis clubhouse to mount a low powered narrow casting FM commercial FM transmitter.

 

The Valla Beach Tennis Club considered the proposal at their recent Annual General Meeting and resolved to support the installation on the basis that the Club would be remitted the $100 per month site rental which has been offered.

 

The details of the proposal are attached but are summarised in an email from Mr Smith from Radio 4GG Gold Coast Pty Ltd below.

 

Dear Michael

I have received correspondence from the Valla Beach Tennis club regarding a possible placement for my low powered LPON 87.8 FM Broadcasting Licence within the current clubhouse and utilizing the nearest light tower to place a Scalar antenna resembling a TV antenna seen on domestic and commercial properties.

 

We understand the Club is a tenant of the Council and we seek approval to commence our Music Radio service with the equipment identified by attachments to this email.

 

Alternatively we would also seek approval to place this equipment at the nearby Reservoir/Hut which you may note is the official site this service is currently listed on ACMA licence paperwork.

 

We have enjoyed hosting by several Councils in similar facilities.

 

This includes Maranoa Council in Queensland at similar Water Towers and adjoining transmission huts for now more than ten years.

 

Our Roma and Mitchell services are very popular with local consumers in these locations.

 

We have also been with a private land holder within the Tweed Shire for our 101.3 FM service for the Tweed/Gold Coast for a similar length of time.

 

In years gone bye we have been hosted by guest houses, private residential locations, Robina Town Centre and Nerang Fair Shopping Centre, official broadcasting locations in Tamworth, Mudgee Services Club and Carpet Court in the main street of Gunnedah. We are also planning to commence a service on Lord Howe Island and have permission from the Board to utilize the old flying boat hut as a transmission location.

 

I will forward a copy of this email to Mayor Rhonda Hoban, I have supplied all the technical information in attachments and look forward to a response from the authorities at the Nambucca Shire Council regarding permission to commence operation.

 

Regards

 

Mark Chapman Smith

Director

Radio 4GG Gold Coast Pty Ltd

musicradio@matilda.net.au

 

Under the Telecommunications Act development consent is not required for a low impact facility.

 

Whilst no enquiries have been made as to the appropriate rental return for such a transmitter, it is agreed that the revenue potential of smaller markets would not be huge.

 

It is proposed that Council accept in principle the proposed placement of a low powered FM broadcasting facility at the Valla Beach Tennis Club subject to checks being made in relation to the rental received for similar installations in similar sized communities and that Radio 4GG Gold Coast Pty Ltd enter into an appropriate lease or licence for the installation and operation of the facility.  Given the quantum of rent which is likely to be available it is proposed that it be remitted to the Valla Beach Tennis Club.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Valla Beach Tennis Club and with the Mayor.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no significant social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

It is possible that nearby residents may object to a radio transmitter notwithstanding it is of very low power and does not require development consent.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no budgetary implications.  It is proposed that the rent be remitted to the Valla Beach Tennis Club.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There is some work required by staff to prepare a licence or lease.

 

 

Attachments:

1

5673/2016 - Proposed low powered FM transmitter - Valla Beach

 

2

5674/2016 - Terranora Site Antenna - Valla Beach Tennis Club

 

3

5675/2016 - Valla Beach LPON Licence Number Details

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 February 2016

Proposed Placement of Low Powered FM Broadcasting Antenna at the Valla Beach Tennis Club

 

Dear Ron & Valla Beach Tennis Club Members,

 

my name is Mark Chapman Smith and I have been  a Radio Broadcaster since 1968 commencing as an office boy at 2GB in Sydney then moving along to announcing at 2MG Mudgee, 2NZ Inverell 2DU Dubbo, 2NX Newcastle, 3XY Melbounre, 2SM Sydney and 2WS Sydney.

 

In the early Nineties the Broadcasting Services Act was updated to include a new category of Broadcasting Licence called Narrowcasting which is commonly used for low power services such as tourist information that you see advertised on roadsides as you enter different towns and regions. These are low powered services  generally covering a five to ten kilometre range.

 

I have owned and continually operated narrowcast licenses though my Company “Radio 4GG Gold Coast Pty Ltd” in regional centres and metro areas since the BSA was enacted and continue to do so, I have bought operated and on occasions sold licenses in Tamworth, Gunnedah, Mudgee, NSW,  Gold Coast,  Roma and Mitchell  South Western Queensland.

 

In my dealings along the way I acquired the 87.8 FM Narrowcast Licence for Valla Beach in a package deal of ten licences in NSW and have for a long time wanted to commence a service in this lovely setting, recently I did a reconnaissance mission to Valla in search of an ideal location for my equipment which is listed in an attached word document.

 

FM Radio needs a high location and the signal acts in a similar fashion to a light, so the higher the light is positioned, the better the illumination, or in our case, the better it is heard.

The position of the pole nearest the Tennis Clubhouse for my single TV sized antenna coach bolted to the wooden pole would do an excellent job covering the Valla district.

This device would  emit an extremely low wattage between one and five watts of radio frequency power commonly referred to as RF, this is in a similar power range to, a two way or CB Radio.

 

We would connect to the equipment daily from our production studio by a 4G modem and update a computer in a normal sized electrical box similar the the one seen on the wall of the clubhouse. The  computer, modem and transmitted would be comfortably housed in this separate electrical box.

We would also install an electrical meter and the club could access the gauge in the box and take reading for payment of power used, which from experience is in the range of fifty dollars every calendar month.

 

From time to time a technician may visit to rectify or service the equipment but the day to day programming of the radio broadcast is operated by excellent software installed in the site computer which we update daily for our home studio with news, current affairs, promotions, community service announcements and our adult contemporary music format which has been very successful in small markets for more than twenty years, after Valla Beach we hope to commence similar services on Lord Howe Island and Coonabarabran.

 

The same basic programming is also streamed worldwide on our muchmoremusic.com.au app and on our major station 101.3 Music Radio Tweed/Gold Coast.

 

We generally pay $100 month site rental for these  installations as revenue generated in smaller markets is not a huge amount by any means and this would supplemented by the electricity overhead measured monthly.

 

As far as programming which is what you will hear, we feature content already mentioned above but the important point is the programming is totally focused on Valla Beach except possibly some sponsors from nearby population centres.

 

There is no daily reference to any other towns or areas so no sharing ie, hearing advertisements for Broken hill  or Shepparton as an example, or content dealing with another population centres, this is Valla Beach’s own total radio station, a first for the district.

 

Not a high powered Commercial or Community service on 3,000 to 10,000 watts of RF , not a mobile phone service tower scenario, a very small device for the benefit of the local district operated by an Owner/Operator, myself, and the company  held by my Family only. I would be pleased to visit and explain to a meeting of members regarding any concerns they may have.

 

Regards

Mark Chapman Smith

Director

Radio 4GG Gold Coast Pty Ltd

musicradio@matilda.net.au

0410687600

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 February 2016

Proposed Placement of Low Powered FM Broadcasting Antenna at the Valla Beach Tennis Club

 

 

 



Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 February 2016

Proposed Placement of Low Powered FM Broadcasting Antenna at the Valla Beach Tennis Club

 

 

Licence Number

1911413/1

Client

Radio 4GG Gold Coast Pty Ltd

Status

Granted

Licence Type

Broadcasting

Licence Category

Narrowcasting Service (LPON)

Callsign(s)

VKJ341

Date of Effect

27-JAN-15

Date of Expiry

25-JAN-17

Advisory Notes

The frequency band 87.5 to 88 MHz is made available for low power open narrowcasting radio purposes under section 34 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. The ACMA's Determination of Radiofrequency Spectrum makes this spectrum available until 31 December 2020. The ACMA cannot authorise the operation of a low power open narrowcasting radio service using this frequency beyond this date. The ACMA will review the use of this spectrum before 31 December 2020.

Conditions applicable to the operation of Narrowcasting Service station(s) authorised under this licence can be found in the Radiocommunications Licence Conditions (Apparatus Licence) Determination and the Radiocommunications Licence Conditions (Broadcasting Licence) Determination. Copies of these determinations are available from the ACMA and from the ACMA home page (www.acma.gov.au).

Special Conditions

The licensee must ensure that no harmful interference shall be caused to the operation of any radiocommunication station or service. If the operation of the transmitter is causing interference to other services, the licensee is required, at the licensee's own expense, to adjust, or fit devices to, receivers in order to eliminate or minimise that interference.

This licence can only be used to provide a low-power open narrowcasting service.

 

NOTE: There may be additional text attached to the station/assignment associated with this licence.

 

[ New Licence Search ]

 

Assignments for this Licence

Results 1 - 1 of 1 assignments.

ID

Frequency

Emission Designator

T/R

Site/Area

646589

87.8 MHz

200KF3EGF

T

Valla Beach Reservoir VALLA BEACH NSW 2448 (280119)

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                              25 February 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.3      SF842              250216         Council Representatives on Committees of Management - 2016

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

Council has many Section 355 Committees managing Council facilities and also staging community events.  At Council’s meeting on 19 March 2009 it was resolved that a roster be developed for the attendance of either Councillors or the General Manager at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of each facility or event Committee of Management.  It may be pertinent that on occasions the General Manager’s delegate (usually an Assistant General Manager) attend the AGM.

 

It should be noted that:

 

a)       the North Macksville Playing Fields Committee of Management is now an active Committee again and is mainly used by the Soccer Club.

b)       the Macksville Senior Citizens Centre Committee of Management has retired and the facility bookings are now being administered by Council.

c)       Council sold the Nambucca Heads Senior Citizens Centre.

d)       Council has signed over the ownership of the Bowraville Folk Museum.

e)       there is no Committee of Management for Gumma Reserve (Boultons Crossing)

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the roster for attendance at the Annual General Meetings for Section 355 Committees for 2016.

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Councillors are, by virtue of their office (ex officio) entitled to attend all meetings of Committees of Council.

 

However, although Councillors may attend in an ex officio capacity they do not necessarily have a right to vote.  That right to vote attaches to the appointment as a representative or member or delegate as appropriate.

 

At Council’s meeting on 19 March 2009 it was resolved that a roster be developed for the attendance of either Councillors or the General Manager at the AGM of each facility or event Committee of Management.  It may be pertinent that on occasions the General Manager’s delegate (usually an Assistant General Manager) attend the AGM. 

 

The roster for 2016 is as follows:

 


 

COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT

ROSTER FOR AGM ATTENDANCE

Argents Hill Hall

Cr Paula Flack

Australia Day

General Manager

Bowraville Sports Ground (aka Hennessy Tape Oval)

Cr Finlayson

Burrapine Public Hall

General Manager

Coronation Park

Cr Anne Smyth

Crosswinds Wetland Nature Reserve

Cr Ainsworth

Donnelly-Welsh Playing Fields

Cr Ainsworth

EJ Biffin Playing

Cr Rhonda Hoban (Mayor)

Eungai District Memorial Hall

Cr MacDonald

Gordon Park Rainforest

Cr Anne Smyth

Gordon Park Tennis Centre

Cr Anne Smyth

Grants Hall

Cr Flack

Macksville Gift

Cr Kim MacDonald

Macksville Netball Courts

General Manager

Macksville Park and Sports

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services

Macksville Tennis Courts

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services

Mary Boulton Pioneer Cottage & Museum

Cr Ainsworth

Missabotti Community Centre

Cr Paula Flack

Nambucca District Band

Cr Martin Ballangarry OAM

Nambucca District Historical Society Museum

Cr Anne Smyth

Nambucca Community and Arts Centre

Cr Bob Morrison

North Macksville Playing Fields & Soccer Club

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services

Scotts Head Events Committee

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services

Scotts Head Sports Field

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services

Scotts Head Tennis Courts

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services

South Arm Hall

Cr Martin Ballangarry OAM

Talarm Hall and Welsh Pioneer Park

Cr South

Taylors Arm Hall

Cr Elaine South

Taylors Arm Sports Reserve

Cr Elaine South

Tewinga  Community Centre

Cr Bob Morrison

Unkya Reserve

General Manager

Utungun Community Centre

Cr Finlayson

Valla Beach Community Association

Cr Hoban

Valla Beach Tennis Club

Cr Hoban

Valla Public Hall

Cr Hoban

Warrell Creek Public Hall

Cr Ainsworth

 


 

ROSTER FOR COUNCILLORS

TO ATTEND COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AGM’S AND OTHER MEETINGS FOR 2016

 

COUNCILLOR

COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT

Cr Rhonda Hoban

E J Biffin Playing Fields

Valla Beach Tennis Club

Valla Beach Community Association

Valla Public Hall

 

 

Cr John Ainsworth

Crosswinds Wetland Nature Reserve

Donnelly-Welsh Playing Fields

Mary Boulton Pioneer Cottage & Museum

Warrell Creek Public Hall

 

 

Cr Martin Ballangarry OAM

Nambucca District Band

South Arm Hall

 

 

Cr Brian Finlayson

Bowraville Sports Ground

Utungun Community Centre

 

 

Cr Paula Flack

Argents Hill

Grants Hall

Missabotti Community Centre

 

 

Cr Kim MacDonald

Eungai District Memorial Hall

Macksville Gift

Macksville Park and Sport

 

 

Cr Bob Morrison

Nambucca Community & Arts Centre

Tewinga Community Centre

 

 

Cr Anne Smyth

Coronation Park

Gordon Park Rainforest

Gordon Park Tennis Centre

Nambucca Heads Museum

 

 

Cr Elaine South

Talarm Hall

Taylors Arm Hall

Taylors Arm Sports Reserve

 

 

Michael Coulter

General Manager

Australia Day Committee

Burrapine Public Hall

Macksville Netball Courts

Unkya Reserve

 

 

Scott Norman

Assistant General Manager

Corporate Services

Scotts Head Events Committee

Scotts Head Sports Field Committee

Warrell Creek Hall

 

 

Paul Gallagher

Assistant General Manager

Engineering Services

Macksville Parks & Sports

Macksville Tennis Club

North Macksville Playing Fields & Soccer Club

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Nil

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

This report has no impact on the environment.

 

Social

 

This report has no social impacts.

 

Economic

 

This report has no economic impacts.

 

Risk

 

There are no risks associated with this report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no direct or indirect financial impacts.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There are no variances to working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no changes to service levels or staffing implications.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                              25 February 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.4      SF2211            250216         2016 Customer Satisfaction Survey

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse the proposed questions for the 2016 Community Satisfaction Survey subject to the proposed minor change to question 25 and the deletion of question 26.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

It is up to Council as to the questions which are asked.  Generally an endeavour is made to keep some consistency in the questions pertaining to the relative importance and satisfaction with the services Council provides so as to provide the opportunity to track achievement over time.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has previously undertaken customer satisfaction surveys every 3 years with the next survey due in the 2016 calendar year.  Given the quality of their previous work and competitive pricing, Council has again approached the Coffs Harbour based firm Jetty Research and its principal, Mr James Parker to undertake the survey.

 

Council staff became aware that Bellingen Shire Council were also scheduled to undertake a survey in 2016 and the opportunity has been taken to meet with Bellingen Shire Council staff and seek agreement as to the list of services to be rated so as to provide some opportunity for benchmarking.  Benchmarking will be of assistance in understanding the relative importance of different services across the two local government areas and the relative strengths and weaknesses of the councils in delivering those services.  It is proposed that the surveys be run across both local government areas about 1 week apart.

 

The attached survey questions have been compiled by Mr Parker following a joint meeting of Bellingen and Nambucca Council staff.

 

The questions have been reviewed and in relation to the nominated services, they are generally aligned to be the same as those for Bellingen.

 

A minor change is proposed to question 25 which concerns on line rate enquiries where a software “glitch” has meant that residents are currently unable to access their rates account online.  Accordingly the second question needs to be deleted.  For the same reason it is also recommended that condition no. 26 be deleted.

 

The purpose of this report is to alert Council’s attention to other more strategic questions concerning the future direction of the Council which are proposed to be included in the survey, being questions 29-31.

 

Given the current local government reform proposals to reduce the numbers of Councils in NSW by about one third as well as the unrelenting proposals coming from the Office of Local Government, IPART and others concerning the transfer of responsibilities to and from Councils, it is recommended that Council obtain some quantitative data about the community’s attitude to structural reform affecting this Council.  As there is currently considerable discussion in the media about local government reform and council mergers it is an opportune time to seek feedback from our community.   Also if this data is collected as part of our triennial community survey the cost is negligible compared to the many hundreds of thousands of dollars currently being spent by Sydney councils in undertaking one off polling to determine community attitudes.

 

Therefore question 29 seeks a response to a relatively straight forward proposition being whether or not the Council should continue to stand alone or merge with one or more neighbouring councils or with a third possibility being that the person is unsure or has no opinion.

 

For those who believe a merger is the preferred option, question 30 seeks the person’s preference as to which other councils Nambucca Shire Council should merge with.  Jetty Research has not proposed that answers to this question be prompted and would simply aggregate like responses to provide the Council with an indication of preference for those who believe a merger is the preferred option.

 

Question 31 concerns the number of councillors on Nambucca Shire Council.  This matter has been reported a number of times previously and there is an outstanding action from 26 September 2014 that pending the outcome of the Fit for the Future reform process that Council consider reducing the number of councillors from 9 to 7 via a referendum.

 

The Council has the ability to conduct a referendum at the 2016 election to let the community decide in relation to whether there should be nine (9) or seven (7) councillors.  If the majority of the community decide to reduce the number of councillors it would take effect from the 2020 election.  In 2011 it was reported that such an initiative would save the Council at least $29,000 per annum.  Compared to other Mid North Coast councils, Nambucca Shire Council would still have a high level of representation per capita.  Our neighbour, Bellingen Shire Council already satisfactorily operates with seven (7) councillors.  The answer to the proposed survey question would give the Council justification as to whether or not to proceed with the cost of a referendum.

 

As Council is aware there is a physical limit as to the number of questions which can be asked in a telephone survey and if questions are to be added some consideration needs to be given to the removal of others.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with Mr James Parker from Jetty Research and with staff of Bellingen Shire Council.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The survey concerns obtaining information from the community about the relative importance of services provided by Nambucca Shire Council and their level of satisfaction with those services.

 

Social

 

The survey concerns obtaining information from the community about the relative importance of services provided by Nambucca Shire Council and their level of satisfaction with those services.  Given the current local government reform agenda, it is proposed that the 2016 survey provide some “metrics” (quantitative information) on the community’s attitude to structural reform affecting this council.

 

Question 28 which asks about whether or not the respondent feels safe was proposed by Bellingen Council staff.

 

Economic

 

The survey concerns obtaining information from the community about the relative importance of services provided by Nambucca Shire Council and their level of satisfaction with those services.  This includes economic development and attracting new investment.

 

Risk

 

There are no particular identified risks.  Some may say that asking the community about their attitude to structural reform and a potential council merger might be risky but if the Council is to take a position on such matters it does need to understand the views of its community.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The cost of the survey is $14,800 plus GST which is $1,000 less than Council paid in 2013.  The reason for the discount is the two councils acting collaboratively with savings to the time spent in meetings and organising the questions.

 

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 particular resourcing implications.

 

Attachments:

1

5549/2016 - Nambucca_SC_CSS_2016 original

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 February 2016

2016 Customer Satisfaction Survey

 

 

Version 1.0 Nambucca_SC_CSS_2016

 

Q1.

 Good afternoon/evening, my name is (first name), and I'm calling from Jetty Research on behalf of Nambucca Shire Council. Council is conducting a customer satisfaction survey of its residents, and you have been randomly selected to participate in this. The survey takes around 12 minutes, we're not selling anything, and all answers will remain confidential. Would you be willing to assist Council this afternoon/evening? 

 

 

Offer a call back if inconvenient time. Respondents can contact XXXXXXXXX on 6568 XXXX during business hours to confirm survey is genuine.

 

 

 

Yes

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

2

 

 

 

Q1

 

 

 

Answer If Attribute "No" from Q1 is SELECTED

 

 

Q2.

Okay, thanks for your time, and have a good afternoon/evening. 

 

End

 

Q3.

Thanks so much. Before we proceed, I just have three quick qualifying questions. Firstly, are you aged 18 or over? 

 

 

If No ask is there anyone else aged 18 or over that you can speak to.

 

 

 

Yes

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

2

 

 

 

Q3

 

 

 

Answer If Attribute "No" from Q3 is SELECTED

 

 

Q4.

I'm afraid this survey is only for people 18 and above. Thanks for your time, and have a great afternoon/evening. 

 

End

 

Q5.

Do you live in the Nambucca Shire? 

 

 

UNPROMPTED

 

 

 

Yes

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

2

 

 

 

Q5

 

 

 

Answer If Attribute "No" from Q5 is SELECTED

 

 


 

 

Q6.

My apologies, this survey is only for Nambucca Shire residents. Thanks very much for your time and have a good afternoon/evening. 

 

End

 

Q7.

Have you lived in the Shire for at least 1 year? 

 

 

UNPROMPTED

 

 

 

Yes

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

2

 

 

 

Q7

 

 

 

Answer If Attribute "No" from Q7 is SELECTED

 

 

Q8.

I'm sorry, this survey is only for people who have lived in the Shire for a year or more. Thanks very much for your time and have a good afternoon/evening. 

 

End

 

Q9.

May I have your first name for the survey? 

 

 

Type n/a if not willing to give name.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q9

 

 

Q10.

To get us underway, can you please rate your satisfaction with the following Council facilities or services, where 1 means you think it's very poor and 5 means excellent? If you don't use this service, say not applicable. 

 

 

PROMPTED - read out and rate each option. You may need to remind respondent to only rate services they use.

 

 

 

 

1- Very poor

2

3

4

5- Excellent

N/A

 

 

Sealed roads

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_1

 

 

Unsealed roads

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_2

 

 

Bridges

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_3

 

 

Footpaths and cycleways

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_4

 

 

Cleanliness of streets

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_5

 

 

Online services

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_6

 

 

Dog control

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_7

 

 

Stormwater drainage

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_8

 

 

Public toilets

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_9

 

 

Weed control

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_10

 

 

Waste and recycling

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_11

 

 

Water supply

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_12

 

 

Sewage collection and treatment

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_13

 

 

Sporting facilities

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_14

 

 

Parks, reserves and playgrounds

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_15

 

 

Council pool

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_16

 

 

Libraries

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_17

 

 

Community halls

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_18

 

 

Youth facilities and activities

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_19

 

 

Services for the elderly

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_20

 

 

Economic development and attracting new investment

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_21

 

 

Tourism marketing

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_22

 

 

Development applications ( DA's)

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_23

 

 

Coastal and beach management

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_24

 

 

Environmental monitoring and protection

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_25

 

 

River water quality

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_26

 

 

Q11.

Next [Q9], how important are the following Council facilities or services to you or your family, where 1 means you think it's very unimportant, and 5 is very important? 

 

 

PROMPTED

 

 

 

 

1- Unimportant

2

3

4

5- Very important

 

 

Sealed roads

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_1

 

 

Unsealed roads

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_2

 

 

Bridges

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_3

 

 

Footpaths and cycleways

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_4

 

 

Cleanliness of streets

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_5

 

 

Online services

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_6

 

 

Dog control

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_7

 

 

Stormwater drainage

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_8

 

 

Public toilets

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_9

 

 

Weed control

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_10

 

 

Waste and recycling

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_11

 

 

Water supply

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_12

 

 

Sewage collection and treatment

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_13

 

 

Sporting facilities

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_14

 

 

Parks, reserves and playgrounds

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_15

 

 

Council pool

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_16

 

 

Libraries

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_17

 

 

Community halls

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_18

 

 

Youth facilities and activities

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_19

 

 

Services for the elderly

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_20

 

 

Economic development and attracting new investment

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_21

 

 

Tourism marketing

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_22

 

 

Development applications ( DA's)

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_23

 

 

Coastal and beach management

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_24

 

 

Environmental monitoring and protection

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_25

 

 

River water quality

1

2

3

4

5

555

 

 

Q10_26

 

 

Q12.

Please rate your satisfaction with Council's overall performance on a scale of 1-5, where 1 is very dissatisfied, 3 is neutral and 5 is very satisfied. 

 

 

UNPROMPTED

 

 

 

1 - Very dissatisfied

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

3

 

 

 

Q12

 

 

 

4

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 - Satisfied

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q13.

Can you briefly explain why you gave that rating? 

 

 

PROBE for a response

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q14.

Now [Q9], have you contacted Council within the past 12 months, other than to make a payment?  

 

 

UNPROMPTED

 

 

Yes

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

2

Go to Q21

 

 

Q17

 

 

 

Unsure

666

Go to Q21

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q15.

Could you please tell me approximately how many times you have contacted Council during this time? 

 

 

UNPROMPTED

 

 

 

Once

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Twice

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three times

3

 

 

 

Q18

 

 

 

Four or more times

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unsure

666

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Q16.

Thinking about your most recent inquiry, what was that contact regarding? 

 

 

UNPROMPTED

 

 

 

Garbage/Waste management/Recycling/Tips

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development application (DA)

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Building inspection inquiries

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rates inquiry (including pensioner rebates and change of address)

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water billing

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water, sewage

6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Septic tanks

7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drainage problem

8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Community services (availability of facilities, grants for projects, community events, aged and disabled services etc.)

9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ranger matters - barking dogs, livestock, etc.

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vegetation and trees - e.g. requesting council to clear vegetation or mow grass

11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other parks and gardens

12

 

 

 

Q19

 

 

 

Road and footpath improvements

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Library

14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cultural facilities

15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cultural or sporting events

16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Traffic management/parking

17

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Road or bridge closures

18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fees and charges generally

20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cemetries

21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pet registrations

22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Website content and access

23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can't recall

66

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q17.

And regarding that matter, how many times did you need to contact Council to have your issue resolved?  

 

 

UNPROMPTED

 

 

 

One

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Four or more

4

 

 

 

Q20

 

 

 

Not yet resolved

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unsure

666

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Q18.

Can you briefly explain why you don't believe the issue has been resolved? 

 

Answer If Attribute "Not yet resolved" from Q17 is SELECTED

 

 

UNPROMPTED

 

 

Issue still ongoing

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council didn't respond

2

 

 

 

Q21

 

 

 

Issue not resolved in respondent's favour

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OTHER

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q19.

Thinking again about that experience, how did you first make contact with Council? 

 

 

UNPROMPTED

 

 

 

Telephone

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Face-to-face

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Letter or fax

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Email

4

 

 

 

Q22

 

 

 

Website

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unsure

6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q20.

And how would you rate your satisfaction with the way Council handled that latest inquiry, on a scale of 1-5, where 1 means you think it was handled very poorly and 5 means you think it was handled very well? 

 

 

UNPROMPTED

 

 

 

1 Very poorly

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

3

 

 

 

Q23

 

 

 

4

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 Very well

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q21.

 In your dealings with Council, how would you prefer to conduct the following?  

 

 

UNPROMPTED (unless absolutely necessary)

 

 

 

 

Face to face

Phone

Online/via website

Email

Letter

Social media (Facebook etc.)

Other

Unsure/NA

 

 

Making a payment

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

 

 

Q26_1

 

 

Requesting Council to do something (e.g. fix a pothole)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

 

 

Q26_2

 

 

Completing or lodging applications and forms

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

 

 

Q26_3

 

 

Providing feedback on important or topical issues

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

 

 

Q26_4

 

 

Getting updates on road closures etc. during floods

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

 

 

Q26_5

 

 

Q22.

 Now [Q9], Have you used the Council website the past year? 

 

 

UNPROMPTED

 

 

 

Yes

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

2

 

 

 

Q21

 

 

 

Unsure

666

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q23.

What did you use it for? 

 

Answer If Attribute "Yes" from Q22 is SELECTED

 

 

UNPROMPTED - Tick any that apply

 

 

 

Pay rates

1

 

 

 

Q22_1

 

 

 

Print documents

2

 

 

 

Q22_2

 

 

 

Research

3

 

 

 

Q22_3

 

 

 

Check for employment vacancies

4

 

 

 

Q22_4

 

 

 

Read the business paper

5

 

 

 

Q22_5

 

 

 

Find a telephone number

6

 

 

 

Q22_6

 

 

 

Look up Council policies

7

 

 

 

Q22_7

 

 

 

Make or log an online request                                                8                                                                             

 

 

Q22_8

 

 

 

OTHER

 

 

Q22_O

 

 

 

Q24.

[Q9], do you have any suggestions on how the website can be improved? 

 

Answer If Attribute "Yes" from Q22 is SELECTED

 

 

PROBE

 

 

Q25. Nambucca Shire is proposing to allow access to your rates account on line.  After you have a user name and pass word you would be able to view transactions and balances,  would you be interested in using this service? Did you know you can access your rates account online?

          Yes

          No

          Not applicable (renter etc.)

 

Q26. Would you be interested in using this service?

          Yes

          No

          Unsure

 

Q27.Thinking for a moment about information on road closures, have you heard of either the following websites:

 

Livetraffic.com.au (Yes/No)

Myroadinfo.com.au (Yes/no)


 

 

 

Q28.

Now on a different topic [Q9], can you tell me how safe or unsafe you feel in the following situations? We'll use a scale of 1-5, where 1 means you feel extremely unsafe, and a 5 means you feel extremely safe. 

 

 

PROMPTED - rate each option

 

 

 

 

1 Extremely unsafe

2

3

4

5 Extremely safe

 

 

At home alone during the day

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q20_1

 

 

At home alone at night

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q20_2

 

 

In your nearest town during the day

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q20_3

 

 

In your nearest town at night

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Q20_4

 

 

 

Q29. As you might know, there has been a lot of discussion about council mergers recently. Thinking about the Nambucca Shire going forward, which of the following statements best reflects your views? (prompted)

I think the Nambucca Shire should continue to stand alone

I think the Nambucca Shire should merge with one or more neighbouring councils

I am unsure or have no opinion

 

 

Q30. (If merger preferred) Who do think the Nambucca Shire should merge with? (unprompted)

Kempsey

Bellingen

Kempsey and Bellingen

Bellingen and Coffs Harbour

Other _____________

Unsure

 

 

Q31. On a separate issue[Q9],,Nambucca Shire Council currently has nine councillors. There has been some discussion in recent years about reducing this to seven. This would save money (MC: can we quantify?) but may also reduce the level of representation enjoyed by local residents. Which of the following statements on this issue best reflects your views?

 

I think the number of councillors should be reduced from 9 to 7

I think the number of councillors should remain at 9

I am unsure or have no opinion

 

Q32.

We are almost to the end of the survey [Q9], just a few demographic questions to finish off. Would your age range be between? 

 

 

PROMPTED

 

 

 

18-39

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40-59

2

 

 

 

Q36

 

 

 

60+

3

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Q33.

Gender? 

 

 

DON'T ASK

 

 

 

Male

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Female

2

 

 

 

Q37

 

 

 

Q34.

Is your residence in an urban, rural or village location? 

 

 

Urban -in town, Rural - on a property. Village - very tiny town

 

 

 

Urban

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rural

2

 

 

 

Q38

 

 

 

Village

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q35.

Which area do you live in? 

 

 

UNPROMPTED - If none of these ask which town is nearest

 

 

 

Bowraville

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nambucca

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Macksville

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scotts Head

5

 

 

 

Q40

 

 

 

Taylors Arm

6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valla

7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OTHER

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q36.

And do you have any children 18 years or under living at home? 

 

 

Yes

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

2

 

 

 

Q41

 

 

 

Declined

666

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Q37.

And finally, how long have you lived in the Shire? 

 

 

UNPROMPTED

 

 

 

1-5 years

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6-10 years

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11-20 years

3

 

 

 

Q42

 

 

 

More than 20 years

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q38.

Thanks so much [Q9], that concludes the survey. Nambucca Council greatly appreciates your feedback. Did you have any questions about this survey? Just to let you know a manager from our office may call you to ensure this interview was conducted correctly. Thanks again you for your time and have a good afternoon/evening.  

 

 

End

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                              25 February 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.5      SF665              250216         Approval to take a Dividend from the Surplus in the Water Fund

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the approval to take a dividend of $180,522 from the surplus of Council’s water supply business to its general revenue.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no options.  Council has resolved to seek a dividend and the dividend has now been approved.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has now received the attached letter from the Department of Primary Industries Water providing approval to its request to take a dividend of $180,522 from the surplus of Council’s water supply business to its general revenue.

 

The letter confirms that Council has met the required best practice outcomes and that its financial statements, including the overhead allocation charges are fair and reasonable.

 

The letter also notes Council’s work in making arrangements to prepare a new IWCM and financial plan in accordance with the 2014 IWCM checklist.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no impacts for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social impacts.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic impacts.

 

Risk

 

The major risk has been previously identified being the need to ensure that the Water Fund has sufficient reserves to undertake the capital works program identified in the Integrated Water Cycle Management Strategy (IWCM).

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The dividend will improve Council’s current General Fund budget by $180,522.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Council’s working funds position will get a welcome boost of $180,522.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

The dividend will assist Council to construct more concrete bridges in lieu of timber bridges which will in turn improve Council’s long term financial sustainability.

 

Attachments:

1

5563/2016 - Advice of approval  to pay dividend

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 February 2016

Approval to take a Dividend from the Surplus in the Water Fund

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                              25 February 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.6      LF4225             250216         Kelli Leckie - Notice of Proposed Legal Action against Council and Crown Lands

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Kelli Leckie be advised in terms of the recommendation in the discussion section of the report.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council could immediately seek legal advice however this would be at considerable expense.  Given the letter is not formal notice of legal action, obtaining legal advice at this stage is considered premature.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received the attached letter in relation to proposed litigation against Council.

 

It is recommended that Council advise Kelli Leckie as follows:

 

1.       That Council will confer with Coffey Geotechnical Engineers in relation to the discharge of water from Nelson Street and will implement whatever drainage measures they consider reasonable and practicable to alleviate water logging.

 

2.       That it be suggested to Mrs Leckie that she arrange a similar investigation and any necessary work in relation to the drainage from her own property.

 

3.       That Council will not be attending to the, “rectification/stability works on the land in front of (my) the property adjoining Gordon Park namely installation of retaining walls and removal of rubbish” as it believes it has no liability for the failed retaining wall.

 

4.       That Council will not be paying $100,000 compensation for the alleged property damage as it believes it has no liability for the alleged damage.

 

5.       That Council will also be seeking an order for costs should it be successful in defending any claims.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The report has been reviewed by Council’s Engineering Designer who has some expertise from previous geotechnical work he has commissioned and project managed on behalf of Council.  His advice is that the report recommendations seem prudent.  He states as follows:

 

“Coffey’s report clearly indicates the failure of the retaining wall is simply due to inadequate construction in the first instance. It seems to be retaining fill material that was placed there to create a level yard.

The report also identifies 2 pipes discharging into the face below the house. The origin of these pipes is unknown. We do not have any stormwater infrastructure in the end of Nelson St.  I have asked Council’s Surveyor to do a survey so we can determine the extent of the catchment.”

 

 

If the matter does proceed to litigation then advice will be sought from Council’s solicitor.  Depending upon the nature of the legal action (against Council or against both Council and Crown Lands), consultation may also be required with Crown Lands.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic issues.

 

Risk

 

The risks have been the subject of geotechnical reports, most recently by Coffey Geotechnical Engineers who were engaged by Council.  Council will minimise its risks by closely adhering to the recommendations of an experienced and competent geotechnical engineer.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Any budgetary impact will depend on the recommendations made by Coffey Geotechnical Engineers. 

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no significant impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

At this stage there are no significant resourcing/staff implications.

 

Attachments:

1

5677/2016 - 2 Nelson Street - Advice of Litigation

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 February 2016

Kelli Leckie - Notice of Proposed Legal Action against Council and Crown Lands

 



Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                              25 February 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.7      SF849              250216         Public Waterfront Structure - Licence No 407880

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Wayne Lowe, Manager Business Development         

 

Summary:

 

In 2010 NSW Land & Property Management Authority, Crown Lands, offered Council a licence 407880 for Public Waterfront Structures – Nambucca Heads including:

 

·              Boardwalk, Boat ramp & jetty at RSL Car Park and Gordon Park, Nambucca Heads

·              Boardwalk, 7 Boat ramp at Wellington Drive (WEST), Nambucca Heads

·              Boardwalk, at Wellington Drive (East), Nambucca Heads

·              Boat Ramp at Shelly Beach, Nambucca Heads.

 

This grouping of licences presents a saving to Council in relation to ongoing licence fees having all waterfront structures on the one licence being (Li407880) in Nambucca Heads.

 

There is now a proposed new development for a waterfront jetty structure to be constructed on the waterfront of Anzac Park that has now gained NSW Fisheries and Maritime Services approval that requires a license from NSW Lands.

 

The proposed new jetty to be located at Anzac Park Nambucca Heads is an initiative by the Nambucca Heads Lions group who have applied for funding for the project over the past two years following the in principle approval gained from Council for the project dated 9 July 2014.

 

The Club was successful in securing a $1,000 donation for the jetty project through Council’s 2014/2015 Donations program with the financial support from Council subject to the Club securing all environmental and planning approvals for the project.

 

The approval is now being sought from Department of Primary Industries Lands for a jetty licence.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council provide written consent from the Council managed Reserve Trust to Crown Lands for the licence for ANZAC Park Jetty to be included on the licence known as (Li407880).

 

2        That Council approve, as the Crown Land Trust Manager, the signing of the licence and the application of Council’s seal as required.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

·              Council can accept the report and resolve to approve the licence to be included in the Nambucca Heads waterfront structure licence Li407880

·              Council can resolve to not support the project

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Manager Business Development has held discussions with Department of Primary Industries (Lands) and is following their advice to have the proposed Anzac Park jetty included in the proposed Licence Li407880.

 

Council’s Engineering Services Department and Development and Planning Section have requested that the Manager Business Development secure a licence from the NSW Department of Primary Industries, (Lands) for the new proposed Anzac Park Jetty to have it included in the Nambucca Heads waterfront structures licence.

 

The Nambucca Heads Lions Club has made application for funding from NSW Fisheries, NSW Recreational Fishing fund totalling an estimated $80,000 to deliver the project.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services

Senior Town Planner

Engineering Designer

NSW Fisheries

Department Primary Industries (Lands)

Nambucca Heads Lions Club

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

This report has environmental implications and does require approval from all environmental and planning approvals including Part 5, NSW Fisheries and Lands. The environmental and planning approvals have now been secured as requested by the Nambucca Shire Council.

 

Social

 

The report has no social implications

 

Economic

 

The development of the jetty at Anzac Park assists with Council’s sustainability in relation to developing new tourism infrastructure.

 

Risk

 

There is no risk to Council as the funds for the establishment of the jetty at Anzac Park are predominantly funded by grants.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

There is no financial implication on council existing or future budgets

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

This report has a direct impact on current and future budgets

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

No funds or variances required.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                              25 February 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.8      DA2012/011      250216         Modification DA2012/011 Nambucca Gardens Estate
Lot 2 DP 1119830 Alexandra Drive Nambucca Heads

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Paul Guy, Manager Development and Environment; Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

A further modification has been received with respect to the above 330 lot subdivision requesting variations:

 

a)        to Council’s section 94 contributions and

b)       Conditions of consent relating to the up-grade of Alexandra Drive, requesting that the upgrade be placed in a contribution plan.

 

The matter has been reported to Council for resolution.  

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council support the following:

 

a)          That the owners of the approved subdivision provide a guarantee for the payment of 50% of the Alexandra Drive upgrading. The 50% cost is to be paid at the date the existing Pacific Highway is decommissioned and becomes a Council road unless an alternative access is provided that does not rely on Alexandra Drive.

 

b)          That all heavy vehicles required for the construction of the subdivision not be allowed to use Alexandra Drive for access until the road is reconstructed.

 

c)          That no more than 75 lots be created within the approved subdivision before the highway is decommissioned or an alternative access road is provided.

 

d)          The 50% contribution to the upgrading cost of Alexandra Drive will fall due no later than July 2018.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

That the present condition concerning the upgrade of Alexandra Drive stands

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The 330 lot subdivision was approved by the Joint Regional Planning Panel on 5th August 2014 subject to 10 non-standard and 48 general conditions of consent including the matters which are the subject of this modification:

 

a)   The construction of the Link Road by the developer

b)   The upgrade of Alexandra Drive

c)   Section 94 contributions.

 

The matters listed above will be discussed separately.

 

Construction of the Link Road by the Developer

 

Council will recall considering a modification application in October 2015 wherein the developer sought to offset all section 64 and 94 contributions for the first 25 lots against the cost of constructing the Link Road over Council land. At Council’s meeting on 25 October 2015 it was resolved as follows:

 

“That the construction of the link road be accepted in lieu of contributions for the first twenty five (25) lots and this provision remain available for four (4) years and the matter be reviewed if the area the subject of the development application is disposed of.”

 

The resolution will be implemented by a works in kind agreement.

 

Recently the applicant sought to further modify this agreement by proposing that a further 130 lots potentially make up the offset balance of the Link Road construction. This has been not supported by Council officers as the agreement adopted by Council on the 25th October was specifically targeted and attributed to the full construction of the Link Road.

 

Whilst it would have been preferable in terms of reducing delay and expense for the developer to have presented all of their requested consent modifications at the one time in October 2015, this was not the case and Council is now being asked to determine further modifications pertaining to other conditions.

 

The upgrade of Alexandra Drive

 

With respect to the up-grade of Alexandra Drive the condition reads as follows;

 

Prior to issue of a construction certificate for Stage A1, the following details shall be submitted for Council's approval:

A qualified practicing Civil Engineer shall carry out a structural analysis of the existing Alexandra Drive road pavement and provide a detailed report recommending a design for reconstruction as required to current standards for use by heavy vehicles and full development of the subject site. The recommended construction works to be completed prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate for Stage A1.

Alexandra Drive pavement design shall be based on a minimum 50 year design life and have a minimum 8m carriageway width.

The intersection of Alexandra Drive and Old Coast Road shall be constructed to reflect drawing Number C101 and in accordance with Austroads Guide o Traffic EngineeringPractice – Part 5 Intersections at Grade;

The proposed roundabout the southern intersection of the development and Alexandra Drive shall be designed to current Austroads standards and constructed in conjunction with Stage A1 roadworks; (applicant needs to demonstrate turning manoeuvres can be achieved at the roundabouts)

Details shall be submitted for Council approval detailing the connection treatment of road pavement s and seals to existing roads and between stages of construction works

13m radius temporary turning circle with guideposts required at the end of each stage of road construction

 

The developer met with Council officers and contended that the condition imposed by the Joint Regional Planning Panel was too onerous and unreasonable as it required works not impacted by the subdivision.  However the emphasis of the condition was for their engineering consultant to investigate the condition of the road and propose upgrading works consistent with the developments impact as assessed by Council’s Manager Technical Services. Also the work could be staged as the development proceeded.

 

The applicant sought to modify the condition as follows;

 

‘The Council shall be responsible for any costs to upgrade Alexandra Drive to the standard required for the current traffic volumes. Upgrading required as a result of increased traffic from the subdivision shall be funded from Section 94 contributions’

 

As Alexandra Drive is not in a contribution plan the condition was modified under delegated authority as follows:

 

 

·    A qualified practicing Civil Engineer shall carry out a structural analysis of the existing Alexandra Drive road pavement and provide a detailed report recommending a design for the staged reconstruction as required to current standards for use by heavy vehicles and full development of the subject site. The recommended construction works to be completed prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate for each Stage A1. as approved.

 

 

However this modification was not accepted and following Council’s resolution with respect to the cost of constructing the Link Road by contribution offsets (25 October) the developer again wrote to Council advising the following:

 

When the DA was submitted it was based on the use of Alexander Drive for temporary access and anticipated that the upgrade was not required for at least 100 lots.  Bush Fire requirements at the last minute required the Link Rd be built as a 1st Priority. This resulted in our forward funding of the Link Road. The upgrade of Alexander Drive being used as a 2nd Exit in case of Bush Fire and not as a primary road dependent only on this subdivision.

 

In addition, Alexandra Drive will provide a benefit to the wider community including:

 

       those in the subdivision of Bellwood South ( Lot 2 DP 119830) providing access to Nambucca town centre and the schools

       those in the Alexandra Drive rural residential area providing access to the Nambucca Village shopping centre and cinemas

       even those from areas west of Nambucca providing access to the above facilities.

 

We consider there to be a definite nexus between these areas and the road upgrade.  Therefore we consider that the upgrade to Alexander Drive should be included in the Section 94 Contributions

 

The developer advised that he would have his planning consultant submit a further modification

 

Notwithstanding initial advice from the developer that no changes were required to Council’s Bellwood local roads contribution plan it has now been agreed that the contribution plan contains road development that will not now take place due to the highway up-grade.  Also the contribution plan did not capture required future work such as the Alexandra Drive reconstruction/upgrade.

 

The following agreement has now been reached with the developer:

 

1)       All items that are no longer required to be funded from the Contributions Plan are to be removed and the Contributions Plan repealed (refer separate report to this business paper)

 

2)       That the owners of the approved subdivision agree to provide a guarantee for the payment of 50% of the Alexandra Drive upgrading. The 50% cost is to be paid at the date the existing Pacific Highway is decommissioned and becomes a Council road unless an alternative access is provided that does not rely on Alexandra Drive

 

Note – from discussion it is estimated that an amount of $700,00 to $800,000 is required to upgrade Alexandra Drive (including the intersection with Old Coast Road) for the increase in traffic beyond normal maintenance requirements for the existing development and traffic volumes. The final cost for the upgrading will be provided by Councils Manager technical Services once he has received the result of pavement tests that have been undertaken.  It is proposed that the developer be provided with a fixed price for their contribution with Council taking up any risk relating to price escalation.  To do otherwise would be problematic for a planning agreement. The developer does have the potential to build a new access to the Pacific Highway (once decommissioned) to the east of the approved subdivision that would not rely on Alexandra Drive and would reduce traffic utilising Alexandra Drive.  If this new access point were to be constructed it is agreed that this would obviate the contribution to the upgrading of Alexandra Drive.

 

The other components of the proposed planning agreement are:

 

·              That all heavy vehicles required for the construction of the subdivision not be allowed to use Alexandra Drive for access until the road is reconstructed.

 

·              That no more than 50 lots be created within the approved subdivision before the highway is decommissioned at the end of 2017 or the 50% contribution to the upgrading cost of Alexandra Drive must be paid.

 

Section 94 contributions

 

The Bellwood Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Contribution Plan is in separate report to Council however the matter was raised in negotiations with the applicant’s Engineering consultant providing calculations and recommendations as to the necessary amendments and inclusions.   

 

Councils Manager technical Services has had an assessment carried out of the pavement in Alexandra Drive which with present traffic volumes would require rehabilitation within a couple of years. Reconstruction would be required due to the impact of the entire development on the road. It was considered that development up to 75 lots could be catered for in the present condition of the road.  The 50% component the developer pays towards the reconstruction of Alexandra Drive or an alternate road access to the old highway is considered a better outcome to a contribution plan wherein Council would be faced with a very large “up front” capital expense to reconstruct Alexandra Drive but would only be receiving minor contributions for the work over many, many years as the subdivision was developed.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager, Manager Development and Environment, Manager Technical Services, Senior Town Planner, Developer (Joe Saliba), Applicant (Geoff Smythe and Associates), and Consulting Engineer (Rob de Groot) have been involved in consultation on the matter

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

No impact from this modification

 

Social

 

No social impact from this modification

 

Economic

 

There is an economic risk of the development not proceeding

 

Risk

 

The risks are discussed in the report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

At this stage there are no budgetary implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no service level or resourcing/staff implications.

 

Attachments:

1

33363/2015 - Proposed 330 Lot Residential Subdivision, Bellwood - Request to Offset Cost of Constructing the Link Road Against Council Contributions

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 February 2016

Modification DA2012/011 Nambucca Gardens Estate

Lot 2 DP 1119830 Alexandra Drive Nambucca Heads

 

General Manager

ITEM 10.12  DA2012/011      291015         Proposed 330 Lot Residential Subdivision, Bellwood - Request to Offset Cost of Constructing the Link Road Against Council Contributions

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 


 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 


 

Recommendation:

 

That Council not include water and sewer headworks (Section 64) contributions as part of negotiations for a works in kind agreement for the construction of the Link Road on Council owned land between Marshall Way and Alexandra Drive, Nambucca Heads.

 

 


OPTIONS:

 

Council has the option of entering into a Works in Kind Agreement in relation to the range of contributions identified in the report.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council staff have been having on-going negotiations with the developers of DA2012/011 being the consent issued by the Joint Regional Planning Panel for the development of 330 residential lots at Bellwood, generally between Alexandra Drive and Marshall Way.

 

The development consent which was issued on 5 August 2014 contains a number of conditions relevant to the construction of the Link Road (the road which will link Marshall Way and Alexandra Drive).  Of the “non-standard” conditions, condition no. 2 requires that prior to the release of the first subdivision certificate for the proposed development the Link Road shall be constructed and completed.

 

Condition no. 30 also requires the payment of a contribution (amongst others) for the Bellwood Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Plan of $3,135 per lot.  This contribution was discounted to remove the Link Road component of the contributions plan (as the developer was obliged to build it).

 

However the developer contends that the proposed discount is not adequate as he will be obligated to spend the estimated $650,000 up front to construct the Link Road but will only receive the discounted Section 94 contributions as the development proceeds.  This issue is acknowledged as it is exactly the problem the Council has with Section 94 contribution planning when it is obligated to provide infrastructure but only receives contributions for the cost of that infrastructure at an incremental rate.

 

The developer has proposed an alternative discounting arrangement whereby all contributions be offset for the first stage of approximately 25 lots (up to the value of the Link Road construction).  The per lot contributions sought to be offset as per the consent issued in August 2014 (excluding indexation) are:

 

1.       Community Facilities and Open Space                             $ 1,904

2.       Bellwood Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure     $ 3,135

3.       Road Upgrading: Bellwood Road intersection         $    877

4.       Surf Life Saving                                                    $    107

5.       Section 94 Administration Charge                           $    602

6.       Water                                                                    $12,033

7.       Sewer                                                                   $ 9,090

 

Total                                                                              $27,749 (per lot)

 

The Council has broad powers under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to enter into a Works in Kind agreement to give effect to the developer’s request.

 

The argument in favour of the developer’s request is that there is considerable up front cost to constructing the Link Road which can only be recouped over a very long term.  This will increase the finance and risk associated with the subdivision which may mean that it doesn’t proceed.

 

The alternative argument which Council should also consider is that in relation to the water and sewer contributions which are levied under the Local Government Act, they are based on adopted Development Servicing Plans for Water and for Sewerage which are designed to meet Council’s existing and future financing commitments for its water and sewerage infrastructure.  In the case of water the Council is committed to financing its investment in the $56m Bowra Dam whilst in sewer there is an existing commitment to its investment in the $22m upgrade of the Nambucca Heads Sewerage Treatment Plant from 10,000 to 15,000 equivalent tenements (ET).

 

Based on the importance of Council financing its significant existing investment in water and sewer which were necessary to facilitate the 330 lot subdivision, in relation to future works in kind agreement negotiations with the developer it is recommended that such negotiations not include Water and Sewer contributions.  It is acknowledged that the other (Section 94) contributions be considered for such an agreement in recognition of the significant up front cost in constructing the Link Road.

 

There are also other disagreements in relation to the contributions which have been previously paid; the use of those funds and the contributions remaining to be paid.  However these disagreements are not central to the subject of this report and can be further reported on if there is progess with a works in kind agreement.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Manager Development and Environment, Council’s Grants Officer and with the developer for the subdivision.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

The economic risk of the development not proceeding is identified in the report.

 

Risk

 

The risk to Council in relation to financing its water and sewerage infrastructure is also discussed in the report.  For a first stage subdivision of 25 lots, the contribution for water infrastructure would be $300,825 (25 x $12,033), whilst the contribution for sewerage infrastructure would be $227,250 (25 x $9,090).

 

The quantum of the funding is such that it will impact on Council’s Development Servicing Plans and the funding that has to be contributed by ratepayers.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

At this stage there is no budgetary implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no service level or resourcing/staff implications.

 


Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                              25 February 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.9      SF544              250216         Bellwood Local  Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Development Contribution Plan 2009 - withdrawal

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Paul Guy, Manager Development and Environment         

 

Summary:

 

The abovementioned plan was instituted to improve local traffic movements in the Bellwood area at a time when the upgrade of the Pacific Highway was a proposal only.

 

Given that the highway opening is imminent there are a number of items in the plan that either will not need to be carried out or may be attributed to and conditioned to new development.

 

It is recommended that the plan be extinguished.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the Bellwood Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Plan 2009 be noted as obsolete and be extinguished.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

a)         That the plan be revised

b)         That the plan be retained

 

DISCUSSION:

 

When discussing Planning Agreements for works in kind for the section 94 contributions applied to the 330 lot Bellwood Gardens subdivision it was noted that the works to be actioned in the plan, ie:

 

1)       Intersection Upgrade: Pacific Highway and Bellwood Road, Bellwood

2)       Roundabout construction: Bellwood Road and Mumbler Street, Bellwood

3)       Intersection Upgrade: Pacific Highway and Riverside Drive, Bellwood

4)       Construction of Road Segment between Alexandra Drive and Marshall Way

5)       Bellwood Road Upgrade between Mumbler Street and Marshall Way

6)       Roundabout Construction: Bellwood Road and Marshall Way

7)       Bellwood Road Upgrade between Mumbler Street and Pacific Highway

 

were either no longer required due to the Pacific Highway upgrade and realignment as is the case for items 1 & 3,  would be conditional upon the impacts of any future commercial development in relation to items 2, 5, 6,& 7 or are being carried out consequent to approved development as is the case for item 4.

 

Note that the potential commercial development area is contained in the one area with most residential expansion either approved or presently being appraised by council. The new Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Plan 2016 will capture developments currently being assessed.

 

Also the contribution plan did not consider the upgrading of Alexandra Drive which is found to be in need of heavy patching and potential reconstruction.

 

The plan is therefore considered to be obsolete with Council being able to manage necessary works when new development is proposed.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Consultation was carried out with the General Manager, Manager Development and Environment, Manager Technical Services

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no impacts to the environment

 

Social

 

There are no social impacts

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic impacts.

 

Risk

 

Without development the need for the infrastructure is not realised therefore there is no perceived risk

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Development can unfold in stages over many years which means council has to carry the cost of providing infrastructure works until contributions have been finally paid. Having the proposed development paying for infrastructure necessary to carry out the development improves the economic outlook for council in this particular case

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

As above

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no changes to the service level or implications on staff resources (apart from the inevitable meetings and discussion over monetary conditions imposed)

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                              25 February 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.10    DA2015/099      250216         Use of Public Reserve as Asset Protection Zone for Proposed Development

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Daniel Walsh, Senior Town Planner         

 

Summary:

 

Development application DA2015/099 includes a 133 lot subdivision of Lot 1 DP 1119830 – Bellwood Road, Nambucca Heads and is yet to be determined. The applicant has requested to create asset protection zones (APZ) on the adjoining Council owned public reserves and an unmanaged section of the Bellwood Road reserve to in order to satisfy the requirements of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 (PBP) which is required to obtain general terms of approval from the NSW Rural Fire Service.

 

The creation of the proposed APZ will require Council to maintain over 2ha of land in perpetuity within vegetation considered by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) to be a habitat corridor for the endangered Yellow-bellied glider. Although further assessment and consultation would need to be undertaken with OEH regarding the full extent of these impacts; the proposed use of public land for the APZ is not considered to be appropriate because:

 

·      It is contrary to Councils ‘Bushfire Buffers on Public Land’ policy which requires new subdivisions to contain APZs wholly within the development site and not offset to neighbouring land/reserves under the management and control of Council or other State or public authority. This will add significant cost and liability to Council without any significant gain.

 

·      Approval for the use of the proposed APZ to the south of the development site will remove any public open space benefit the public land could offer compared to if it were incorporated into the proposal. It is also considered that it will encourage antisocial behaviour and illegal dumping. 

 

·      Given the significance of the existing trees for the movement of Yellow-bellied gliders, management of the reserve to comply with PBP requirements will be more problematic due to the number of trees that would be required to be retained compared to managing a completely cleared site. This will further add to Councils management costs.

 

The purpose of this report is to seek a resolution from Council as to whether or not it will accept the applicant’s proposal to use the community land and road reserve as an APZ and the ongoing maintenance costs. Once a resolution is made Council will be in a position to request further information from the applicant, undertake further consultation with state departments, and refer the application to the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel for determination.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council:

 

1        Permit the proposed subdivision on Lot 1 DP 1119830  to rely on the existing grassed areas managed by Council as part of a plan of management within the adjoining Farringdon playing fields (Lot 76 DP 832082) for the purposes of an asset protection zone.

 

2        Not permit the creation of an asset protection zone within the unmanaged area of Lot 76 DP 832082.

 

3        Not permit the creation of an asset protection zone on Lot 23 DP 790194 or the adjoining Bellwood Road reserve.

 

4        Provide the applicant 60 days to amend development application DA2015/099 by either:

·      Providing amended plans and bushfire report demonstrating that asset protection zones required for each proposed lot in accordance with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 will be provided within Lot 1 DP 1119830 and existing managed areas of Lot 76 DP 832082, or

·      Withdraw the development application.

If the applicant has not responded by undertaking one of the above options within 60 days; the development application is to be referred to the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel for refusal.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1          Not support the creation of asset protection zones on public land.

 

2        Support the creation of asset protection zones on public land as requested by the applicant and accept the ongoing maintenance responsibility.

 

Comment from GM

 

The report concerns a significant policy issue concerning the use of Council land as an APZ. There is also a related issue concerning the maintenance of habitat for the Yellow bellied glider.  The developer’s attitude to the recommendation is that he is being “penalised” for previously agreeing to a request from Council (made many years ago) to dedicate a 20m wide vegetated buffer.  This vegetated buffer has now in effect created the requirement for another buffer being an asset protection zone.  But as the report indicates the use of the existing vegetated buffer will require Council to maintain over 2ha of land in perpetuity not to mention the potential conflict of ensuring a non-contiguous tree canopy in habitat which is being used by Yellow bellied gliders.  The Council should undertake an inspection of the site before determining the matter.  Given another DA inspection requirement on the agenda for this meeting it was not possible to schedule an inspection.  It is recommended that the matter be deferred to Council’s meeting on 17 March 2016.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Development application DA2015/099 was lodged on 2 July 2015 and includes a 133 lot subdivision of Lot 1 DP 1119830 – Bellwood Road, Nambucca Heads. A copy of the proposed subdivision plan has been included within attachment 1.

 

The proposed development includes the location of lots 85-107 along the southern boundary of the site which adjoins a vegetated 20m wide public reserve and 20m wide unmanaged road reserve (Bellwood Road). It also includes the location of lots 9-15 adjacent to forest vegetation located within the adjoining public reserve to the north. An aerial photo of the site illustrating the location of the adjoining public reserves and road reserve has been included within attachment 2.

 

The proposed development is reliant on the creation of an asset protection zone (APZ) to be established within the adjoining reserves in order for the development to comply with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 (PBP). The NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) will not grant general terms of approval for the development unless it complies with PBP and development consent cannot be granted unless general terms of approval are received from the RFS.

 

After receiving comments from the RFS and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), which outlined inconsistencies with PBP and potential impacts associated with the proposed clearing for the APZs on endangered species; Council wrote to the applicant on 24 September 2015 requesting the matters raised by the RFS and OEH be addressed. A copy of Councils, RFS and OEH letters have been included within attachment 3. The applicants’ response to this request was received by Council on 3 February 2016 and has been included within attachment 4.

 

The applicant is still proposing that lots 9-15 and 85-107 benefit from an APZ created over the adjoining public reserves (community land) and road reserve and that Council maintain these areas in perpetuity. The purpose of this report is to seek a resolution from Council as to whether or not it will accept the applicant’s proposal to use the community land and road reserve as an APZ and the ongoing maintenance costs.

 

The two proposed APZs within the adjoining public reserves have been addressed separately below.

 

Lots 9-15

The public reserve adjoining the site to the north is the Farringdon Playing Fields. The original bushfire report submitted with the development application identified this land to be managed (no bushfire threat); however, it did not consider the vegetated area within the south-western corner of the playing fields illustrated in attachment 2. In response to Councils request for this area to be considered in an amended bushfire report, the applicant has proposed that a 13m wide APZ within the vegetated area be managed by Council along the rear boundaries of proposed lots 9-15.

 

On 26 February 2015, Council made the following resolution regarding the future use and management of the playing fields:

 

1        Pursuant to the Clause 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council prepare a Planning Proposal to support an amendment to reclassify as operational land all of the land described as Faringdon Fields being Lot 76 DP 832082 with the intention of transferring it to Aboriginal ownership.

 

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

 

3        Prior to the exhibition of the proposed reclassification, that a Master Plan for the re-establishment of the Faringdon Fields as a natural area be prepared.  The Master Plan is to be prepared in consultation with residents of Marshall Way, the developers of the Faringdon subdivision and the Aboriginal community.

 

4        The preparation of the proposed Master Plan be funded from Council’s Environmental Levy.

 

5        That the General Manager be provided with delegated authority to appoint an independent person to undertake the public hearing for the proposed reclassification.

 

The consequence of revegetating the existing managed playing fields will be that all lots within the proposed development backing onto the playing fields (lots 1-15) will not comply with PBP as a 21m APZ would not be achievable for a future dwelling on those lots. Since Councils resolution, the applicant has lodged a submission to Council objecting to the proposed transfer of ownership and revegetation due to loss of public open space.

 

Given that proposed lots 1-9 currently back onto the managed section of the playing fields and the unknown timeframes for when/if the playing fields will be revegetated and ownership transferred; it is considered reasonable for a 13m wide easement for the purposes of maintaining an APZ to be created over the existing managed sections of the playing fields to benefit lots within the subject development. Such an easement would be created at the time the ownership of the playing fields is transferred and addressed as part of any master plan for the revegetation of the land. Council would not be burdened by any additional maintenance costs as a result of this, there would be no adverse environmental impacts, and the applicant could achieve a higher lot yield.

 

The remaining 8m of APZ will be contained within the proposed allotments to minimise the APZ foot print within the existing playing fields and will be recommended to be a condition of any development consent for the proposed subdivision. Please note that Council has an existing management plan in place for the management of the cleared areas of the playing fields.

 

However, the applicant’s proposal to extend the APZ through the existing unmanaged forest vegetation within the south-western corner of the playing fields is not considered to be appropriate for the following reasons:

 

·           Approval of such an APZ would require Council to amend its existing management plan for the playing fields by increasing the area already managed by Council. This is contrary to Councils ‘Bushfire Buffers on Public Land’ policy which requires new subdivisions to contain APZs wholly within the development site and not offset to neighbouring land/reserves under the management and control of council or other State or public authority. This is to ensure that the liability of maintaining an APZ associated with the private development on land in bush fire prone areas is the responsibility of the developer or successive owners of the land.

 

·           Under section 46 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council is not able to register an easement on community land which gives legal right to adjoining property owners to manage the land as an APZ.

 

·           No assessment has been submitted by the applicant addressing the potential environmental impacts associated with the required vegetation removal.  

 

Having regard to the above, it is recommended that Council permit the use of the currently managed areas of the playing fields as an APZ (consistent with Councils policy) and not permit the establishment of a new APZ within the unmanaged section of the playing fields (contrary to Council’s policy).

 

Lots 85-107

The proposed subdivision requires a 42m APZ for lots 85-107 which are located along the southern boundary of the site. The proposal includes the creation of an APZ within the 20m wide public reserve which adjoins the site to the south (Lot 23 DP 790194) and the 20m wide unmanaged Council road reserve (Bellwood Road) which adjoins Lot 23 DP 790194 to the south. The location of Lot 23 DP 790194 and the unmanaged section of Bellwood Road have been illustrated in attachment 2. The remaining 2m of the required APZ is to be contained within the proposed allotments.

 

The 20m wide public reserve which adjoins the site to the south (Lot 23 DP 790194) was dedicated to Council as public open space in accordance with condition 11 of the development consent for DA1811 (file no S18-1-95) dated 2 February 1989. The reason this condition was imposed was because the 20m wide section of land was zoned 6 (b) (Open Space (Proposed Recreation) Zone) under the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 1986. The intention of zoning the land and the subsequent requirement for its dedication to Council was for the provision of public open space and the retention of a buffer between future subdivision of the land (such as the subject proposal) and the Aboriginal Reserve to the south of Bellwood Road. 

 

Council accepted the dedication of Lot 23 DP 790194 in lieu of charging monetary contributions for the provision of public reserves and credited 50% of the value of the reserve to offset contributions for future allotments created post determination date.

 

Although the applicant has verbally claimed that the reserve was created for the purpose of a bushfire buffer; this is not consistent with Council records as there is no reference to permitting bushfire management within Lot 23 DP 790194.

 

The proposed use of Lot 23 DP 790194 and the unmanaged section of Bellwood Road as an APZ is not considered to be appropriate for the following reasons:

 

·           The Bellwood Road pavement currently terminates at the rear of proposed lot 88, where it is gated off to prevent vehicular access. West of the gate comprises a narrow unsealed track which navigates thick vegetation before entering the adjoining state forest. The section of Lot 23 DP 790194 and the unmanaged section of Bellwood Road proposed to be used as an APZ for the proposed development have an area exceeding 2ha.

 

          As can be seen in attachment 2, the majority of this section of land has no effect on providing a buffer to the developed section of the adjoining Aboriginal Reserve due to the presence of thick vegetation on the allotments to the south and the developed section of the Aboriginal Reserve being located east of the proposed lots.  Approval for the use of the proposed APZ will remove any public open space benefit the land could offer compared to if it were incorporated into the proposal. This could include the inclusion of a perimeter road adjacent to the reserve; which would result in the reserve being more open and accessible, have houses fronting onto the reserve instead of backing onto it, minimise bushfire risk and disturbance to flora and fauna species, and discourage antisocial behaviour and illegal dumping. 

 

·           The proposed APZ will be over 2ha and will be the responsibility for Council to manage in perpetuity. Such a proposal is in gross contravention of Councils ‘Bushfire Buffers on Public Land’ policy as it will add significant cost and liability to Council without any significant gain.

 

Furthermore, given the significance of the existing trees for the movement of Yellow-bellied gliders, management of the reserve to comply with PBP requirements (maintain grass less than 100mm) will be more problematic due to the number of trees that would be required to be retained compared to managing a completely cleared site. This will add increased management costs to Council.

 

·           Not using the land as an APZ will minimise impacts on the endangered Yellow-bellied glider as referred to in the letter from OEH in attachment 3.

 

·           Under section 46 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council is not able to register an easement on community land which gives legal right to adjoining property owners to manage the land as an APZ.

 

Having regard to the above, it is recommended that Council not permit the use of the public reserve or Bellwood Road as an APZ for the proposed development.

 

Furthermore, given the period in which the application has been with Council (236 days) and that this extended period has been the result of the applicants delay in providing the requested information, it is recommended that Council provide the applicant 60 days to either provide amended plans and bushfire report demonstrating all APZs will be located within the development site or withdraw the application. If the applicant has not responded by either amending the proposal to comply with the above recommendation or withdrawing the application within the 60 day timeframe; the application is to be referred to the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel for refusal.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

NSW Rural Fire Service

NSW Office of Environment & Heritage

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are contrary opinions expressed by the applicants Ecologist compared with those from OEH regarding the impacts of the proposed establishment of APZ on the local occurrence of Yellow-bellied gliders due to impacts on the movement of these species within the area which would require further consultation.

 

However, adopting the recommendations of this report will not impact on this species.

 

Social

 

It is not considered that there will be any significant social impacts as a result of the recommendations.

 

Economic

 

Although there will be a reduction in the potential lot yield of the development site, adopting the recommendations will minimise significant maintenance and potential liability costs associated with the proposed development which is considered to have more weight in assessing the public interest.

 

Risk

 

Adopting the recommendations of this report will minimise the potential liability associated with being required to maintain APZs for adjoining residential land.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The recommendations will minimise the increased maintenance costs associated with the proposed development.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

N/A

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

N/A

 

 

Attachments:

1

4672/2016 - Attachment 1 - Plan of Proposed Subdivision

 

2

4670/2016 - Attachment 2 - Location of Reserves

 

3

4669/2016 - Attachment 3 - Council, RFS & OEH Letters

 

4

4668/2016 - Attachment 4 - Applicants Response to Additional Information Request

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 February 2016

Use of Public Reserve as Asset Protection Zone for Proposed Development

 



Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 February 2016

Use of Public Reserve as Asset Protection Zone for Proposed Development

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 February 2016

Use of Public Reserve as Asset Protection Zone for Proposed Development

 













Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 February 2016

Use of Public Reserve as Asset Protection Zone for Proposed Development

 










Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                              25 February 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.11    DA2015/195      250216         Proposed Telecommunications Facility

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Daniel Walsh, Senior Town Planner         

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council as the consent authority, pursuant Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, grant consent for Development Application 2015/195 for the construction of a telecommunications facility at Lot 2 DP 1039123 - 401 Gumma Road, Gumma, subject to the schedule of conditions outlined in attachment 3 of this report.

 

OPTIONS:

 

(a)        Grant consent to the development application, either unconditionally or subject to conditions, or

(b)        Refuse consent to the development application.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Subject Site

The subject site is located at 401 Gumma Road, Gumma and is legally known as Lot 2 DP 1039123. It is located within the R5 Large Residential and RU2 Rural Landscape zones under the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010. The site is irregular in shape and has a gradual slope towards the east. The site contains an existing dwelling house fronting Gumma Road and vacant land to the rear containing a drainage line and a mixture of open modified pasture and large native trees with a modified understorey.

 

Locality Plan

Proposed Development

The proposed development Includes:

 

·      The construction of a 45m high grey telecommunications tower with a parabolic dish and three panel antennas.

·      An ancillary infrastructure compound around the base of the tower comprising an 8m x 10m area fenced with 2.4m high chain wire security fencing. The compound will contain the tower and two equipment cabinets on an elevated steel platform.

·      A 10m asset protection zone (APZ) around the tower and equipment cabinets.

·      Vehicular access from the sites frontage to Gumma Road.

·      Installation of underground electricity from Gumma Road to the compound.

 

A copy of the statement of environmental effects has been included within attachment 1 and proposed plans in attachment 2.

 

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent, the proposed development is considered to be satisfactory with regards to the relevant sections of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as follows:

 

Section 5A - Significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats

The application was accompanied by a flora and fauna report. The flora and fauna report indicates that the proposal will result in the removal of five trees, with one being representative of the ‘Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregion’ (EEC).

 

Having regard to the content of the report, it is considered that sufficient information is available to satisfy Council that the proposed development will not be contrary to the matters for consideration outlined in this section. As such, it is not considered that the proposal will have any significant effects on threatened species, populations, communities or their habitats.

Section 79BA - Consultation and development consent—certain bush fire prone land

Conditions have been included within the conditions of consent which will ensure the proposed development is consistent with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

Section 79C(1) In determining a development application a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application:

 

(a)(i)   The provisions of any environmental planning instrument (EPI)

 

The proposed development is assessed against the relevant clauses of the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 in the following table:

 

Clause

Complies

Comments

2.3 - Zone objectives and land use table

Yes

The proposed development is permissible with consent and is considered to be consistent with the relevant objectives of the zones because:

·      It will not discourage primary industry production.

·      The presence of telecommunication monopoles has become a regular occurrence within the rural landscape throughout the country in response to the increasing technological advances and expectations of society. As detailed later in this report, sufficient measures have been implemented within the consent to minimise the visibility of the monopole; however, sparsely located structures such as the proposed are common and expected within the rural landscape. As such, it is not considered that the proposal will adversely affect the rural landscape.

·      Given the location of the monopole and the specifications of its operating functions, it is not considered that it will be incompatible with surrounding land uses.

5.5 - Development within the coastal zone

Yes

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent, the proposed development will not result in any significant impacts on the coastal environment because:

·      It will not impede or diminish existing public access to and along the foreshore, with opportunities for new public access not available.

·     The site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development as it will enable the monopole to service the surrounding area while being appropriately located so as to minimise proximity to surrounding dwellings and environmentally sensitive areas. Furthermore, the monopole will be predominantly screened by existing vegetation, will be coloured to blend into the natural environment (grey), it is not a bulky structure, and it is a common structure within the rural landscape.

·      The proposal will not result in any overshadowing on the coastal foreshore or any loss of views from a public place to the coastal foreshore.

·      The monopoles partial screening and colours used will assist in minimising impacts on scenic quality. 

·      It will not result in any significant impacts on any native coastal vegetation or wildlife corridors, rock platforms, water quality of coastal water bodies, or native flora or fauna or their habitats.

·      It will not result in any detrimental cumulative impacts on the coastal catchment.

·      Onsite effluent disposal systems are not proposed.

·    Untreated stormwater will not be discharged into the sea, beach, estuary, lake, creek, or onto a rock platform.

·    The subject site is not subject to coastal hazards and will not impact on coastal hazards or increase the risk of coastal hazards on any other land.

5.9AA – Trees or vegetation not prescribed by a development control plan

Yes

The Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 (NDCP) is the only Development Control Plan applicable to the proposed development. The NDCP does not prescribe for the purposes of clause 5.9 any tree or other vegetation.

7.3 – Flood Planning

Yes

The proposed tower and compound will be located above the 3.48AHD FPL; although the proposed access track will cross an area below the FPL. However, given the infrequent occupation of the development and the low hazard risk; it is not considered that it is inconsistent with the flood hazard of the land, will not significantly adversely affect flood behaviour, will not pose significant risk to human life, will not result in any adverse environmental damage, and will not result in unsustainable social or economic impacts on the community.

7.4 - Public utility infrastructure

Yes

Power will be extended to serve the development.

7.6 - Earthworks

Yes

The proposed earthworks will not impact significantly on surface water flows, will not result in any significant impacts on the future uses on the land or redevelopment, will not impact any contaminated soil or the amenity of surrounding properties, is unlikely to disturb any relics, and appropriate erosion control measures have been included within the recommended conditions of consent.

 

The proposed development is assessed against the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies in the following table:

 

State Environmental Planning Policy

Complies

Comments

SEPP 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

Yes

Having regard to the submitted flora and fauna report, the site is not considered to be potential koala habitat. As such, in accordance with clause 8, Council is not prevented by this policy from granting consent to the development application.

SEPP 55 - Remediation of Land

Yes

The land is not considered to be contaminated because there are no known previous uses or activities on the site that would have resulted in any contamination of the land and the proposal does not include a change of use of the land.

SEPP 62 - Sustainable Aquaculture

Yes

It is not considered that the proposed development will result in any adverse effects on oyster aquaculture development or a priority oyster aquaculture area because of the sites location from any of these areas, with earthworks and stormwater flows resulting from the development being appropriately managed by conditions of consent.

SEPP 71 – Coastal Protection

Yes

Subject to the conditions of consent, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the matters for consideration outlined in Clause 8 and the development controls within Part 4 because it will not contradict the aims of the policy or result in any significant impacts on the coastal environment having regard to scenic qualities, access, archaeological significance, ecosystems, coastal processes, wildlife corridors; water quality; or result in conflict between land-based and water-based coastal activities.

SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007

Yes

In accordance with clause 115, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant principles within the ‘NSW Telecommunications Facilities Guideline Including Broadband, July 2010’ as follows:

Principle 1: For any telecommunications monopole to be effective, it must extend above the surrounding landscape in order to provide coverage to the area. With this in mind, it is considered that the proposed development has been located and designed to respond appropriately to the rural landscape setting through its separation from surrounding residences (min 150m) and predominant screening by existing vegetation from surrounding dwellings. Furthermore, the ancillary facilities will be screened from the surrounding area by existing and conditioned landscaping, there are no heritage items on the land, the proposed tree removal is considered satisfactory, and a condition has been included within the consent requiring the facility to be removed when no longer in use.

Principle 2: The applicant has adequately demonstrated that the proposed telecommunications facility cannot be collocated with other structures as there are no other facilities located in the vicinity with the required position, height or structural stability that are potentially capable of providing wireless radio services to the locality.

Principle 3: The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is the Commonwealth body charged with the responsibility for establishing standards that protect the health and safety of the community. ARPANSA has established a radiation protection standard specifying limits for general public exposure to radio frequency transmissions at frequencies used by wireless base stations. The Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) mandates the exposure limits of the ARPANSA standard.

An Electromagnetic Energy (EME) Environmental Report has been submitted with the development application which demonstrates that the proposed development will comply with the ACMA limits for electromagnetic radiation exposure levels. The report indicates that the proposal will not exceed more than 0.1% of the maximum exposure limits.

Principle 4: The application was referred to CASA regarding the location and height of the development in relation to any impact on airspace. CASA responded with no objections subject to the structure being reported to the air force (conditioned).

Furthermore, given the site is not within 30km of an airport, a condition has been included within the consent requiring a report to be submitted demonstrating compliance Civil Aviation Regulations prior to the issues of a CC.

The applicant has stated that the development will be designed to create no electrical interference with other radio based systems and will be installed in accordance with relevant manufacturer’s specifications. Furthermore, the development will be located within the boundaries of the property, adequate erosion and sedimentation controls have been conditioned, it will be securely fenced, work hours have been conditioned, and there will be limited impacts to flora and fauna species through minimal disturbance to the site.

 

(a)(ii)    The provision of any draft environmental planning instrument (EPI)

 

There are no draft environmental planning instruments applicable to the proposed development.

 

(a)(iii)   The provision of any Development Control Plan

 

The proposed development is assessed against the relevant clauses of the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 in the following table:

 

Part

Complies

Comments

Notification and advertising (Part A)

Yes

The application was notified and advertised in accordance with Part A of the DCP. 8 submissions were received.

Environmental context (Part A)

Yes

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent and as assessed throughout this report, the proposed development is considered to be satisfactory having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under clause A5.0.

Car Parking (Part C)

Yes

This part does not specify minimum parking requirements for the development. However, given the size of the site and the proposed use, it is considered that there is sufficient room on site for the parking of all vehicles associated with the development.

Given the increased usage of the existing entrances, a condition has been included within the consent requiring the northern entrance to be sealed (currently grassed).

Sediment and erosion control (Part D)

Yes

All works to be undertaken as part of any consent will be subject to a condition of consent requiring the installation of adequate erosion and sedimentation devices which are consistent with Part D of the DCP.

Rural and environmental development  (Part F)

Yes

The proposal is not considered to be contrary to any provision of this part.

Waste Minimisation And Management (Part N)

Yes

Conditions have been recommended to be included within the consent regarding the management of waste during construction.

 

 

(a) (iiia) Any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 93F, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 93F.

 

There are no planning agreements applying to the subject site.

 

(a)(iv) Any Matters prescribed by the Regulation

 

There are no matters prescribed by the regulation.

 

 

Complies

Comments

Clause 92(1) (a) - For the carrying out of development on land to which the Government Coastal Policy applies, the provisions of that Policy.

Yes

Matters for consideration to implement the NSW Coastal Policy are provided in Clause 5.5 (Development within the coastal zone) under the NLEP 2010. These are similar to Clause 8 (Matters for Consideration) under SEPP 71. It is considered that the matters for consideration under Clause 5.5 of the NLEP 2010 and Clause 8 of SEPP 71 have been satisfactorily addressed, therefore, satisfying the requirements of the NSW Coastal Policy.

 

(a) (v) any coastal zone management plan

 

It is not considered that the nature or location of the proposed development will be contrary to any of the management actions outlined within the Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Nambucca Shire Coastline.

 

(b)        The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality.

 

Issue

Comments

Context and Setting

As mentioned earlier in this report, for any telecommunications monopole to be effective, it must extend above the surrounding landscape in order to provide coverage to the area. Furthermore, the presence of telecommunication monopoles has become a regular occurrence within the rural landscape throughout the country in response to the increasing technological advances and expectations of society.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed development has been located and designed to respond appropriately to the rural landscape setting through its separation from surrounding residences (min 150m), natural colouring of the monopole, and positioning out of any prominent view corridors obtained from surrounding properties or public places due to the location of existing vegetation screening which minimise the towers visibility.

A plan demonstrating the extent of the visual impacts of the development on the surrounding area has been included within attachment 5. Having regard to the proximity of dwellings from the development, their orientation, and vegetation screening; it is considered that the tower will be most visible from the dwellings at numbers 398 and 399 Gumma Road.

Although a maximum of 20m of the tower will be visible from 398 Gumma Road, it will be located over 240m from the dwelling and contains existing and proposed vegetation screening which will continue to mature to further reduce its visibility in the future.

Consideration was given to the relocation of the tower further north-west on the subject site so that the tower would be screened from view from the dwelling at 399 Gumma Road by the existing 20-30m high vegetation on that property. However, any relocation on the development site could only achieve a total screening of the tower from half of the living areas and would make it more prominent from the remaining areas of the property due to the screening trees being smaller than the existing 15-20m tree that will minimise its visibility.

Although there would be increased environmental impacts associated with relocating the tower north-west, such impacts would be minor and are not considered to have any significant effects on threatened species, populations, communities or their habitats. As such, Council could condition the relocation if it considered it to be more appropriate. However, it is considered that the tower will be less visually prominent in its proposed location when viewed from number 399.

Electromagnetic Energy (EME)

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is the Commonwealth body charged with the responsibility for establishing standards that protect the health and safety of the community, including the Radiation Protection

Standard. ARPANSA states that the standards which protect people from EME exposure do not set any distances between mobile base station locations and areas which may be considered to be sensitive because arbitrary distances do not necessarily reflect a precautionary approach.

 

The Radiation Protection Standard 2002 prescribes ‘fundamental limits designed to ensure that known health effects do not arise from exposure to radiofrequency fields.’

The considered scientific opinion about possible health effects from the proposed development is that ‘the weight of national and international scientific opinion is that there is no substantiated evidence that radio frequency emissions associated with living near a mobile phone base station or telecommunications tower poses a health risk’.

The above originates from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and the Committee on Electromagnetic Energy Public Health Issues Fact Sheet No.9 – What about base stations and telecommunications towers – are there any health effects?

 

ARPANSA has undertaken a number of surveys of environmental radiofrequency EME levels arising from mobile phone base station antennas. The most recent ARPANSA coordinated survey was undertaken in 2007–08. Results show that actual measured values, including ‘cumulative’ effect were much lower than levels permitted by the Radiation Protection Standard. As outlined earlier in this report, the proposed telecommunications facility will not exceed more than 0.1% of the maximum exposure limits.

 

Reference is also made to Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council 2006 148 LGERA 124. This case dealt with the application of the precautionary principle in the case of emission of radiofrequency EME. Telecommunications carrier, Telstra, proposed to address inadequate mobile coverage in the suburb of Cheltenham by building a mobile base station. Council refused the application and Telstra appealed to the Land & Environment Court of NSW and the Court upheld the appeal.

Access, Transport and Traffic

Subject to the conditions of consent, sufficient access is available for the proposed development.

Utilities

Electricity will be extended to the site, with the proposal resulting in greater telecommunication coverage within the locality.

Heritage

In accordance with the Due Diligence Code of Practice, there are no relevant confirmed site records or other associated landscape feature information on AHIMS, no other sources of information of which a person is already aware, and the development will not impact on any landscape features that are likely to indicate the presence of Aboriginal objects.

Soils

Conditions requiring the installation and maintenance of erosion and sedimentation controls have been included within the consent.

Flora and Fauna

It is not considered that the proposal will have any significant impacts on threatened species, populations, communities or their habitats.

Waste

The storage and disposal of waste during construction included within the consent.

Noise and Vibration

Construction hours and operational noise has been conditioned.

Natural Hazards

Sufficient access and APZ has been conditioned as part of the consent.

Social Impact in the Locality

Having regard to the above and subject to the conditions of consent, it is not considered that the proposed development will result in any significant social impacts on the locality.

Economic Impact in the Locality

Considering the extent of social impacts posed by the development it is not considered that it will result in any negative economic impacts on the locality.

 

(c)      The suitability of the site for the development

 

As outlined above, given the scientific support regarding the negligible impacts of EME on surrounding residences, sufficient separation, location of the development out of primary view corridors and minimal impacts on the natural environment; it is considered that the site is suitable for the proposed development.

 

d)       Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the Regulations

 

8 submissions were received during the notification of the development application with the following matters raised:

 

Summary of Matters Raised

Reporting Officers Comment

Environmental impacts. Denigration of an environmentally sensitive area. A satisfactory environmental assessment has not been undertaken.

Having regard to the submitted flora and fauna report which was undertaken by a suitably qualified person, the minimal disturbance to the site and recommended conditions of consent; it is not considered that the proposal will result in any significant impacts on the environment.

There is discrepancy regarding the development location. The mock up pictures of the site show a large gum tree which is no longer there.

The location of the development is as per the submitted plan which was made available during the public notification period.

Previous plans provided to the public as part of the applicants’ consultation prior to lodging the DA are not a consideration for Council as they do not form part of the application.

Concerns regarding disturbance to surrounding properties as a result of the additional infrastructure and underground power.

Surrounding properties will not be physically disturbed during the construction/operation of the development. Conditions have been included within the consent regarding construction hours and operational noise to minimise any impacts on the surrounding area.

Appropriate cultural assessment has not been undertaken.

In accordance with the NSW Due Diligence Code of Practice, there are no relevant confirmed site records or other associated landscape feature information on AHIMS, no other sources of information of which a person is already aware, and the development will not impact on any landscape features that are likely to indicate the presence of Aboriginal objects.

One of the benefits of living in this area is that there is low density development.

The proposed development will be located over 150m from surrounding dwellings which is consistent with the low density character of the area.

The tower will open opportunities for additional development such as mobile tower increasing the potential impacts of radiation to the community.

The tower will create the opportunity for mobile phone providers to co-locate antennas on the proposed tower. Statutory provisions are in place (as addressed above) which require Telco providers to co-locate services on existing towers before constructing new ones.

 

Future co-location will increase future mobile phone coverage in the area and will be required to be below the EME emission limits set by the ARPANSA standard; in the same way the proposed development is (0.1% of emission limit).

The tower will not be visually compatible with the surrounding area.

As discussed above, due to the separation and screening of the development from surrounding dwellings; it is not considered that the proposal will result in any adverse visual impacts.

Value of properties and future ability to sell

As outlined earlier in this report, it is not considered that the proposal will result in any adverse impacts on the social or natural environments. Having regard to this, it is not considered that the proposal will adversely impact the value of properties within the locality.

The proposal would be better suited away from residences.

Section 3.4 of the submitted statement of environmental effects addresses alternate sites considered as part of the applicants’ preparation of the development application.

 

After discussing this matter further with the applicant, it became evident that alternate sites further south of 462 Gumma Road or east of the development site would either require the construction of an even larger tower within closer proximity to dwellings than the proposed site or would not be viable due to topographic conditions.

 

Having regard to the above, that the proposed location will provide greater separation from surrounding dwellings than most other locations which are viable within the area, and that the expected impacts of the proposal are not considered to be significant enough to warrant refusal; it is not considered that requesting the applicant to relocate to an alternate site is reasonable.

 

(e)     The public interest

 

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent and having regard to the above assessment, it is not considered that the proposal is contrary to the public interest because it will not result in any significant impacts on the natural, social, or economic environments.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

CASA – The application was referred to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) who responded with no objections subject to the structure being reported to the air force.

 

Public Consultation - The application was notified and advertised in accordance with Part A of the DCP.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

As outlined earlier in this report, it is not considered that the proposal will have any adverse impacts on the environment subject to the recommended conditions of consent.

 

Social

As outlined earlier in this report, it is not considered that the proposal will have any adverse social impacts subject to the recommended conditions of consent.

 

Economic

As outlined earlier in this report, it is not considered that the proposal will have any adverse economic impacts subject to the recommended conditions of consent.

 

Risk

Nil

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

N/A

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

N/A

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

N/A

 

Attachments:

1

5108/2016 - Attachment 1 - Statement of Environmental Effects and Proposed Plans

 

2

5107/2016 - Attachment 2 - Proposed Plans

 

3

5106/2016 - Attachment 3 - Recommended Conditions of Consent

 

4

5104/2016 - Attachment 5 - Visual Impact Plan

 

5

5103/2016 - Attachment 6 - Public Submissions

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 February 2016

Proposed Telecommunications Facility