NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

30 June 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 - 30 June 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.

 

AGENDA                                                                                                   Page

 

4.30 pm – Workshop – Greg Powter Consultants - Pacific Highway Handover Presentation in Council Chambers

 

1        APOLOGIES – Cr Elaine South, Michael Coulter (General Manager, Scott Norman (AGBCS)

2        PRAYER

3        DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4        CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES —

Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 June 2016...................................................................................... 7

5        NOTICES OF MOTION  

6        PUBLIC FORUM

Kay Rudder - DA2016/050 Dwelling house and shed Lot 114 DP 861793 Valla Road, Valla

Noel Rudder - DA2016/050 Dwelling house and shed Lot 114 DP 861793 Valla Road, Valla

7        ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE   

8        QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

9        General Manager Report

9.1     Outstanding Actions and Reports.................................................................................... 16

9.2     2016 Christmas/New Year Closure - Administration Centre ................................................ 21

9.3     Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months or where submissions received - 8 June 2016 - 21 June 2016..................................................................................................................................... 22

9.4     Dawkins Park Improvements........................................................................................... 24

9.5     Council Ranger's Report May 2016.................................................................................. 79

9.6     Joint Organisations - Operational Arrangements............................................................... 82

9.7     DA2016/050 Dwelling house and shed Lot 114 DP 861793 Valla Road, Valla..................... 95

9.8     Modification DA2012/011 Nambucca Gardens Estate - Lot 2 DP 1119830 Alexandra Drive, Nambucca Heads.......................................................................................................................... 171

9.9     Bellwood Local  Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Development Contribution Plan 2009 - withdrawal.................................................................................................................................... 179

9.10   Submissions to the Proposed Environmental Levy Budget 2016/17................................. 181

10      Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

10.1   Making of Rates and Charges 2016/2017....................................................................... 208

10.2   Schedule of Council Public Meetings............................................................................. 214

11      Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

11.1   Minutes of the NSW Rural Fire Service Liaison Committee - 10 May 2016......................... 215

11.2   Pacific Highway Handover Presentation......................................................................... 224

11.3   Tender T251516MNC Provision of Linemarking Services 2016 - 2018............................... 256

11.4   Tender T009/2016 Panel Tender for the supply of Plant and Truck Hire and Road Maintenance Services.................................................................................................................................... 258    

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

12.1   Tender T251516MNC for the supply of Provision of Linemarking Services

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.

  

            a      Questions raised by Councillors at 8 above

 

       i         MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING

       ii        PUBLIC VERBAL REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL

     TO CLOSE

       iii       CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS

                   iv       DEAL WITH MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING

13      MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

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


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 16 June 2016

The following document is the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held 16 June 2016.  These minutes are subject to confirmation as to their accuracy at the next meeting to be held on Thursday 30 June 2016 and therefore subject to change.  Please refer to the minutes of 30 June 2016 for confirmation.

 

 

PRESENT

 

 

Cr John Ainsworth (Deputy Mayor)

Martin Ballangarry OAM

Cr Brian Finlayson

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)

 

 

APOLOGIES

 

Cr Rhonda Hoban (Mayor); Cr Paula Flack

 

 

PRAYER

 

Pastor Paul Richardson of the Seventh Day Adventist Church offered a prayer on behalf of the Nambucca Minister's Association.

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

 

There were no disclosures of interest.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May 2016

 

242/16 RESOLVED:        (MacDonald/Smyth)

 

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of 26 May 2016 be confirmed subject to the following amendment:

 

On Page 8 the following note should be at the head of Item 5:

 

Cr Macdonald left the meeting for Item 9.5 at 5.54 pm and returned after the conclusion of the item at 6.41 pm

ITEM 9.5      DA2014/198 260516         Modification to Development Consent DA2014/198


 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Hoban

 

ITEM 5.1      SF2183              160616      Notice of Motion - Support For Continued Funding To Eliminate Mobile Phone Black Spots (SF617)

243/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/MacDonald)

 

That Council write to the Federal Coalition and the Australian Labor Party supporting the need for continued funding to eliminate mobile phone blackspots to ensure access to ‘000’ emergency numbers in the Nambucca Valley and across Australia.


 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Hoban

 

ITEM 5.2      SF2183              160616      Notice Of Motion – TAFE Training Partnership On Council’s Industrial Land – Railway Road Nambucca Heads (SF652)

244/16 RESOLVED:        (South/Morrison)

 

That Council note the successful partnership with TAFE for the use of one of Council’s industrial blocks on Railway Road as a training facility for Civil Construction; Plant Operations trainees and congratulate the Manager of Business Development on his initiative.


 

 

DELEGATIONS

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the following delegations be heard:

 

9.10       DA2016/050 Dwelling House and Shed Lot 114 DP 861793 Valla Road, Valla

          i)   Ms Kay Rudder—Objector

          ii)  Mr Guido Eberding—Applicant

 

Ms Rudder addressed Council making the following points:

·    Requested the Item be deferred to the next Council meeting.

·    Only found out this afternoon that the land is rated as Farmland, not grazing land

·    They have a case to put forward.  Were advised by Council in 1996 that this issue would not be discussed in future.

 

Mr Eberding addressed Council making the following points:

·    Is an architectural designer

·    Is the designer of this house

·    Currently grazing land

·    The new dwelling would be in line with adjoining houses

·    Supports Council making a decision today.

 

ITEM 9.10    DA2016/050        160616      DA2016/050 Dwelling house and shed Lot 114 DP 861793 Valla Road, Valla

245/16 RESOLVED:        (Morrison/Finlayson)

 

That the matter be deferred to the next Council meeting on 30 June 2016.

 

For the motion:               Councillors Ainsworth, South, MacDonald, Finlayson, Smyth, Ballangarry and                                      Morrison                (Total 7)

Against the motion:         Nil


 

 

ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

 

There were no questions with notice.

 

 

QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

 

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


 

 

General Manager Report

 

ITEM 9.1      SF959                160616      Outstanding Actions and Reports

246/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/MacDonald)

 

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


 

 

ITEM 9.2      SF839                160616      Annual Reporting of Contracts for Senior Staff

247/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/MacDonald)

 

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


 

 

ITEM 9.3      SF621                160616      Aboriginal Land Claim 35939 at Bowraville

248/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Smyth)

 

That Council advise the Department of Primary Industries Lands that the longstanding Police Station in Bowraville, being contained within Lot 10 DP 758150, is a lawful use and occupation providing for an essential public purpose.  Whether or not the land is “needed” or “likely to be needed” for this essential public purpose is a matter for the NSW Police Force.


 

 

ITEM 9.4      SF600                160616      Proposed Subdivision and Sale of Land Adjoining the Macksville Sewerage Treatment Plant

249/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Morrison)

 

1        That Council enter into a contract of sale with Mr Gordon for the proposed lot 20 for $87,500 and that approval be provided to enter the land and establish the processing plant under licence.

 

2        That following the establishment of the proposed grease trap waste processing plant, that Council lodge and determine a development application for the proposed two lot subdivision and, if approved, proceed with the registration of the subdivision.

 

3        That Council’s seal be attached to legal documents associated with the subdivision and sale of the land as required.

 

Note:  Cr Smyth and Cr Ballangarry requested their vote be recorded against this resolution as they do not agree that sludge should be processed on a floodplain..


 

 

ITEM 9.5      SF848                160616      Rates and Charges - Review of Ratepayers with Large Sewer Access Charges

250/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/MacDonald)

 

1        That the information concerning the review of ratepayers with large water access charges and the proposed backdated credits be received.

 

2        That the General Fund reimburse the Sewerage Fund for the sewerage access charges payable by the Macksville Memorial Aquatic Centre pending the next scheduled tender in 5 years’ time.


 

 

ITEM 9.6      SF770                160616      Inquiry into Water Augmentation in Rural and Regional NSW

251/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/MacDonald)

 

That the information concerning the inquiry into water augmentation in rural and regional New South Wales be received.


 

 

ITEM 9.7      SF453                160616      Domestic Waste Charges for Properties with Multiple Occupancies

252/16 RESOLVED:        (Smyth/South)

 

1        That Council continue with its approach of levying a domestic waste management service charge on each occupancy on a collection route.

 

2        That this approach be formalised in Council’s Waste Collection Service Policy.

 

3        That the complainant be advised of Council’s decision to continue to levy waste management service charges per occupancy.


 

 

ITEM 9.8      SF1120              160616      Cricket NSW - Request for Matching Funding of $12,500 to Purchase Lawn Mower

253/16 RESOLVEDS:      (Finlayson/South)

 

1        That Council make provision in its 2016/2017 operational plan for the requested $12,500 (excluding GST) donation towards the purchase of a Toro Reelmaster 5510 to be used for the mowing of Thistle Park and the Donnelly Welsh Playing Fields.

 

2        That Council’s contribution is subject to the mower being insured and available for both junior and senior cricket and also for Council staff.

 

3        That Cricket NSW be advised of Council’s decision.


 

 

ITEM 9.9      SF929                160616      Visitor Information Centre - Future Options

254/16 RESOLVED:        (South/Smyth)

 

That Council call for Expressions of Interest to rent or lease the existing Visitor Information Centre, with all EOI’s to include proposals for the provision of visitor information.


 

 

Item 9.10 was dealt with under Delegations.


 

 

ITEM 9.11    SF2172              160616      Minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 26 April 2016

Motion:      (MacDonald/Morrison)

 

That Council endorse the minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 26 April 2016.

 

Amendment:       (Morrison/Smyth)

 

1        That Council endorse the minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 26 April 2016.

 

2        That Council staff provide a report on a revised voucher system being:

          a        two vouchers used for two deliveries

          b        two vouches of which one will be used for collection and the other used for delivery

 

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

 

255/16 Resolved:        (Morrison/Smyth)

 

1        That Council endorse the minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 26 April 2016.

 

2        That Council staff provide a report on a revised voucher system being:

          a        two vouchers used for two deliveries

          b        two vouches of which one will be used for collection and the other used for delivery.


 

ITEM 9.12    SF2172              160616      Minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 24 May 2016

256/16 RESOLVED:        (MacDonald/Ballangarry)

 

1        That Council notes the Committee’s concerns and the feedback it has received from the public regarding changes to the bulk rubbish collection; and its suggestion that if people have complaints about the withdrawal of the service that they make their concerns known to Council.

 

2        That Council endorse the remaining minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 24 May 2016.


 

ITEM 9.13    SF639                160616      Changes to position titles in the organisation structure

257/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Smyth)

 

That Council adopt the following changes to position titles in the organisation structure:

·      Grants and Contributions Officer to Grants Officer

·      Ranger x 1 to Ranger Coordinator

·      Attendant/Plant Operator x 1 to Weighbridge Operator

·      Construction Carpenter x 1 to Concreter


 

ITEM 9.14    SF2173              160616      Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months or where submissions received - 17 May 2016 - 7 June 2016

258/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/MacDonald)

 

That the information be noted by Council.


 

ITEM 9.15    SF2208              160616      Planning Proposal - Addition to House Keeping Amendment - Additional Permitted Land Use in IN1 Land Use Zone

259/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Morrison)

 

That Council resolve to include vehicles sales and hire premises as a “permitted with consent” land use to the IN1 Land Use Table and submit the amendment to the Minister of Planning and Environment for Gateway Determination in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It will be requested that this amendment be included as part of Council’s recent gateway application for a housekeeping amendment.

 

For the motion:               Councillors Ainsworth, South, MacDonald, Finlayson, Smyth, Ballangarry and                                      Morrison                (Total 7)

Against the motion:         Nil


 

 

ITEM 9.16    SF2173              160616      2016 May - Received Development Applications and Complying Development Applications

260/16 RESOLVED:        (MacDonald/Finlayson)

 

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


 

 

ITEM 9.17    SF2173              160616      2016 May - Approved Construction and Complying Development Certificates

261/16 RESOLVED:        (MacDonald/Finlayson)

 

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


 

 

ITEM 9.18    SF2025              160616      Joint Organisations - Announcement on Operational Arrangements

262/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Smyth)

 

1        That the information concerning the proposed operational arrangements for Joint Organisations be received.

 

2        That there be a further report to Council’s meeting on 30 June concerning Council’s submission on the proposals.


 

 

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

 

ITEM 10.1    SF251                160616      Schedule of Council Public Meetings

263/16 RESOLVED:        (South/MacDonald)

 

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


 

 

ITEM 10.2    SF317                160616      Macksville Park and Sports Committee of Management AGM - 16 May 2016 - Minutes

264/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Smyth)

 

That Council endorse the Minutes of the Committee of Management for the Macksville Park and Sports Centre Annual General Meeting held on 16 May 2016 and thank the outgoing Committee for their work in the past twelve months.


 


 

ITEM 10.3    SF1120              160616      Grant Application Status Report

265/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Smyth)

 

That Council receive the list of grant applications to 9 June 2016, and the list of current grant funding available from Council’s new Grants Calendar.


 

 

ITEM 10.4    SF2130              160616      Draft Integrated Planning and Reporting Documents

266/16 RESOLVED:        (MacDonald/South)

 

That Council adopt the following documents as amended:

 

1                The Draft Operational Plan 2016-17

2                The Draft Revenue Policy 2016-17

3                The Draft Long Term Financial Plan 2016-2026.


 

 

ITEM 10.5    SF2116              160616      Investment Report To 31 May 2016

267/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/South)

 

That the Accountants’ Report on Investments placed to 31 May 2016 be noted.


 

 

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report– LATE

 

ITEM 10.6    SF2130              160616      Late Report - Final Submissions  - Addendum to Draft Integrated Planning and Reporting Documents Report

268/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/MacDonald)

 

That Council adopt the following documents as amended:

 

1                The Draft Operational Plan 2016-17

2                The Draft Revenue Policy 2016-17

3                The Draft Long Term Financial Plan 2016-2026.


 

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

 

ITEM 11.1    SF565                160616      Temporary Road Closure Application - Volkswagen Spectacular 30 July 2016

269/16 RESOLVED:        (Morrison/Ballangarry)

 

1        That the Nambucca Shire Local Traffic Committee recommends that Council approve the road closure for the Volkswagen Spectacular event subject to the following documentation being received by Council:

 

          Certificate of Currency for Public Liability Insurance

          Traffic Management Plan confirming Accredited Traffic Controllers will be on site, and

          Police approval for the road closure.

 

2        That the Nambucca Shire Local Traffic Committee recommends that Council advertise the road closure seven (7) days prior to the event as follows:

 

          Event:         Volkswagen Spectacular

          Date:           30 July 2016

          Street:         Bowra Street and Mann Streets, Nambucca Heads from Ridge Street to

                             Palmer Street

          Time:          8.00am and 1.30pm


    

 

COUNCIL IN CLOSED MEETING (CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC)

270/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/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 below.

 

Reason reports are in Closed Meeting:


 

 

General Manager Report

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 12.1    SF2086              160616      Valla Urban Growth Area - Proposed Sale of 30,000m2

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (c) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.


 

 

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 12.2    SF148                160616      Tender for General Insurances

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


 

 

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 12.3    SF839                160616      General Manager's Performance Review

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.


 

 

CLOSED MEETING

 

The Ordinary Council Meeting's Meeting IN CLOSED MEETING commenced at 7.03 pm.


 

 

RESUME IN OPEN MEETING

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Ordinary Council Meeting resume in Open Meeting. The Ordinary Council Meeting resumed IN OPEN MEETING at 9.38 pm

 

 

FROM COUNCIL IN CLOSED MEETING

 

General Manager Report

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 12.1    SF2086              160616      Valla Urban Growth Area - Proposed Sale of 30,000m2

271/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/South)

 

1        That Council forward a contract of sale for approximately 30,000m2 of land, being part of Lot 2 DP 1173066, for a purchase price of $3m.

 

2        That the conditions of sale be as per those listed in the summary of this report or otherwise as agreed by the Mayor, General Manager, and Manager Business Development acting with the delegated authority of Council.


 

 

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 12.2    SF148                160616      Tender for General Insurances

272/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Smyth)

 

1        That Council give notice to Statewide Mutual of its intention to undertake a tender for the provision of its general insurances.

 

2        That Council seek expressions of interest from other councils in participating in a joint tender.


 

Meeting adjourned at 7.33 pm

Meeting resumed at 8.05 pm

 

Cr Finlayson left the meeting at 8.06 pm.

 

 

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 12.3    SF839                160616      General Manager's Performance Review

273/16 RESOLVED:        (South/Ballangarry)

 

That the General Manager note the Council’s comments on his performance.


 

 

CLOSURE

 

There being no further business the Deputy Mayor then closed the meeting the time being 9.39 pm. 

 

Confirmed and signed by the Deputy Mayor on 30 June 2016.

 

 

 

 

CR JOHN AINSWORTH

DEPUTY MAYOR

(CHAIRPERSON)

 

 

          


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    30 June 2016

General Manager

ITEM 9.1      SF959              300616         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.

 

Council staff and OEH are reviewing the draft.  The draft requires further work before it can be circulated to the Estuary Committee and Councillors.

 

Draft now being circulated to Estuary Committee and Councillors.

 

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.

 

Council staff are still in the process of reviewing the draft document

 

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. 

 

Deferred whilst trialling the International Society of Arboriculture, Tree Hazard Evaluation form which is intended to replace the tree inspection form within the policy. The policy in its present form has shown some issues pertaining to property owners wanting healthy trees removed citing the criteria in the policy, the new form provides greater transparency and clarity   

 

 

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.

 

On-going progress report on Council’s capital works program with a monthly update to be listed on Council’s website.

 

 

MARCH 2015

 

5

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 are proposed to be transferred is approximately $1million per annum.

 

Council is expecting receiving a written offer from the RMS in relation to the handover.

 

 

AUGUST 2015

 

6

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.

 

Minister referred staff to Forests and a meeting is being organised with Forests NSW in May 2016 for further discussion with a report to be presented to Council afterwards.

 

 

SEPTEMBER 2015

 

7

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 28 April 2016.

Consult not available for 28 April, will report to the 26 May 2016 meeting.

 

Deferred until Council receives expected offer from the RMS.

 

 

OCTOBER 2014

 

8

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

 

9

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 was 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.

 

Discussed with staff on 6/4/2016.  Final warning to be provided to lodge a DA or receive a fine for undertaking development without consent.  Raised the matter again with staff on 17 June 2016.  Action to be taken.

 

 

Matter followed up with staff on 17 June 2016.

 

 

10

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

 

11

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

 

12

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

 

FEBRUARY 2016

 

13

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.

 

AGMCS

List for a meeting in July 2016

 

MARCH 2016

 

14

LF7116

31/3/16

That Council receive a report from the Engineer on options for improving water flow through the property (8 Loftus Lane) and the costs of those options.

 

AGMES

Report to June meeting following of assessment by design staff.

 

A report will be prepared for July after a catchment assessment is undertaken by design staff as there a number of design priorities for Council’s capital works program.

 

 

APRIL 2016

 

15

SF1540

14/4/16

That Council apply to RMS through the Local Government Road Safety Program to have the speed limit from the railway bridge to the western side of Kuta Ave on Valla Beach Road reduced to 40kph.

 

AGMES

Letter drafted

 

16

SF2183

14/4/16

That Council includes an annual Sustainable Energy Use and Climate Change Adaptation Program budget in its Environment Levy Program and considers appropriate project opportunities when it considers the draft 2016/17 Environment Levy Program and Budget.

 

GM

Proposals to be included in the 2016-17 Budget papers

 

MAY 2016

 

17

SF251

12/5/16

Council investigate opportunities for securing financial interests in the Gordon Park Tennis Courts and associated buildings.

 

GM

Report in July 2016

 

18

SF818

12/5/16

Council receive a further report at the completion of the exhibition period for the Bowra Dam – request to amend the operating licence.

 

AGMES

Report August 2016

 

19

DA2014/198

26/5/16

Modification to DA consent to allow connection between Florence Wilmont Drive and Old Coast Road be deferred to qualify ownership of Right of Way and investigate statements.

 

GM

Report to 16 June 2016.

The matter has been referred to Council’s solicitor but as at the close of the business paper a written opinion has not been obtained.  Consequently it has been necessary to defer the report to the meeting on 30 June 2016.

 

20

SF2130

26/5/16

Staff investigate opportunities to develop projects using solar panels and report back with ideas including opportunities to reduce energy costs at the Bowra Dam such as floating solar panels.  Report to look at funding opportunities.

 

AGMES

Report in July 2016

 

JUNE 2016

 

21

SF2172

16/6/16

That Council staff provide a report on a revised (bulky goods waste) voucher system being:

a. 2 vouchers used for 2 deliveries

b. two vouchers, of which one can be used for collection and the other used for delivery.

 

AGMES

Report in July 2016

 

22

SF2025

16/6/16

There be a further report to Council’s meeting on 30 June concerning Council’s submission on the proposals for Joint Organisations.

 

AGMCS

Report 30 June 2016

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    30 June 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.2      SF112              300616         2016 Christmas/New Year Closure - Administration Centre

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Joanne Hudson, Manager Human Resources         

 

Summary:

 

This year, the Christmas/New Year public holidays fall on Monday 26 December, Tuesday 27 December 2016 and Monday 2 January 2017.

 

It is customary to close-down the Administration Centre during the period between Christmas and New Year and require staff to take leave. Accordingly, it is proposed that the Administration Centre be closed this year between 28-30 December 2016, in addition to the public holidays.

 

Further, it is proposed that the General Manager be given delegated authority to determine the annual Christmas closure period.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That the Administration Centre be closed between Christmas and New Year and that affected staff be directed to take leave for the period Wednesday 28 to Friday 30 December 2016.

 

2        That the General Manager be given delegated authority to determine the annual Christmas closure period.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

§ Close-down the Administration Centre between Christmas and New Year

§ Close-down the Administration Centre for a shorter or longer period than between Christmas and New Year

§ Do not close-down

§ Conduct further consultation with Administration Centre staff regarding the close-down

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

This year, the Christmas/New Year public holidays fall on Monday 26 December, Tuesday 27 December 2016 and Monday 2 January 2017.

 

It is customary to close-down the Administration Centre during the period between Christmas and New Year and require staff to take leave. Accordingly, it is proposed that the Administration Centre be closed this year between 28-30 December 2016, in addition to the public holidays.

 

Further, it is proposed that the General Manager be given delegated authority to determine the annual Christmas closure period.

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    30 June 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.3      SF2173            300616         Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months or where submissions received - 8 June 2016 - 21 June 2016

 

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

 

Summary:

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the information be noted by Council.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/099

2 July 2015

132 Lot Residential Subdivision

Lot 1 DP 1119830, Marshall Way, Nambucca Heads

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

STATUS:

Applicant has received a letter giving them until 25 July to supply information required or withdraw DA, otherwise it will be recommended to the JRPP for refusal.

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2014/198/01

04/12/2015

26 Lot Subdivision

Lot 42 DP 711098, Old Coast Road, North Macksville

Thirty-two submissions have been received by Council – they oppose the modification

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

·           Lumsdens Lane should be used instead

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

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

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

·           Detrimental to koala habitat and to other native fauna

·           Benefits new developer at expense of current residents of Kingsworth Estate

·           Old Coast Road still won’t be fully sealed

STATUS:  Report going to Council meeting 30 June 2016.

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/093/01

1 March 2016

Depot (Modification)

Lot 202 DP 841112, 765 Wilson Road, Congarinni North

One submission has been received – it opposes the proposed modifications

·           Proposed changes make the development prohibited development and will affect the amenity of the area

·           Sealed driveway requirement should be changed as it is a requirement under the Roads Act

·           Servicing of trucks/machinery will create excessive noise

·           Pacifico’s hours of operations mentioned by the applicant are incorrect

·           “No financial gain” to owner should not be relevant

STATUS:  Reported to Council’s meeting on 14 April 2016 – Council has requested further information

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2016/050

31 March 2016

Dwelling-House & Shed

Lot 114 DP 861793, Valla Road, Valla

One submission has been received – it opposes the proposal

·             Location of proposed residence and shed is within the 140 metre Rural Buffer shown on the 88b instrument

·           Owners of adjoining property already undertake agricultural activities and intend to keep doing so right up to their boundary

STATUS: Being reported to Council 30 June 2016

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPROSAL

ADDRESS

2016/074

12/05/2016

Dwelling Additions

Lot 102 DP 1134631, 13 Edgewater Drive, Nambucca Heads

Two submissions have been received – they oppose the proposal

·           Rear east boundary measurements are incorrect

·           New patio may extend onto adjoining block

·           Roofline should be altered

·           Will possibly generate noise that could be heard from next door

·           Want to ensure stormwater is adequately dealt with

·           Roof does not comply with requirements of 88b instrument

·           Earthworks are already unstable

·           Overshadowing and privacy issues

STATUS: Being assessed – additional information required from applicant

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

ADDRESS

2015/048/01

12/05/2016

Garage

Lot 412 DP 611276, 7 Ocean Street, Scotts Head

One submission has been received – it opposes the modification

·           The applicant clearly intends to use the development for accommodation and not just storage

·           Stormwater details shown are incorrect

·           Actual cladding does not agree with that shown on the plans

STATUS: Being assessed

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    30 June 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.4      PRF47              300616         Dawkins Park Improvements

 

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

 

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a progress update in respect to the investigations being undertaken for Dawkins Park, and gain endorsement of a preferred option to move forward with investigations and design solutions for the Park.

 

“Council at its meeting on 28 April 2016 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 12 May 2016.”

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council endorse Design Option 2 of the Dawkins Park Landscape Enhancement Plan dated 21 June 2016 for implementation (Option 2 retains the islands in the centre of the lake).

 

2        That Council seeks expressions of interest from appropriate qualified professionals to prepare an Australian White Ibis Management Plan for Dawkins Park.

 

3        That Council seek expression of interest from appropriately qualified engineering firm to prepare storm water management solutions to for various areas of Dawkins Park including inlets, overland drains, outlets etc. Expressions of interest will also be requested to provide a fee estimate to prepare a management plan for the catchment which includes Hughes Creek (Macksville Drain).

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may resolve to proceed in a different manner, however Council should be aware of statutory obligations of any decisions made. The content of this report should address these requirements.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

A draft landscape improvement plan for Dawkins Park was reported to Council on the 12 November 2015.  At this time Council resolved to proceed with the exhibition of the draft plan and also progress with ecological investigations in respect to future works in Dawkins Park and Plan of Management for the area. In addition to this staff have commenced some immediate maintenance activities in an attempt to address the poor water quality of the lake.

 

This report summarises the results of each of these issues.

 

Maintenance Works

 

Given the water quality issues within the lake, staff have commenced immediate remediation measures in an attempt to alleviate pressure on the environment. Staff have undertaken the following works to date:

 

-         Regular litter patrols;

-         Re-activation of the aerator system and upgrade to pump;

-         Maintenance of some of the key stormwater inlets and outlets which were partially blocked with debris and sediment;

-         Additional maintenance of the stormwater system will be undertaken in the near future;

 

As we undertake the works staff will continue to monitor the water quality to identify any significant improvements.

 

Public exhibition

 

Council exhibited the draft improvement plan from 17 December 2015 to 18th January 2016. The exhibition involved surveys and make more detailed comments in writing to the general manager.

 

Council received a total twenty (28) responses to the draft plan four (4) written responses.

 

Generally the Draft Concept Plan is well supported by 77% of respondents, however a range of feedback was received. The results of the survey and have been reviewed by Councils Community Development section the analysis is included as Attachment 1. More formal submissions are attached as Attachment 2.

 

It should be noted that the concept plan exhibited was aimed at gaining early input from community. The principles and objectives of the plan are typical of place making or landscape improvement plans. For instance the analysis component of the plan is essential to demonstrate how the park fits in with the remainder of the landscape such as connectivity to surrounding commercial premises, the town centre or nearbye sporting precincts and it would be remise of a professional to leave these important aspects off any improvement recommendations.

 

It is clear from the submissions that in general the community is unsatisfied with the existing state of the Dawkins Park and improvements are supported as well as the overall principles of the draft plan.

 

Even some of the more complex submissions tend to agree with many of the components of the plan. However the following points were identified through submissions as issues. As necessary a planning response is provided for Councils consideration:

 

Pedestrian Paths are presently adequate.

 

Planning comment: The existing paths are narrow and become inundated after even small periods of rain. The improvements to the paths were identified by many submissions as a positive aspect to the plan.

 

The AWI should be a focal point of the park and point of interest for visitors the community.

 

Planning comment: this point is to be discussed in more detail in the recommendations section of the report.

 

Potential bridged connections and boardwalk to waters edge are not required and nor desirable

 

Planning comment: People are drawn to the water edge in these types of environments, providing access points to the water in the form of jetties, wharfs, pontoons etc guides people to a point that has been designed to be safe and also minimises impacts to the bank and surrounding vegetation.

 

Improving the highway crossing to enhance access to the recreational areas is a waste of time because highway situation is about to change.

 

Planning Comment: providing better connected spaces is an important part of urban design. Linking the playing fields, skatepark, and fitness trail to the Dawkins Park footpath is important part of the project for local residents wishing to walk to sporting events and also as a potential extension to the fitness trail. The location, design and type of crossing area would be subject to engineering considerations.

 

Intensive, long term nesting of ibis on the islands has generated odour and visual impacts to the detriment of overall park amenity. Disagree. Certainly all the native water birds will contribute to the water quality problems but are not the only reason for it!

 

Planning comment: The majority of the submissions share the view of the landscape architect that the AWI contribute to amenity issues of the island. AWI issue will be addressed in the recommendations.

Why have a new central built focus, avoid over development, concentrate on picnic area?

 

Planning comment: The purpose of this area was to provide an outdoor space that could be used for general use or potentially outdoor education space, where students may be learn about environmental issues, aquatic environments and other initiatives developed in the area. This is not considered overdevelopment.

 

Disagree with removal of bird habitat and the islands it is a feature but improve access to islands for the birds. The islands are high with steep slopes. Reducing the the steepness of the slopes and vegetating the shallow water with suitable reeds would assist with visual amenity and help with water quality.

 

Planning comment: Comments on the islands and ibis will be provided in the recommendations section of this report.

 

May not be necessary create additional parking on Cooper Street particularly is the service station does close.

 

Planning Comment: Over time and with improvements, Dawkins Park may provide an attractive and popular rest point for people travelling on the east coast. Making legible parking available off Cooper Street is an important and practical concept. The service centre is private property and along with many other privately owned spaces presently used for parking in Macksville it cannot be relied upon for public parking. Acquisition of such land for public parking would be subject to feasibility, (cost and underground storage tanks) Works adjoining Cooper Street would need to be carefully managed and could not be undertaken on until the highway is bypassed.

 

It will be important to have some public amenities, but this location necessitates placement of signs near the main road and Princess Street. Could the amenities block be a bit closer to the library. It could be accessed by library users as well. The suggested area is too cluttered and most of the structures are probably unnecessary and close the area in.

 

Planning Comment: Noted and the amended plans prepared after consultation with the community have provided a number of options for the amenities and potential future extension to the library. These options would need to be considered by Council in more detail at later date as funding becomes available to implement this part of the plan.

 

Not sure what a 'nature Play Space' is but a children's playground may be good.

 

Planning comment: comments noted however Council already has numerous traditional play grounds in Macksville. The intention is to provide a low cost and natural space for child play. Indicative Images in the document demonstrate the concept for the area and natural play elements are becoming common in parks and reserves.

 

Perhaps a few more trees down the centre to provide more shade. I am concerned about what is to happen with existing trees. Trees take a very long time to grow so every effort should be made to keep all existing trees.

 

Planning comment: The concept provides greater thought into the placement of trees, and many of the existing trees will be retained but many will also be removed. There are a large number of exotic species in the park (26 of the 55 flora species recorded) which may be removed and numerous other trees shrubs which could be replaced with more suitable species. Also part of the plan includes the re-profiling of the waters edge in locations subject to design. This will allow more appropriate species to be planted on the banks which will assist with water quality improvements and also improve the area for ongoing management and maintenance.  Many of the shrubs/ trees on the banks will be required to be removed to achieve this. Mature existing Melaleucas and locally occurring trees will be retained as priorities. Replacement plantings would be undertaken with advanced trees where possible at reasonable cost. Until survey and design is complete, it is uncertain trees will require removal.

 


Informal bush tracks supported but interpretation and Bush Tucker garden unnecessary.

 

Planning comment: reducing ongoing maintenance of the area is agreed, using native species that happen to also be bush tucker is an agreeable concept, the interpretation and educational signage material would contribute to the experience in the area, particularly if the area is re-invented as a sustainability focused area.

 

Negative feedback provided in respect to Indicative Images

 

Planning comment: the indicative images are just that, indicative, they should not be interpreted represent the future works on site.

 

Why was this firm chosen for this study? I would appreciate an answer to this. Lots of taxpayers money is spent on these draft designs and great care should be taken in choosing the firm to undertake the work.

 

Planning Comment: Council has used this firm in the past and found that they provide a professional and flexible service, for a reasonable service fee. They have extensive experience in urban design, place making and landscape architecture for public spaces. Council complied with procurement procedures to acquire the services of the landscape architect.

 

It should be noted that the landscape architect can only provide guidance and design on the landscape, other professionals such as ecologists and engineers will need to be engaged to progress the plans for the area. Again engagement of these professionals will be in accordance with Councils procurement procedures.

 

Ecological Report

 

Future Ecology was engaged to undertake a threatened species assessment for Dawkins Park using the concept plan as a guide to determine the potential impacts associated with any future work shown in the plan. This assessment along with the community feedback, can then be used to guide the preparation of the final landscape plan and will support a review of environmental factors for future works on the site.

 

The threatened species assessment involved both flora and fauna surveys of Dawkins Park and the Lake, including targeted amphibian surveys, spotlighting, flora surveys and targeted bird surveys.

 

The report identified the following items of note:

 

·           If the vegetation located on the island and the western edge of lake has naturally regenerated then it should be considered Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Flood Plains of the NSW North Coast Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions an endangered ecological community (EEC) under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act, for the purposes of the test of significance this vegetation has been identified as an EEC.

·           The Grey Headed Flying fox was observed foraging on the site and is considered a threatened species under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act;

·           Two drainage culverts may require additional investigation during the winter period for roosting threatened bat species should changes be proposed to these culverts;

·           One protected migratory species under the EPBC Act, the Cattle Egret was observed flying over the site;

·           The surveys recorded between 399 and 558 roosting Australian White Ibis (AWI) on the islands on 2 separate occasions. The majority being on the larger island. Approximately 35 AWI nests were recorded on the islands.

·           A number of other birds were observed using the islands for roosting including, 30 Little Black Cormorant; 5-10 Little Pied Cormorant; 20 Royal Spoonbill (2 active nests recorded);

·           One hollow tree was recorded on the southern side of the park;

·           55 flora species were recorded in the park including 29 native species and 26 exotic species including several declared noxious weeds. Of these Asparagus Fern and Lantana being class 4 weeds and require management of spread and cockspur coral tree which requires full and continuous suppression.

 

In a statutory context the threatened species assessment concluded:

 

·           The proposal is not likely to have a significant impact on any threatened species or ecological community on the site under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act;

 

·           Should Council determine to proceed with the removal of the islands in full, further investigation is required in respect to the Cattle Egret to determine if the proposed works would be considered a controlled action under the EPBC Act.

 

Staff comment: It is unlikely the works would result in a controlled action, nevertheless due process will be followed in this regard, should Council resolve to proceed with the removal of the islands.

 

·           Should Council propose changes to stormwater culverts additional investigations should be undertaken in winter in respect to potential habitat for threatened microbats.

 

Staff comment: Visual inspection of the culverts indicate that that there are not likely to be any threatened bats roosting. Nevertheless additional surveys will be undertaken during winter.

 

Non-statutory conclusions:

 

·           Despite its urban setting and limited diversity of native flora the site provides important habitat for local and/or regional roosting and breeding habitat for a number of non-listed but protected Native bird species;

 

·           The removal of the island habitat within Dawkins Lake will remove the nesting and roosting habitat for a number of non-threatened but protected native bird species. This could provide important local and possibly regional habitat for at least some or all of these species including the Australian White Ibis. This would require investigation of other roosting habitats within the Nambucca Valley and the perhaps the adjoining River Systems. Liaison with the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) may also need to occur should Council resolve to remove the island habitat. The report also suggests that the island could be maintained and Council could receive a license to manage the population through OEH. This method has been used by other NSW Local Government Authorities.

 

Consultation with the Office of Environment and Heritage

 

Council has undertaken consultation with the OEH in respect to the processes that may be involved with works that may affect the bird population. This response is included as Attachment 3 and it is summarised as follows:

 

Option 1 Removal of the Island

 

-         Where council determines the removal of the islands is an activity under Part V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 – no additional licenses or permits would be required from OEH.

 

Option 2 Management of the AWI population

 

-         Council would require a permit under 121 of the NPW ACT (occupiers license to Harm Fauna) in order to actively manage the AWI population

 

Option 3 to connect the islands to the shore to create a less desirable habitat for the AWI

 

-         OEH did not agree to any proposal to connect the island to the shore to increase the potential for predation on the Island and create a less desirable habitat for water birds.

 

Planning Comment: It is noted option 2 of the plan includes pedestrian connections to the islands, this would assist with the future management and improvement activities on the island but would need to be discussed further with OEH.

 

 

Recommendations

 

An amended plan based on the feedback from the community is provided as Attachment 4 (this plan has also been circulated to Councillors). The major changes included:

 

-         The addition of Option 2 which retains the islands;

-         A number of options have been presented for the amenities and potential extension to the library;

-         The allocation of a fenced space for offleash dogs;

 

It is recommended Option 2 of the amended plan be endorsed by Council.

 

A budget has been proposed for the 16/17 financial year to support design and management recommendations for the island. This will include Engineering Design for stormwater management solutions and potential the preparation of the AWI Management plan.

 

The engineering design solutions will focus on the stormwater inlets and associated treatment as well as the overland drainage on the southern side of the lake and the outlet areas. If the budget allows the broader catchment including Hughes Creek will also be examined.

 

Removal of the Islands

 

In respect to the removal of the islands in the centre of Dawkins Lake, such works are not likely to result in a significant impact to threatened species, or communities as identified in the Ecological Report and from a statutory point of view Council could proceed with the works under Part V of the EP&A Act subject to the recommendations of the ecologist report.

 

However, there exists an ethical issue in respect to the immediate destruction of the habitat for several waterbird species and should Council wish to proceed with the removal of the islands it should be undertaken in a staged manner, managing the bird population in the first instance and gradually removing habitat prior to complete removal of the islands in full.

 

The preferred response to the issue and the recommendation is to proceed to manage the AWI population and retain the islands in situ. During the management process Council can monitor the response of the vegetation and also the water quality. Council can re-assess this decision in the future should water quality fail to improve. It is noted that retention of the Islands within the lake is also likely to reduce future costs associated with the implementation of plan.

 

AWI management plans have been implemented by numerous Councils successfully, resulting to improved vegetation and habitat condition for other species as well as water quality improvements. An example of the before and after photo of a project undertaken in Townsville is shown below (images are provided by Ecosure Pty Ltd).  The before image below looks very similar to the existing situation at Dawkins Park.

 

Bundaberg colony and landfill 016.jpg

 

DSCF0141.JPG

 

 

The management procedures typically implemented include egg oiling and nest removal to reduce breeding success of the birds. To undertake the management of the AWI council will be required to consult with the OEH during the preparation of the plan and will also require license from the OEH to actively manage the population.

 

Funding Opportunities

 

A grant application has been made through National Stronger Regions Fund for a project with a budget of approximately $1 million – the application had economic focus so the improvements to Dawkins Park were presented as an opportunity to attract visitation and stop overs post highway bypass. This application was made scheduling works to be complete by the end of 2017 period and was required matching funds from Councils Budget being the Environmental Levy and also S94 funds. If successful, Council would need to endorse the matching funding arrangements at that time.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The project targets environmental improvements to Park, including water quality improvements, weed management, and re-vegetation.

 

Social

 

The project targets improvements to Dawkins Park which would benefit the community.

 

Economic

 

The improvement of Dawkins Park combined with other nearby facilities such as the new skatepark, could promote Macksville with a reputation as a quality place to stop on the east coast of NSW.

 

Risk

 

Activities proposed as part of the improvements to Dawkins Park would be undertaken pursuant with appropriate statutory obligations in respect to the environment and safety.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The proposed 2016/17 Environmental Levy Budget includes funds to progress with design and management to support the project.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

A significant grant application has been made to support the project

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

NIL

 

Attachments:

1

6421/2016 - Feedback from Draft Concept Plan Dawkins Park - survey response

 

2

21450/2016 - Written Submissions for Report

 

3

8507/2016 - Response from Office of Environment & Heritage regarding Dawkins Park and Australian White Ibis

 

4

21419/2016 - Dawkins Park Concept Design Options 21 Jun 2016

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

Dawkins Park Improvements

 

 

 

Q1.  What do you like about Dawkins Park?                                          

 

 

RESPONSES

 

1.     birdlife, safe and quiet place to walk the dogs,

2.     space that can be used for leisure activities. It used to be and ride bikes with kids.

3.     Having a park within walking distance to town centre, nursing home, schools and residence.

4.     Lawns around the lake are good for families when travelling with children

5.     A great green area in the middle of the town

6.     It is one of my dog's favourite places. i like that dogs can go for a run after a long car ride. i like the walk around the lake. I like the birds sometimes.

7.     Location and potential

8.     I love that it is flat which makes it easy for us elderly to walk around. I love all the greenery. I lover the picnic huts.

9.     I don't like Dawkins Park

10.   nothing

11.   nothing

12.   Has potential

13.   large open space area in an urban environment

14.   I like that I can walk around it

15.   Substandard at the moment.  Could be a beautiful area.  Flowering gums will be a plus in the future

16.   Visual amenity – parts of it picturesque place for people to walk and enjoy

17.   Peaceful visual outlook

18.   Once cleaned up is a lovely place to walk and feed the ducks

19.   Gives a country atmosphere

20.   How lucky are we to have a park in the middle of our town and the opportunities it presents

21.   My kids love feeding the massive eels, the pathed area around the lake

22.   The birdlife.  Not much else

23.   The open space

24.   Nothing

25.   The (central) CBD park area

26.   Open space.  I often see travellers or locals sitting in park eating.  It is a good stopping point for travellers

27.   Shade huts.  Is a big space.  My children learnt to ride bike and feed ducks there.

28.   Close to town

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMMON THEMES

 

 

REFERENCES TO THEME

 

 

SUPPORTING COMMENTS

 

Location

 

 

 

10

within walking distance to town centre, nursing home, schools and residence

great green area in the middle of the town

Location and potential

lucky are we to have a park in the middle of our town

travellers or locals sitting in park eating.  It is a good stopping point for travellers

 

Open space

 

 

 

9

safe and quiet place to walk the dogs

great green area in the middle of the town

my dog's favourite places. i like that dogs can go for a run after a long car ride

The open space

open space area in an urban environment

 

Level area for walking

 

 

 

8

It used to be a lovely place to ride bikes with kids.

flat which makes it easy for us elderly to walk around

like that I can walk around it

picturesque place for people to walk and enjoy

a lovely place to walk and feed the ducks

 

Trees

 

 

 

4

great green area in the middle of the town

Flowering gums will be a plus in the future

I love all the greenery

 

Birdlife

 

 

 

5

birdlife

a lovely place to feed ducks

I like the birds sometimes

The birdlife

learnt to ride bike and feed ducks there

SUMMARY

28 responses were received in relation to what people like about Dawkins Park.  The location of the Park was highlighted in 10 of the 28 responses (36%).  Respondents included reference to; middle of town; walking distance to town centre, nursing home, and schools.  Other factors that received similar recognition were the open space and the flat area around the park.  Reference was made to the benefit of flat ground that related to different demographics such as; the elderly and their ability to walk around; and parents making reference to teaching their children to ride bikes in the park. 

 

Continuing with what respondents liked about Dawkins Park reference was made to the birdlife in 5 out of the 28 responses (18%).   Trees or green area was referenced in 4 out of the 28 responses (22%).  Also mentioned in the responses on number of occasions was the ability for locals or travellers alike to walk dogs in the park. 

 

 

 

Q2.  What don’t you like about Dawkins Park?                                          

 

 

RESPONSES

 

1.     open drains, narrow paths, lack of shade and seats to sit on

2.     The smell, the poor lawn mowing, the IBIS, the water appears toxic, it is an eyesore in our town. It used to be a wonderful and beautiful place but years of neglect have lead it to this. When council mowed it and not a contractor it was mowed to the edge of the water. When the IBIS turned up it ruined the park, they have killed the trees and caused it to be disgusting.

3.     Water quality and condition of the island.

4.     The smell from the birds camping on the island and the poo

5.     Too many birds which have substantially degraded the lake

6.     the drainage is crap. there are no toilets. not enough trees.

7.     STATE OF THE AREA

8.     ibis population, eyesore and stinks, nowhere to sit, path underwater and muddy after rain

9.     the mess the birds make and the quality of the water

10.   Ibis

11.   It smells bad. The water quality is awful. The paths flood too easily. The islands are dreadful - the birds have ruined them. There are no public toilets.

12.   smell and quality of water

13.   Ibis habitat which affects residential area.  Sick of them in our yard and shitting on roof. Mowing and whipper snipping a disgrace in the whole area including council.  Wrong trees planted near roadside.  Whole area looks unkempt but has shown improvement in the last 2 months.

14.   Ibis birds on island – pollution/noise and damage to garden.  Pathways connecting Highway to Princess Street – encourage robbers over fences of surrounding houses.  Lack of security/privacy for surrounding residents

15.   The island in the middle is ugly, as are the Ibis.

16.   Too dirty and smelly at the moment.  Even the ducks have gone.

17.   The shabby state of it.

18.   The state of the park.  The effect on the bank vegetation.  The water quality. The odour from the water and the eels.

19.   The smell, scenery is not nice.  Birdlife droppings, rubbish.

20.   Lack of public access with gardens or scenic views.

21.   The island in the middle of the waterway.

22.   The smell when you are walking around the pond.

23.   The dirty smelly water requiring aeration etc. Bird droppings on nearby houses (Bird flu risk in the future)

24.   The noisy birds.  The sight and sometimes the smell of the water.  Rubbish in the water.

25.   Not visually very inviting.  Rubbish in the water.  Smelly.  Needs toilet block for Disabled.

26.   The smell and noise of the birds.  Dirty seating.

 

 

 

COMMON THEMES

 

 

REFERENCES TO THEME

 

 

SUPPORTING COMMENTS

 

Ibis

 

 

 

14

the IBIS                                 Too many birds                                    IBIS turned up it ruined the park

ibis population                    Bird droppings on nearby houses     smell from the birds

mess the birds make          noisy birds

Ibis                                         Ibis birds on island

ugly, as are the Ibis             smell and noise of the birds

 

Water condition

 

 

 

10

the water appears toxic     The sight and sometimes the smell of the water

Water quality                       dirty smelly water requiring aeration

quality of the water            The water quality is awful

open drains

Rubbish in the water

 

Odour

 

 

 

13

The smell                                smell when you are walking around the pond

smell from the birds             eyesore and stinks

It smells bad

dirty and smelly at the moment.  Even the ducks have gone

The sight and sometimes the smell of the water

 

Islands

 

 

 

4

condition of the island

island in the middle of the waterway

island in the middle is ugly

The islands are dreadful

 

Appearance/Current state

 

 

 

12

the poor lawn mowing                            years of neglect have lead it to this

condition of the island.                           rubbish

STATE OF THE AREA                                 eyesore in our town

Mowing and whipper snipping a disgrace in the whole area including council

Rubbish in the water                                eyesore and stinks

 

Paths

 

 

 

4

path underwater and muddy after rain

The paths flood too easily

narrow paths

Pathways connecting Highway to Princess Street

 

Amenities (Seats, Shade, Toilets)

 

 

 

5

lack of shade and seats to sit on

there are no toilets. not enough trees

Needs toilet block for Disabled.

There are no public toilets

dirty seating

 

 

 

SUMMARY

Of the two questions of likes/dislikes of Dawkins Park, more detailed responses were generated as to what respondents do not like about the park.  Even four respondents in Q1, the “like Dawkins Park” question, conveyed they liked “nothing” or stated they did not like Dawkins Park at all. 

 

Of the 26 responses to Q2, 14 references (54%) were made not to liking the Ibis/birdlife within Dawkins Park.  A comparison relating to the Ibis can be made between Q1 and Q2 where 18% of respondents liked the Ibis compared to 54% of respondents stating they did not like the Ibis.  13 respondents (50%) also commented on the odour from the lake which could be directly attributed to the water condition.  Water condition received reference in 10 out of a possible 26 responses (39%).  50% of responses to Q2 made reference to either one, or a combination of, Ibis and Odour.

 

12 of the 26 responses related to the current state or appearance of the Dawkins Park including the Lake.  Of these 12 responses, 6 references were made to maintenance issues such as quality of mowing/whipper snipper applications, state of furniture, and to rubbish removal.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q3.  What and how could it be improved?                                          

 

 

RESPONSES

1.     widen the paths, get some tidal flow going between the river and the lake (that'll sort out the stinky duckpond aspect) scoop out the human rubbish (bottles, cans, fast food containers) on a regular basis, put in some shade trees and seats

2.     The pond needs to be deeper so the water get circulate properly and life can return to it, there use to be fish, eels, water lilies and ducks in that pond. There needs to be a way to rid the park of the IBIS they are causing a lot problems. Mowing the grass to the edge again would make it look better. Improving seating and footpaths.

3.     Water needs to be cleaned on regular basic and "edges" of the path to be trimmed monthly for ease of walking etc.

4.     remove the island and improve the grass vegetation from around the edges. The water flow should also be improved

5.     Plant it with pecans and macadamias and create a local food forest

6.     Better use of the location in general. A proper dog off leash section, largish. Drainage could be improved. Encourage the people who get off the new highway to stop there and keep the Caltex going.

7.     Water quality improved, and surrounding grassed areas beautified with play equipment, amenities and cafe(s). Bridges and landscaping over and around the lake would enhance the project as well.

8.     Get rid of all the Ibis. Introduce more water birds such as ducks. Plant more trees for shade and attracting butterflies. Include some night lighting around the path and picnic huts. provide a few additional picnic huts, not just the tables and bank. Keep where the lake turns into the drain (near the highway) clean neat and tidy at all times....this area accumulates all sorts of rubbing, very unsightly for people walking on the path along the highway. Bring the footpath all the way around.

9.     concept plan is excellent

10.   less birds and cleaner water

11.   Get rid of the festering island full of disgusting ibis

12.   Remove the islands Improve stormwater flows so that it doesn't flood. Put in public toilets and better picnic facilities. Add a playground - the concept plan looks great!

13.   improve the water quality and general overhaul

14.   Start with Ibis removal and employing someone who has pride in their job

15.   Remove island and Ibis as per draft concept plan.  Increase lighting on footpaths to increase security. Higher fencing for surrounding private residences

16.   Using the draft concept plan.  Creating privacy and security for local residents by using fencing that fits with the concept plan visually

17.   Move the Ibis and keep the water clean.  Provide more bins for rubbish.

18.   By the draft concept plan coming to fruition.

19.   Turning it into a regional park along the lines of the draft.  Paths should be wide enough for people to pass, or a parent and child to walk together.  Clean, pleasant FEMALE and MALE toilets (NOT UNISEX) to attract visitors to our town including baby change facilities – such facilities are important for visitors and those from Taylors Arm etc.

20.   Concept design would be fantastic

21.   Love the indicative images.  Way to go

22.   Remove the island

23.   Get rid of it

24.   Bio filtration, LED (Solar/Battery) 240V night lights to pathways and other key areas (prevents two legged night life) as per Central Park in the USA.  CCD cameras maybe near toilets etc (drug user potential and other)

25.   Get rid of the island, noisy birds; beautify the water features and surrounds.

26.   Create link to Autumn Lodge.  Raised vegetable gardens (SECURED).  Complete access pathways, i.e., wheelchairs, scooters, walkers, wide. Children’s play area. Seating. Space for a portable longer term caravan that sells, coffee, cakes, crepes etc.  Safe walkway across highway, maybe under or over, to create link with new skate park.  More shaded areas like Bellwood Park with BBQs.  Cater for all ages. Art display walls.

27.   Clean up around perimeter of lake, better seating and perhaps picnic tables.

 

COMMON THEMES

 

 

REFERENCES TO THEME

 

 

SUPPORTING COMMENTS

 

Removal of Ibis

 

 

 

8

rid the park of the IBIS                Start with Ibis removal

Get rid of all the Ibis                  Remove island and Ibis

less birds                                      Move the Ibis

Get rid of...disgusting ibis         Get rid of….birds

 

Improve Paths/Seating

 

 

 

9

widen the paths                                                Improving seating and footpaths        better seating and perhaps picnic tables   

"edges" of the path to be trimmed               Increase lighting on footpaths

lighting around the path and picnic huts      night lights to pathways

Bring the footpath all the way around          Complete access pathways, i.e., wheelchairs, scooters, walkers, wide

Paths should be wide enough for people to pass, or a parent and child to walk together     

 

Implementation of concept plan

 

 

 

8

plan is excellent                                        the concept plan looks great!

as per draft concept plan                        Using the draft concept plan

along the lines of the draft                     By the draft concept plan coming to fruition

Concept design would be fantastic       Love the indicative images

 

Improvement of water quality

 

 

 

10

get the water to circulate properly                         some tidal flow going between the river and the lake

Water needs to be cleaned on regular basis         The water flow should also be improved

Water quality improved                                            cleaner water

Improve stormwater flows                                        improve the water quality

keep the water clean                                                  beautify the water features

 

Improving the green space

(Shade trees/grassed areas)

 

 

9

put in some shade trees                                    Mowing the grass to the edge again

improve the grass vegetation                          "edges" of the path to be trimmed monthly

Plant it with pecans and macadamias             surrounding grassed areas beautified

Plant more trees for shade                                Raised vegetable gardens

More shaded areas like Bellwood Park

 

Maintenance/rubbish removal

 

 

 

5

"edges" of the path to be trimmed monthly         scoop out the human rubbish

clean neat and tidy at all times                                Provide more bins for rubbish

Clean up around perimeter

SUMMARY

 

27 responses were recorded in relation to what and how to improve Dawkins Park.  Highest on peoples agenda, 10 of 27 responses (37%), related to the improvement of water quality.  Suggestions from the respondents of how to improve the water, identified the flow of water as a critical feature:- tidal flow; circulate the water; water flow; remove the islands improve the stormwater flow.  Other suggestions about water quality improvement included:- pond needs to be deeper; drainage could be improved; bio filtration. 

 

Sharing an equal mention next, 9 of 27 responses (33%), was reference to both improving the green space area along with paths and seating.  The main responses around the green space were the maintenance of the grass, including the path edges, and the planting of shade trees.  Other mentions of interest included the suggestions of planting Pecan or Macadamia Trees or a raised vegetable garden.  These ideas hold similarities to the introduction of a bush tucker trail as demonstrated in the Draft Concept Plan.    Respondents identified the lighting and widening of paths to accommodate wheelchairs, walking frames, mobility scooters etc., as an important consideration.    Seating in shaded areas, whether that is a picnic/BBQ area or the shade of a tree, was also highlighted as a need.  

 

Again the removal of the Ibis/birds was recorded in 8 of the 27 responses (30%).  If you combined this 30% of respondents with the theme, “Implementation of concept plan” (30%), in which the removal of the Ibis is suggested, you reach a supporting figure of 60%. 

 

Improved maintenance and rubbish removal accounted for 5 of the 27 responses (19%). 

 

Suggestions that were raised by some respondents that would lead to the uniqueness of the park included: - off leash dog area; area for a mobile café style caravan; a link to the skate park; art display wall; link to Autumn Lodge. 

 

A need for public toilets was also mentioned in 4 of the 27 responses (15%).   The Draft Concept Plan includes toilets/amenities.  A combination of the figures between support for the draft concept plan (30%) and the response for toilets brings the supporting figure to 45%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q4.  Any comments on the Draft Concept Plan?                                          

 

 

RESPONSES

1.     landscape designers tend to go a bit overboard. Kempsey has a bush tucker park and in the ten years I lived there I rarely saw anyone using it. Not sure that is going to be a drawcard for visitors. Removing the islands is maybe not a good idea - where will the birds go? Where will the water come from to fill the lake after a large volume of soil is removed? Water circulation and tidal access is the real key to getting the lake clean again. It stinks because it doesn't flow anywhere.

2.     I like the concept plan. I believe it will encourage people to still visit the town when the by-pass is finish. The removal of the islands is a great idea to remove the Ibis. Hopefully this concept will be put into place.

3.     Too showy. It needs to have a really practical purpose.

4.     The plan needs to address the economic aspects such as whether or not Caltex stays there. There is no place for dogs.

5.     It look great. Good work Grant.

6.     a refreshing concept

7.     excellent plan; play areas needed

8.     Looks promising. What is a sensory garden?

9.     It looks amazing! I love it.

10.   looks good, should be able to attract people to this space

11.   Is vegetation being planted up to residences fences?  Don’t create another problem with trees overhanging their property or perhaps this is lawn areas otherwise plan looks great asset.

12.   Concept looks great.  Security/privacy for surrounding residents not addressed

13.   Plan looks good.  Need to address privacy/security for surrounding residences.

14.   Is it possible to leave the island and remove trees and then plant shrubs for the smaller birds to breed under

15.   Very nice.  I hope it happens in my lifetime.

16.   I think the concept is a great start.  Environmental levy funds should be used for this project to attract further funding.  Water quality is so important and th eels would need to be monitored or there would be no benefit from the little wharves.

17.   Looks fantastic

18.   Well thought out.  Delightful.

19.   Draft design looks great.

20.   Ducks would still use the lake??  Options to reduce their use, maybe some (birds of prey) shapes nearby and owl eyes at night (LED) shaped eyes near water??

21.   I like the look of the draft concept design.  It utilises the area most effectively. Have not viewed – but will try and look at it.

22.   I think the concept is wonderful and would definitely encourage people to stop and take advantage of the gardens and amenities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMMON THEMES

 

 

REFERENCES TO THEME

 

 

SUPPORTING COMMENTS

 

Support Draft Concept Plan

 

 

 

17

I like the concept plan. I believe it will encourage people to still visit        looks amazing

like the concept plan and would definitely encourage people to stop       Draft design looks great

should be able to attract people to this space                                                 I like the look of the draft concept design

think the concept is a great start                                                                        Concept looks great

Plan looks good

 

 

Doubt Draft Concept Plan

 

 

 

5

Too showy. It needs to have a really practical purpose

The plan needs to address the economic aspects

Kempsey has a bush tucker park and in the ten years I lived there I rarely saw anyone using it

Not sure that is going to be a drawcard for visitors

Removing the islands is maybe not a good idea

Is it possible to leave the island and remove trees and then plant shrubs

SUMMARY

 

22 comments about the Draft Concept Plan were received with 17 of the responses (77%) of a positive nature.  The remaining 5 responses (23%) were of a neutral or doubtful type.   

 

Generally the Draft Concept Plan is well supported by 77% of respondents.  The responses of support were commonly short phrases just stating: - like the concept plan; Draft design looks great; Plan looks good.  In 3 of the responses it was detailed: - encourage people to still visit; attract people to this space; encourage people to stop.

 

Of the 5 remaining responses a range of issues were identified:- economic issues; needs a practical purpose; not a drawcard for visitors.  Some responses suggested amendments to the Draft Concept Plan such as: - leave the island and move the trees and then plant shrubs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q5.  What is your gender?                                           

 

 

RESPONSES

 

Female                                             Male

 

16/26       62%                                 10/26       38% 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q6.  What is your age?                                          

 

 

RESPONSES 

 

 

0-24                 0/27            0%

 

25-34               1/27            4%    

 

35-44               5/27          20%

 

45-54               5/27          20%

 

55-64               8/27          33%

 

65+                   8/27          33%

 

 

Q7.  Where do you live?                                          

 

 

RESPONSES

 

 

 

Macksville                                      18/26         69%

 

Nambucca Heads                          3/26           12%

 

Other Nambucca Shire                 3/26           12%

 

Other                                               2/26           7%

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

Dawkins Park Improvements

 



















Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

Dawkins Park Improvements

 





Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

Dawkins Park Improvements

 














Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    30 June 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.5      SF1148            300616         Council Ranger's Report May 2016

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Teresa Boorer, Business Services Officer         

 

Summary:

 

The following is the Council’s Ranger’s report regarding Council’s Companion Animal Activities and listing of penalty notices issued by Council’s Ranger for May 2016.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

 

 

Cats

Dogs

COUNCIL’S SEIZURE ACTIVITY

 

 

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

         0

0

Returned to Owner

0

0

Transferred to - Council's Facility from Seizure Activities

0

0

ANIMALS IN AND ARRIVING AT COUNCIL'S FACILITY

 

 

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

0

6

Abandoned or Stray

3

9

Surrendered

0

3

Animals transferred from Seizure Activities

0

0

Total Incoming Animals

3

18

ANIMALS LEAVING COUNCIL'S FACILITY

 

 

Released to Owners

0

9

Sold

0

1

Released to Organisations for Rehoming

0

0

Died at Council's Facility(other than euthanased)

0

0

Stolen from Council's Facility

0

0

Escaped from Council's Facility

0

0

Other

0

0

EUTHANASED

 

 

Restricted Dogs

 

0

Dangerous Dogs

 

0

Owner’s Request

0

0

Due to Illness, Disease or Injury

0

0

Feral/infant animal

3

0

Unsuitable for rehoming

0

5

Unable to be rehomed

0

0

Total Euthanased

3

5

Total Outgoing Animals

3

15

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

0

3

 

 

May 2016

PARKING

REGO NO.

PN NUMBER

INFRINGEMENT DETAILS

PENALTY $

DATE ISSUED

BM-05-CR

3120796829

No Parking

106.00

30/05/2016

CSI-36M

3120796838

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/05/2016

198-TDF

3120796847

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/05/2016

ACW-10W

3120796856

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/05/2016

KEZ-022

3120796865

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/05/2016

CWZ-24D

3120796874

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/05/2016

CXL-03G

3120796883

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

30/05/2016

AA-33-YX

3120796892

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/05/2016

AD-52-CV

3120796920

No Parking (School Zone)

177.00

30/05/2016

CEJ-78H

3120796939

Bus Zone (school zone)

319.00

30/05/2016

AO-94-QV

3120796948

Bus Zone (school zone)

319.00

30/05/2016

BJM-88U

3120796957

Bus Zone (school zone)

319.00

30/05/2016

GE-008

3120796920

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

30/05/2016

CD-72-QT

3120796975

No Parking

106.00

30/05/2016

DBA-39S

3120796984

Taxi Zone

177.00

30/05/2016

BSO-47P

3120797002

Bus Zone (school zone)

319.00

30/05/2016

CE-62-BJ

3120797011

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/05/2016

AV-09-KO

3120797020

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

30/05/2016

MB-8967

3120797030

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

30/05/2016

BM-77-CO

3120797049

No Stopping

248.00

30/05/2016

AXS-13C

3120797058

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

30/05/2016

QMA-422

3120797067

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/05/2016

AJ-96-YY

3120797076

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

30/05/2016

KDR-204

3120797076

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/05/2016

AT-04-BW

3120797103

Taxi Zone

177.00

30/05/2016

342-TVR

3120797112

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/05/2016

CD-12-TV

3120797121

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/05/2016

CXZ-16V

3120797130

No Parking

106.00

30/05/2016

CA-18-DQ

3120797140

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

30/05/2016

AQ-08-CT

3120797159

Taxi Zone

177.00

30/05/2016

176-SFD

3120797168

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

30/05/2016

SUL-739

3120797177

No Parking

106.00

30/05/2016

BU-06-MJ

3120797186

Park so as to obstruct vehicles

106.00

30/05/2016

YEF-638

3120797195

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

31/05/2016

CA-78-KC

3120797204

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

31/05/2016

 

May 2016 (cont.)

PARKING

REGO NO.

PN NUMBER

INFRINGEMENT DETAILS

PENALTY $

DATE ISSUED

BR-70-MP

3120797213

Loading Zone

177.00

31/05/2016

TVX-872

3120797222

No Stopping

248.00

31/05/2016

XMM-380

3120797231

No Stopping

248.00

31/05/2016

BQ-11-GO

3120797240

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

31/05/2016

WHW-109

3120797250

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

31/05/2016

BVY-35P

3120797269

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

31/05/2016

BS-85-ZB

3120797278

Taxi Zone

177.00

31/05/2016

AB-24-SY

3120797296

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

31/05/2016

BT-10-NG

3120797305

Stop on path in built up area

106.00

31/05/2016

AD-42-LO

3120797305

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

31/05/2016

XPJ-224

3120797314

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

31/05/2016

CG-32-HL

3120797323

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

31/05/2016

BJV-52A

3120797341

No Stopping

248.00

31/05/2016

912-LKY

3120797350

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

31/05/2016

BTX-66Z

3120797360

Loading Zone

177.00

31/05/2016

CZJ-11G

3120797379

Loading Zone

177.00

31/05/2016

YZC-442

3120797388

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

31/05/2016

BT-14-NG

3120797397

No Stopping

248.00

31/05/2016

MYR-81

3120797406

Stop on path in built up area

106.00

31/05/2016

056-VCB

3120797415

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

31/05/2016

CIX-37K

3120797424

No Stopping

248.00

31/05/2016

CG-56-WH

3120797433

No angle park as on parking control sign

106.00

31/05/2016

BVD-76U

3120797442

Loading Zone

177.00

31/05/2016

XHT-995

3120797451

Not park in direction of travel

177.00

31/05/2016

 

 

TOTAL:

9307.00

 

 

May 2016

COMPANION ANIMALS & OTHER

CHIP NO.

PN NUMBER

INFRINGEMENT DETAILS

PENALTY $

DATE ISSUED

N/A

31201796993

Fail to comply with Notice P/place

110.00

24/05/2016

N/A

3120797094

Fail to comply with Notice P/place

110.00

24/05/2016

N/A

3120797287

Fail to comply with Notice P/place

110.00

31/05/2016

900032002893540

3120796901

Not identified

165.00

9/05/2016

900032002893540

3120796910

Not registered

275.00

9/05/2016

 

 

TOTAL:

770.00

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    30 June 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.6      SF2025            300616         Joint Organisations - Operational Arrangements

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Information regarding proposed operational arrangements for Joint Organisations was reported to the Council meeting 16th June 2016. OLG has released a succinct summary of the proposals in a paper titled   JO-Towards a new model (attached). The NSW Government is now seeking feedback on these proposals.  This report expands on that previous report and makes the two key recommendations to be included in a submission to OLG.  These recommendation concern JO boundaries and scope of operations, The State Government appears to adopted a firm position on all other issued previously raised by Council. 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council make a submission to the Office of Local Government (OLG) regarding the Joint Organisation (JO) Model. 

          That the submission be limited to recommending the boundaries of the JO in which Nambucca Shire will be included.

          That the recommendation be that Nambucca Shire is comfortable with membership of the North Cost JO and feels that those boundaries represent a distinct community of interested based around Coffs Harbour as a strong regional centre. 

          However as it is now evident the JO will take on many of the functions of the current Regional Organisation and that the cost of being part of a JO will far exceed the cost of participating in MIDROC; Council would be agreeable to the alternative of being part of a larger JO, comprising the combination of the North Coast and Mid North Coast JO’s. 

          This approximates the membership of MIDROC, an organisation that has functioned successfully for a long time.  Such a membership would include more than one regional centre and more than one corresponding community of interest, Council does not consider this to be a significant hurdle and argues that the topography, demographics and regional issues are more alike than they are different and the combined Joint Organisation would be well placed to deliver the proposed core functions.

 

2        That Council support initially limiting the new JO to the core functions as prescribed by the NSW Government and structuring the new entity so it can effectively deliver these core functions at the minimum cost.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1        Council can choose to make no submission or a different submission on the JO Proposals.

2        Council can support resourcing their JO to be able to deliver more than the bare minimum core functions.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

In September 2014 the Office of Local Government (OLG) published a paper on “Joint Organisations, A roadmap for intergovernmental collaboration in NSW” The document was part of the Fit for the Future reform agenda.  This original paper can be found at Joint-Organisations-A-roadmap-for-intergovernmental-collaboration-in-NSW.pdf

 

In September 2015, after an initial review of the Joint Organisation pilot program OLG published a consultation paper entitled JO-Emerging-Directions.  Council reviewed these proposals at a workshop and made submission to OLG, this is attached for reference.

In March 2016 a  JO Pilot Evaluation Report and a JO Pilot Evaluation Summary Report  were released.  In the words of the Minister:

 

“The evaluation found the JO pilot to be a success, with the five JO pilot regions making great progress in delivering benefits such as youth employment and education programs, better strategies for transport and priority infrastructure and improved growth planning.”

 

In June 2016 OLG released JO-Towards a new model  (attached) which is an overview of the new JO Model and an accompanying Background Paper Joint Organisations.  OLG also issued a Ministerial Circular calling for submissions by 15 July 2016.  This was reported to Council for information on 16th June 2016 and this follow-up report offers further analysis and a recommendation submission by Council regarding JO boundaries.  There is also some discussion regarding Council adopting a strategic position on the scope of operations of the JO of which it is a member.

 

The initial deadline for the implementation of Joint Organisation was September 2016; this has been postponed to a less specific target of 2017. 

 

Below are the headline provisions of the proposal, any related previous submission by Nambucca Shire is included for reference.  It can be seen that some of the concerns previously raised by Council still remain.

 

 

·      Functions - JO core functions will be embedded in legislation and include strategic planning and priority setting, intergovernmental collaboration, and regional leadership and advocacy.

 

·      Notwithstanding the nominated JO core functions, member councils will still undertake local strategic planning, collaboration, leadership an advocacy and may have individual relationships with the State on all of these matters.

 

Refer Council submission:

 

1        Delegation of Core Functions

The Emerging Directions Paper is silent as to how the defined core functions will operate in tandem with the functions of the constituent councils.  For example, will the JO core function of inter-governmental collaboration exclude the individual councils from also undertaking this function?  If the JO is not a fourth tier of government you would not expect such functions to be the exclusive preserve of the JO.  But in practical terms what if one or more of the JO Councils makes representations or undertake actions which are inconsistent with a decision of their JO?  Nambucca Shire Council submits that a more detailed explanation is required of the process that delegates core function roles and responsibilities.

 

·    JO’s can have optional functions such as service delivery and capacity building.  These will be enabled but not prescribed by legislation.

 

Refer Council submission:

 

2        Sustainability

The position of this Council has been that the purpose of JO’s should be principally focussed on providing opportunities to increase efficiency and improve our financial sustainability.  The overwhelming issue for Mid North Coast Councils is financial sustainability but the JO’s nominated core functions do not directly respond to this priority.

 

·    Membership - Mayors of member councils will sit on the JO Board for their term of office.

·    The JO Board will appoint its own Chair

·    There will be equal voting rights between members and no casting vote for the Chair

·    Additional councillors may be appointed to the JO Board, provided representation remains equal among councils.

·    The NSW Government representative (Regional Coordinator of the Dept. of Premier & Cabinet) will be an associate (non-voting) member

·    Other organisations such as county councils and cross-border partners may be associate (non-voting) members.

 

Refer Council submission:

 

6        Representation

It is proposed that the JO Board comprise one representative from each full member council.  This means in the North Coast JO, a council such as Coffs Harbour City Council with 72,000 residents will have the same representation on a JO as Bellingen Shire Council with 13,000 residents.  This is fundamentally undemocratic and is unlikely to be sustainable if the larger Council believes the JO is not acting in its best interests.  It may be that a JO does not challenge the parochial interests of individual councils over the region, but this may imply the JO as being relatively ineffectual in achieving its core functions.

 

7          Effective Decision Making

The requirement to have a majority vote of 75% with the Chair having no casting vote may hamper effective and timely decision making.  In terms of decision with no casting vote for the Chair it would be preferable that JO’s have an odd number of members but this may not always be possible.  Council also considers it important that a proxy vote mechanism is available when a member Council’s regular representative is not available.

 

10      Conflicting Roles for Councillors

Under the Local Government Act 1993, Councillors already have potentially conflicting roles as a member of a governing body and as an elected person.  The Emerging Directions Paper proposes to add a third potentially conflicting role being that the Councillors participating in a Joint Organisation must have a “regional hat” on.  It is difficult to accept that Councillors will approach their role on the JO free from any allegiance or loyalty to their other roles as a member of a Council governing body and as an elected person.

 

 

 

·      Boundaries - JO boundaries will be set by Proclamation. All councils in regional and rural NSW will be a voting member of one JO;  JO boundaries will be aligned with, or nest within, State Government Regional Plan boundaries.  JOs will demonstrate a strong community of interest between member councils;  JOs will be based around a regional centre, where possible, and big enough to form strong partnerships

 

Refer Council submission:

 

5          Membership

Nambucca’s Council Improvement Proposal was based on membership of the proposed North Coast Joint Organisation.  Council is still comfortable with this position, however as the JO concept has been further developed it has been evident the JO will take on many of the functions of the current Regional Organisation.  It is also apparent the cost of being part of a Joint Organisation will far exceed the cost of participating in MIDROC.  Based on these two considerations Council would welcome an opportunity to consider being part of a larger JO, an initial proposal is to combine the North Coast and Mid North Coast JO’s.  This approximates the membership of MIDROC, an organisation that has functioned successfully for a long time.  Such a membership would include more than one regional centre and more than one corresponding community of interest, Council does not consider this to be a significant hurdle.  It is argued that the topography, demographics and regional issues are more alike than they are different and the combined Joint Organisation would be well placed to deliver the proposed core functions.

 

 

The Map below shows the relevant regional planning boundaries which are marked in red and originally proposed JO boundaries marked in blue. 

 

 

These boundaries have been impacted by the proclaimed merger of Gloucester Shire, Great Lakes and Greater Taree City councils into the new Mid Coast Council.  Membership of the Mid - North Coast JO is now only thee Council’s; namely Mid-North Coast Council, Port Macquarie Hastings and Kempsey Council.

 

Mid-Coast Council: The merger of Gloucester Shire, Great Lakes and Greater Taree City councils

This raises the possibility of combing the Proposed North Coast Jo and Mid North Coast JO and thus approximating the membership of MIDROC. This combined JO still nests within the regional planning boundary. The advantage would be the costs of operating the JO would be spread a wider membership, the disadvantages would be this combines two distinct communities of interest and aligning the common interests of this wider membership would be more difficult.  The least favourable outcome would be a composite of the two, such as adding Kempsey to the North Coast JO; this seems to produce most of the disadvantages and very few of advantages.  It is recommended that Council make a submission along the lines of the previous submission; specifically;

 

That Nambucca is comfortable with membership of the North Cost JO and feels that those boundaries represent a distinct community of interested based around Coff’s Harbour as a strong regional centre.

 

However; as it is now evident the JO will take on many of the functions of the current Regional Organisation and that the cost of being part of a Joint Organisation will far exceed the cost of participating in MIDROC; Council would be agreeable to the alternative of being part of a larger JO, comprising the combination of the North Coast and Mid North Coast JO’s.  This approximates the membership of MIDROC, an organisation that has functioned successfully for a long time.  Such a membership would include more than one regional centre and more than one corresponding community of interest, Council does not consider this to be a significant hurdle and argues that the topography, demographics and regional issues are more alike than they are different and the combined Joint Organisation would be well placed to deliver the proposed core functions.

 

 

·      Legal Entity - JOs will be proclaimed as bodies corporate in the Local Government Act.  JOs will be able to carry out functions such as tendering, entering into contracts, applying for grants, employing staff and undertaking regulatory functions on behalf of member councils.

 

Refer Council submission:

 

4          Entity and Powers

Nambucca Shire Council supports governance structure option number 4 in the Emerging Directions paper; that is Body Corporate in the Local Government Act (Enabling).  It is agreed that this is the most enabling and flexible option; however it is submitted that Council should be free to hold equity in other body corporates as well.  The example that best demonstrates Council’s position is being able to utilise an appropriate corporate structure to participate in shared service arrangements with other Councils outside the Joint Organisation. Clarification is also sort over the potential liability of member councils for liabilities incurred by the JO.  Council’s preference is for a limit by guarantee or a limit to paid up equity.  

 

 

 

·      Sustainability - The JOs will each receive $300,000 seed funding from the NSW Government and will employ an Executive Officer under a standard contract and other staff under the Local Government (State) Award.

 

·      JO Board members will not be paid sitting fees.  Instead, to recognise the important role of Mayors on JO Boards, it is proposed that a one-off increase to the Mayoral fee be considered as part of the councillor remuneration review.

 

·      In terms of financing JOs it is proposed that member councils fund the ongoing core functions of the JO with contributions based on a formula negotiated by each JO.

 

Refer Council submission:

 


3        Significant Costs

The paper proposes that JO’s be required to employ an Executive Officer, with the equivalent capabilities and at an equivalent level to a General Manager, senior staff member in a council or a Department of Premier and Cabinet Regional Co-ordinator.  This means a remuneration package with on costs upwards of $200,000 per annum.  With say a minimalist model comprising three support staff the employment costs alone for a JO will be upwards of $500,000 per annum.  This compares with this Council’s current contribution of $12,000 to the Mid North Coast Regional Organisation of Councils and $28,000 to Local Government NSW.

 

 

11         Resourcing

Members will fund ongoing administration and regional priorities from available sources, most likely based on contributions from member councils using a “locally negotiated formula”. With member councils proposed to have equal voting rights, larger councils may not be supportive of a per capita based funding model.  Council submits that based on what amounts to a compulsory increased operational costs for Councils, that the State should contribute to the funding the core operation of JO’s.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation to date.  OLG are conducting a regional meeting 5 July 2016.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

At this stage there are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

At this stage there are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

At this stage there are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

Whilst the Government’s independent evaluation of the five pilot Joint Organisations seems to be very positive in terms of their benefits, some potential risks are outlined in the discussion section of this report.  First and foremost is the observation that the overwhelming issue for Mid North Coast Councils is financial sustainability but the JO’s nominated core functions do not directly respond to this priority.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

At this stage there are no budgetary impacts.  However subject to consideration by the new JO of financing arrangements, it seems that Council could be looking at additional operating costs to finance the JO in the order of at least $100,000 per annum.  There may be opportunities to transfer some functions to the JO to at least utilise some of its capacity and reduce Council’s costs, but this would be dependent upon the agreement of the member councils.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

At this stage there is no impact on service levels or staffing.

 

Attachments:

1

32875/2015 - Nambucca Submission on Joint Organisations Emerging Issues Paper

 

2

19826/2016 - Towards a New Model for Regional Collaboration

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

Joint Organisations - Operational Arrangements

 

 

Nambucca Shire Council Submission on Joint Organisations Emerging Directions Paper

 

Friday 16th October 2015

 

Via email jointorganisations@olg.nsw.gov.au

 

 

Dear Sir / Madam

 

Nambucca Shire Council considered the Joint Organisation Emerging Directions Paper at a workshop on Friday 9th of October 2015 with the outcomes confirmed by resolution at the Council meeting of Thursday 16th October 2015.  The concerns that were identified are listed below and are submitted for your consideration.

 

 

1.   Delegation of Core Functions

The Emerging Directions Paper is silent as to how the defined core functions will operate in tandem with the functions of the constituent councils.  For example, will the JO core function of inter-governmental collaboration exclude the individual councils from also undertaking this function?  If the JO is not a fourth tier of government you would not expect such functions to be the exclusive preserve of the JO.  But in practical terms what if one or more of the JO Councils makes representations or undertake actions which are inconsistent with a decision of their JO?  Nambucca Shire Council submits that a more detailed explanation is required of the process that delegates core function roles and responsibilities.

 

2.   Sustainability

The position of this Council has been that the purpose of JO’s should be principally focussed on providing opportunities to increase efficiency and improve our financial sustainability.  The overwhelming issue for Mid North Coast Councils is financial sustainability but the JO’s nominated core functions do not directly respond to this priority.

 

3.   Significant Costs

The paper proposes that JO’s be required to employ an Executive Officer, with the equivalent capabilities and at an equivalent level to a General Manager, senior staff member in a council or a Department of Premier and Cabinet Regional Co-ordinator.  This means a remuneration package with on costs upwards of $200,000 per annum.  With say a minimalist model comprising three support staff the employment costs alone for a JO will be upwards of $500,000 per annum.  This compares with this Council’s current contribution of $12,000 to the Mid North Coast Regional Organisation of Councils and $28,000 to Local Government NSW.

 

4.   Entity and Powers

Nambucca Shire Council supports governance structure option number 4 in the Emerging Directions paper; that is Body Corporate in the Local Government Act (Enabling).  It is agreed that this is the most enabling and flexible option; however it is submitted that Council should be free to hold equity in other body corporates as well.  The example that best demonstrates Council’s position is being able to utilise an appropriate corporate structure to participate in shared service arrangements with other Councils outside the Joint Organisation. Clarification is also sort over the potential liability of member councils for liabilities incurred by the JO.  Council’s preference is for a limit by guarantee or a limit to paid up equity.  

 

5.   Membership

Nambucca’s Council Improvement Proposal was based on membership of the proposed North Coast Joint Organisation.  Council is still comfortable with this position, however as the JO concept has been further developed it has been evident the JO will take on many of the functions of the current Regional Organisation.  It is also apparent the cost of being part of a Joint Organisation will far exceed the cost of participating in MIDROC.  Based on these two considerations Council would welcome an opportunity to consider being part of a larger JO, an initial proposal is to combine the North Coast and Mid North Coast JO’s.  This approximates the membership of MIDROC, an organisation that has functioned successfully for a long time.  Such a membership would include more than one regional centre and more than one corresponding community of interest, Council does not consider this to be a significant hurdle.  It is argued that the topography, demographics and regional issues are more alike than they are different and the combined Joint Organisation would be well placed to deliver the proposed core functions.

 

6.   Representation

It is proposed that the JO Board comprise one representative from each full member council.  This means in the North Coast JO, a council such as Coffs Harbour City Council with 72,000 residents will have the same representation on a JO as Bellingen Shire Council with 13,000 residents.  This is fundamentally undemocratic and is unlikely to be sustainable if the larger Council believes the JO is not acting in its best interests.  It may be that a JO does not challenge the parochial interests of individual councils over the region, but this may imply the JO as being relatively ineffectual in achieving its core functions.

 

7.   Effective Decision Making

The requirement to have a majority vote of 75% with the Chair having no casting vote may hamper effective and timely decision making.  In terms of decision with no casting vote for the Chair it would be preferable that JO’s have an odd number of members but this may not always be possible.  Council also considers it important that a proxy vote mechanism is available when a member Council’s regular representative is not available.

 

8.   Reporting to Member Councils by the JO

The Emerging Directions paper lacks detail on the reporting arrangements for the JO to Member Councils.  It is essential that clear reporting requirements be mandated including stipulating that the member councils set by consensus, the frequency and format of the reports as well as the performance indicators.  A statutory minimum number of meetings would ensure adequate engagement of member councils. 

 

9.   Annual Financial Statements

It is doubted the requirements for General Purpose Financial Statements as contained in the Local Government Act 1993 would add useful information to the JO’s Annual Financial Statements when compared with compliance with the Australian Accounting Standards.

 

10.  Conflicting Roles for Councillors

Under the Local Government Act 1993, Councillors already have potentially conflicting roles as a member of a governing body and as an elected person.  The Emerging Directions Paper proposes to add a third potentially conflicting role being that the Councillors participating in a Joint Organisation must have a “regional hat” on.  It is difficult to accept that Councillors will approach their role on the JO free from any allegiance or loyalty to their other roles as a member of a Council governing body and as an elected person.

 

11.  Resourcing

Members will fund ongoing administration and regional priorities from available sources, most likely based on contributions from member councils using a “locally negotiated formula”. With member councils proposed to have equal voting rights, larger councils may not be supportive of a per capita based funding model.  Council submits that based on what amounts to a compulsory increased operational costs for Councils, that the State should contribute to the funding the core operation of JO’s.

 

If you would like clarification or further detail on any of the above points, please contact The General Manger, Mr Michael Coulter on 0409 153 788 or michael.coulter@nambucca.nsw.gov.au

 

Thank you for considering this submission

 

Regards

 

Scott Norman

Assistant General Manager Corporate Service

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

Joint Organisations - Operational Arrangements

 





Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    30 June 2016

General Manager

ITEM 9.7      DA2016/050      300616         DA2016/050 Dwelling house and shed Lot 114 DP 861793 Valla Road, Valla

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Anthony Brandie, Senior Health and Building Surveyor         

 

Summary:

 

The development application is for a dwelling house and a shed. The development will rely on mains power, private water supply and on site sewerage. Vehicular access within the lot has been established. The local road is bitumen sealed to the property.

 

The development site is located within an R5 cluster of 5 lots in rural Valla, completely surrounded by properties zoned RU2. The development site is also positioned within 1 kilometre of the operational face of the Valla Quarry.

 

The subject lot was created as part of a 4 lot subdivision approved by Council in 1996.  These four lots are subject to a Restriction on Use on the land title relating to ‘rural buffers’, a requirement historically contained in the Nambucca LEP. This restriction stipulates, amongst other things, that no dwelling houses are to be constructed within a 150 metre buffer that runs parallel to the western boundary.

 

The dwelling has been positioned on the lot so as to comply with the provisions of Nambucca DCP 2010 – Table F1: Buffers between Commercial Activities/Rural Industries and Dwellings applying the Grazing Land Separation Distance of 60 metres (from the western boundary) with a 20 metre minimum width Vegetation buffer.

 

NOTE: This matter requires a “Planning Decision” meaning a decision made in the exercise of a function of the council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 including a decision relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan.  Under Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 it requires the General Manager to record the names of each Councillor supporting and opposing the decision.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Development Consent be granted for the proposal as applied for, in accordance with the recommended conditions of Development Consent included in this report.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1          That Council adopt the recommendation of this report.

 

2          That Development Consent is granted to the proposal with the repositioning of the dwelling to comply with the provisions of Nambucca DCP 2010 - Table F1: Buffers between Commercial Activities/Rural Industries and Dwellings applying the Agriculture crops/horticulture Separation Distance of 80 metres with a 40 metre minimum width Vegetation buffer.

 

NOTE: This would require a review of the development proposal by the Applicant/designer/owners.

 

3        That Development Consent is granted to the proposal with the repositioning of the dwelling to comply with the Restriction on Use registered against the property title effectively requiring the dwelling to be constructed outside of the 150 metre buffer established on the title.

 

NOTE: This would require a more significant review of the development proposal by the Applicant/designer/owners.

 

 


DISCUSSION:

 

Following a site inspection, this report was considered by Council at its meeting on 16 June 2016 and it was resolved that the matter be deferred to the next Council meeting on 30 June 2016.

 

On 31 March 2016, Kalang Design House (KDH) lodged a Development Application for a dwelling house and a shed on Lot 114 DP 861793, Valla Road, Valla.  Please refer to Attachment 1 for the proposed development plans.  Please also refer to Attachment 2.  The proposed siting of the dwelling is approximately depicted with a black X.

 

The application was notified to adjoining property owners from 13 April 2016 to 27 April 2016. One submission was received on 22 April 2016 with a further submission on 4 May 2016 from the same author(s).

 

The submission(s) essentially request that Council reject the Development Application in its current form and that the dwelling house and shed be sited outside the 150 metre buffer enshrined in the land title (noting that a shed is not affected by the Restriction on Use). The submission(s) also discuss land use history and provide a concise chronology of the development history relative to the subject land, the Restriction on Use and the determination by Council of the granting of Development Consent to the subdivision that established the lots in the R5 cluster.  The submission(s) has not been summarised in this report due to length and context, however is contained in Attachment 3 and Attachment 4.

 

The proposal complies with the LEP and all relevant DCP requirements, in particular F1.3.2 Buffers, having regard to the existing adjoining land use to the west, that being grazing. This currently occurs up to the common boundary between the development site and the adjoining land to the west. It has been suggested that in the future there may be some form of intensive horticulture eg. blueberries on the land to the west.  Whilst this is possible it would not foreseeably occur up to the common boundary. A buffer would exist by virtue of topography (slope and aspect) and if structures were to be employed to protect such a crop, boundary setbacks would also apply.  Please refer to Attachment 5excerpt from Nambucca DCP2010 Part F – Rural and Environmental Development (R5 RU1 RU2 RU3 E2 and E3). This Part contains the buffer requirements.

 

It is acknowledged that the submission(s) contest the effectiveness of a vegetation buffer within the context of the proposed development, the DCP requirements however cannot be imposed on adjoining properties as a function of the subject development.

 

There are existing anomalies within the R5 cluster with respect to the location of dwellings and the Restriction as to Use on the title (150 metre Agricultural buffer). The known status of each property within the R5 cluster is as follows;

 

·           Lot 112 in DP861793 – this property hosts an existing dwelling, swimming pool and sheds. The dwelling is very close to the property boundary to the west. It is understood that this dwelling existed prior to the creation of the R5 cluster. It is noted that the 150 metre buffer would preclude the construction of a dwelling house anywhere on this site.

·           Lot 113 in DP 861793 – this property hosts an existing dwelling and other building. It would appear that the structure closest to the southern corner of the allotment may encroach on the 150 metre buffer.

·           Lot 114 in DP 861793 – development site, currently vacant land

·           Lot 115 in DP 861793 – this property hosts a shed, understood to have been converted/adapted for use as a dwelling without the consent of Council. This building is located within the 150 metre buffer.

·           Lot 12 in DP 595188 – this property hosts an existing residence and outbuildings.

 

Having regard to the existing development scenarios, the author has not been able to identify any significant records of complaints with respect to land use conflicts in the general locality other than those associated with the operation of the Valla Quarry.

 

Whilst principles of ‘the right to farm’ are warranted and acknowledged, the ‘right to farm’ does not infer a right to create nuisance, cause pollution of the environment etc. State Government bodies such as the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and the Department of Industry and Investment (DI & I) administer legislation intended to regulate farming activities and off site impacts.

 

In conclusion, Council is empowered to alter, modify or vary the Restriction on Use (150 metre buffer). This can be justified on planning grounds having regard to the provisions as previously outlined in the Nambucca DCP 2010.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Comment from Senior Town Planner

Please note that section 79C (3A) (a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) states the following:

 

If a development control plan contains provisions that relate to the development that is the subject of a development application, the consent authority:

(a)  if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development and the development application complies with those standards—is not to require more onerous standards with respect to that aspect of the development”

 

As stated within this report, the existing use of the adjoining land is grazing (extensive agriculture) and the proposed dwelling house complies with the rural buffer controls imposed by clause F1.3.2 of the DCP.

 

Clause 10 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 states that the following matters must be taken into account when considering whether to grant consent to a development application for a dwelling on the land:

 

“(a)  the existing uses and approved uses of land in the vicinity of the development,

(b)  whether or not the development is likely to have a significant impact on land uses that, in the opinion of the consent authority, are likely to be preferred and the predominant land uses in the vicinity of the development,

(c)  whether or not the development is likely to be incompatible with a use referred to in paragraph (a) or (b)”.

 

As indicated the existing use on the adjoining land is grazing. Furthermore, it is considered that grazing and horticulture are likely to be the preferred and the predominant land uses of the adjoining land in the future.

 

The proposed location of the dwelling is compliant with the DCP buffer requirements for both the existing grazing use and potential horticultural use (adjoining land within 20m of common boundary not desirable for horticulture due to topography). Given the proposals compliance with Councils adopted buffer standards, it is not considered that the proposed dwelling will be incompatible with existing or likely future land uses.

 

Having regard to the above and section 79C (3A) (a) of the Act, it is not considered that Council can lawfully require the applicant to relocate the proposed dwelling within the development site. Furthermore, any relocation of the dwelling towards Valla Road (south-east) will result in the dwelling being non-compliant with the 1000m buffer from the existing Valla quarry which would be inconsistent with clause F1.3.2 of the DCP.

 

Please note that the 150m buffer restriction on the use of land was created in accordance with clause 14 of the Development Control Plan – Rural Development Code (Rural Development Code). In 2005, Council adopted the Development Control Plan No 16 – Rural Buffers (DCP 16) which superseded the Rural Development Code. DCP 16 adopted new rural buffer requirements which were more aligned with industry best practice. When the current Development Control Plan 2010 was adopted, it incorporated the buffer requirements from DCP 16 which remain in place today.

 

As such, it is recommended that Council vary the 150m buffer restriction on the use of land as part of this development application because the restriction is outdated and not doing so is considered to be unlawful having regard to the above provisions of the Act.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The development in its own right is not considered to pose any adverse environmental impacts.

 

Social

 

Land use conflicts do not always engender harmony in a social context.

 

Economic

 

Positive with respect to employment of tradespeople etc

 

Risk

 

Granting consent to the proposal as it stands or in accordance with options provided for the Council is not considered to pose any significant risk to Council, financial or otherwise.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Nil

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

Nil

 

Attachments:

1

19708/2016 - Attachment 1

 

2

19697/2016 - Attachment 2

 

3

19699/2016 - Attachment 3

 

4

19698/2016 - Attachment 4

 

5

19700/2016 - Attachment 5

 

6

21585/2016 - Attachment 6 - Recommended Conditions of Consent

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

DA2016/050 Dwelling house and shed Lot 114 DP 861793 Valla Road, Valla

 






Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

DA2016/050 Dwelling house and shed Lot 114 DP 861793 Valla Road, Valla

 




Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

DA2016/050 Dwelling house and shed Lot 114 DP 861793 Valla Road, Valla

 







































Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

DA2016/050 Dwelling house and shed Lot 114 DP 861793 Valla Road, Valla

 

















Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

DA2016/050 Dwelling house and shed Lot 114 DP 861793 Valla Road, Valla

 







Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

DA2016/050 Dwelling house and shed Lot 114 DP 861793 Valla Road, Valla

 

DETAILS OF CONDITIONS

 

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THIS CONSENT

 

Development is to be in accordance with approved plans

 

1        The development is to be implemented generally in accordance with the plans and supporting documents endorsed with the Council stamp, dated 23/06/2016 and authorised signature, and set out in the following table except where modified by any conditions of this consent.

 

Plan No/Supporting Document

Version

Prepared by

Dated

Site plan

-

Kalang Design House

22/1/2016

Elevations and BASIX commitments

-

Kalang Design House

March 2016

North east and South west elevations

-

Kalang Design House

March 2016

Roof plan

-

Kalang Design House

March 2016

Floor plan

-

Kalang Design House

March 2016

BASIX certificate

-

Kalang Design House

March 2016

Shed plans and details

-

Showers Engineering

29/3/2016

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Notification of Home Building Act 1989 requirements

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

i         the name of the owner-builder, and

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas - further details required

 

4        The application for a Construction Certificate is to include details indicating the construction of the building to Bushfire Attack Level 12.5 as defined in AS 3959-2009 - Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas.

 

Vegetation buffer

 

5        Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, a landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by Council for the establishment of a 20 metre wide vegetation buffer commencing along the 95RL between the dwelling house and the adjoining Lot 42 DP 1176982. The landscape buffer is to be planted with advanced stock (2-3 years old) and incorporate species listed in table F2 of the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010.

 

Long Service Levy to be paid

 

6        A Long Service Levy must be paid to the Long Service Payments Corporation. This amount payable is currently based on 0.35% of the cost of the work. This is a State Government Levy and is subject to change.

 

These payments may be made at Council’s Administration Office. Cheques are to be made payable to Nambucca Shire Council.

 

 

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

 

Erosion & sediment measures

 

7        Erosion and sedimentation controls are to be in place in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and Construction Vol 1, 4th Edition prepared by Landcom and Development Control Plan (Erosion and Sediment Control) 2009.

 

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

 

Toilet facilities

 

8        a        Toilet facilities must be available or provided at the work site before works begin and must be maintained until the works are completed.

b        Each toilet must be a standard flushing toilet connected to a public sewer, or have an on-site effluent disposal system approved under the Local Government Act 1993, or be a temporary chemical closet approved under the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Rural House numbering

 

9        The Rural Address Number for this property will be allocated upon application to Council’s Senior GIS officer. The Rural Address Number must be displayed at the main driveway entrance approved for the property, in accordance with the NSW “Rural Property Address Guidelines” to ensure prompt identification by emergency services and the general public (for further information go to http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/info/rural_addressing.pdf).

 

Site construction sign required

 

10      A sign or signs must be erected before the commencement of the work in a prominent position at the frontage to the site:

 

a        showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work, and

b        showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

c        stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

 

The sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed. No sign is to have an area in excess of one (1) m2.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH DURING CONSTRUCTION

 

Consent required for works within the road reserve

 

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

 

Construction times

 

12      Any works involving the generation of noise which extends beyond the boundary of the land, other than works required in an emergency to avoid the loss of life, damage to property and/or to prevent environmental harm, shall only be carried out between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm Monday to Saturday inclusive. No works shall occur on public holidays.

 

The builder/site manager is responsible to instruct and control sub-contractors regarding the hours of work

 

Plumbing Standards and requirements

 

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

 

The Plumber must submit a Notice of Works (NoW) prior to any work being commenced on-site:

 

a        No later than 20 business days before the work concerned is carried out in the case of work that requires a proposed alternative solution; or

 

b        No later than 2 business days before the work is carried out in any other case.

 

Inspection of water and drainage works required

 

14      An inspection must be undertaken by the local water authority prior to the covering of the works specified below:

 

a        sanitary plumbing and drainage

b        potable water supply plumbing

c        completion of all plumbing and drainage works

 

The local water supply authority requires a minimum of 24 hours notice to undertake the inspection. You will need to quote your Development Application number and property description to arrange your inspection.

 

 

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

 

Landscape Buffer

 

15.     Prior to the issue of an occupation certificate or occupation of the dwelling, the landscape buffer as required by condition 5 must be planted to the satisfaction of Council in accordance with the approved landscape plan.

The landscape buffer is to be maintained for the life of the development.

 

Landscape Buffer Easement

 

16.     Prior to the issue of an occupation certificate or occupation of the dwelling, an easement over the landscaping buffer required by this consent must be registered under section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919. The easement must require the ongoing management of vegetation within the easement as required by this consent for the life of the dwelling on the land. Nambucca Shire Council shall be nominated as the sole party with the power to vary or remove the covenant.

 

Sealed driveway in accordance with Roads Act

 

17      A sealed driveway is to be constructed from the edge of the road formation to 3m within the property boundary in accordance with the Roads Act consent. Min 375 RC pipe with headwalls through table drains.

 

18      The driveway shall have a minimum width of 5m at the edge of the road formation and 3m at the property boundary.

 

Works to be completed

 

19      All of the works indicated on the plans and granted by this consent, including any other consents that are necessary for the completion of this development, are to be completed and approved by the relevant consent authority/s prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

Sewer service diagram

 

20      A Certificate of Compliance and Sewer Service Diagram must be submitted to Council and the owner in accordance with the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2011 and Regulations in the appropriate form within 7 working days of the completed work and prior to an Occupation Certificate being issued.

 

 

REASONS FOR CONDITIONS

 

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

 

To ensure the development is completed in accordance with conditions of consent and approved plans.

 

To ensure adequate access to and from the development.

 

To ensure that appropriate landscaping is provided.

 

To protect the environment.

 

To minimise the possible adverse effects from bushfires.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    30 June 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.8      DA2012/011      300616         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)  Inclusion of a cost sharing arrangement for the upgrading of Alexandria Drive into condition 10. That the upgrading is not solely attributable to this subdivision and therefore it is reasonable for the cost of upgrading to be shared whereby 50 % is paid by the subdivision

b)  Removal of the requirement for cash contributions to be paid under Section 94 (Bellwood Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Development Contribution Plan 2009 – BLR&TIDP 2009)

c)  .Removal of the requirement for cash contributions to be paid under section 94 in Condition 30 for community facilities and open space to recognise the extensive credit available from the construction of the Faringdon Playing Fields in the past and the additional parks being provided within the subdivision.

 

The matter is reported to Council for resolution.  

 

NOTE:  This matter requires a “Planning Decision” meaning a decision made in the exercise of a function of the Council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 including a decision relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan.  Under Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 it requires the General Manager to record the names of each Councillor supporting and opposing the decision.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council supports the following:

 

1        That a 50/50 sharing arrangement for the upgrade of Alexandra Drive in lieu of contributions in accordance with the BLR&TIDP 2009. A Bank guarantee for $500,000 being provided as security

 

2        That the 50% contribution to the upgrading cost of Alexandra Drive will fall due upon the opening of new Warrell Creek to Nambucca Heads Pacific Highway upgrade and no later than July 2018.

 

3        That no more than 75 lots be created within the approved subdivision before the opening of new Warrell Creek to Nambucca Heads Pacific Highway upgrade and no later than July 2018.

  

 

4        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.

 

 

 

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 5 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 suggested works have been broached and agreed upon in discussions with the developer for council’s endorsement:

 

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 in an approved timeframe that does not rely on Alexandra Drive.

 

Note – from discussion it is estimated that an amount of $1,000,000 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 was 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 75 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.

 

With respect to the Contributions for Community Facilities and Public Open Space 2015 a search of council records revealed a letter to the developer from Council’s then Director (Development and Environmental Services) which acknowledged significant credit from past development whereby the development lot 2 DP 111830 of 54.8 ha retained 551 credits ( a total of 330 lots to be 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.

 

THE ATTACHMENT IS A COUNCIL REPORT

 

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 - 30 June 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                                                                                                    30 June 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.9      SF544              300616         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.

 

NOTE:  This matter requires a “Planning Decision” meaning a decision made in the exercise of a function of the Council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 including a decision relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan.  Under Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 it requires the General Manager to record the names of each Councillor supporting and opposing the decision.

 

 

 

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                                                                                                    30 June 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.10    SF688              300616         Submissions to the Proposed Environmental Levy Budget 2016/17

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the submissions received to the 2016/17 Environmental Levy Budget exhibited during the May/June period.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1   That Council adopt the amended 2016/17 budget for the Environmental Levy as provided in the body of this report.

 

2   That other income to the general fund be used to subsidise overheads in excess of those funds allocated to the environmental levy budget.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may resolve to amend the proposed Environmental Levy Budget within the $390,000 estimated income to undertake projects as it sees fit.

 

This includes the option for Council not to accept the Heritage Places funding and re-allocate that allowance ($7,500) to Climate Change Adaptation or another program as it sees fit.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

During the exhibition of the proposed Environmental Levy program, Council received three (3) submissions. Generally, the comments were all positive and supportive, although some concerns were noted in respect to the following:

 

-     Staffing arrangements for the Natural Resource Officer Position;

-     Funding being applied to private property through the Heritage Places program;

-     The exact allocations to the weed program and use of chemicals for weed management; and

-     Additional reporting on environmental levy outcomes

 

It is noted that many of the comments request additional funds be allocated to climate change adaptation, which is supported in principle. However, reducing the budgets below what has been allocated already may result in funding shortages. It would be preferred to maintain the existing budget allocations and reallocate at a later date (quarterly reporting) should it be expected that the funds will not be used or other projects require additional funds.

 

In respect to Climate Change Adaptation a number of the other projects in the budget including the installation of street trees are actions within Councils Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. Appropriate grant funding will be targeted to leverage the climate change adaptation funding as necessary.  Councils Technical Officer Development & Environment is presently investigating opportunities that may be available for the Climate Change Adaptation Budget which will be reported to Council in the next financial year.

 

Any anomalies identified by submissions are errors in the 2016/17 Operational Plan. The Environmental Levy budget as exhibited was the proposed environmental Levy Budget.

 

A summary of the issues/ suggestions raised in each of the three (3) submissions is presented below:

 


Transition Nambucca Valley

 

Has proposed 3 activities to be funded by the environmental levy being:

 

-       Replanting of historically cleared areas with native, nut and fruit species;

-       Replanting of public land and roadside verges with native species, fruit and nut species; and

-       Planting more Street Trees in Urban Areas (Macksville is highlighted in the submission)

 

Comment: The proposed budget for the environmental levy includes street tree planting in Macksville, and continuation of funds for planting in public reserves.  A number of the programs/ projects funded by the levy include restoration of previously cleared areas.  The bank stabilisation projects represent an example where the previously cleared riparian area is replanted with appropriate species.

 

Peter Sobey

 

Mr Sobey’s submission has proposed installation of solar panels on Bowra Dam, Council buildings and battery storage to compliment these activities.

 

Comment: The proposed budget makes allowance for Climate Change Adaptation Strategy implementation which would include these types of activities. Staff are to commence investigating priority projects for this budget in the new financial year as requested by Council. Other north coast Council have actively been implementing such programs including Bellingen and Lismore (who are about to embark on the first floating solar farm in NSW). These authorities will be able to relate their experiences.

 

Nambucca Valley Conservation Association

 

Have provided the following comments:

 

·    Water quality monitoring - NVCA support the water quality monitoring but request additional reporting on its expenditure and have noted an anomaly of $5000 within the budget and the levy budget.

 

Comment: Micro reporting on expenditure on some of the budget line items will require additional staff time and is not recommended. As noted, the implementation of the Environmental Levy is subsidised by the General Budget. It is likely that this would unnecessarily increase the staff time required to implement the levy. Any outcomes which are of significance will be reported to Council as necessary.

 

It is noted of the $10,000 budget available in the 2015/16 financial year Council recently resolved to allocate $7000 to the preparation of a landscape plan in Scotts Head.

 

·    Project Officers supervisory vehicle - NVCA supports this allocation – however recommends a dedicated and qualified natural resources officer position be allocated to the existing staff allocation. 

 

Comment: In respect to the staffing arrangements and overheads associated with the environmental levy the following is noted.

 

The proposed budget for 2016/17 has allocated $30,000 for the staffing overheads which includes allocations to Councils General Manager and Coordinator of Strategic Planning and Natural Resources. A separate allocation of $30,000 is allocated to Natural Resources & Environmental Planning Officer presently fulfilled by Councils Technical Officer Planning and Environment (2 days). This is a total allocation of $60,000 for staffing overheads.  In 2011/12 the budget estimate for a Compliance Officer role attributed to the Environmental Levy was $67,000.

 

The allocation of the overheads is deceiving in the amount of work actually contributed to implementing projects funded through the Environmental Levy is far greater than what is allocated. Using this current financial year as an example, the breakdown is as follows.

 

The overheads budget originally allocated to the environmental levy at the commencement of 2015/16 was $27,300. Based on mid-year reconciliations against expenditure of the levy, this has been re-estimated at approximately $70,000 at December 2015, and with a lot of large projects nearing completion this year this is expected to be more than this by the EOFY. This is largely due to the success of the Environmental Levy at attracting additional grant funds, the fact that some projects are carried over from previous years and overhead allocation being calculated as percentage of the implementation of the overall Council budget, including corporate support. 

 

It should be noted that the overhead allocated from the Coordinator of Strategic Planning and Natural Resources has been increased in the 2016/17 financial year to better reflect the allocation resources required to implement the Environmental Levy. Although this allocation has been increased the proposed allocation to the Levy Budget has been retained at approximately $30,000.

 

To support the implementation of the Environmental Projects which are valued by the community, it is recommended that overheads in excess of the original environmental levy budget each year be covered by other general budget revenue and not the environmental levy. To allocate the actual overheads to the implementation of the Levy would make many of the projects unviable and would reduce the success rate of many grants as overheads or administration costs are often not covered by grant funding.

 

Further, in respect to persons involved in environmental management, Council should be aware of the significant contribution and resources allocated by many Natural Resource authorities as well as Council staff who contribute to the implementation of the Environmental Levy projects or environmental actions not allocated to overhead allowances. The following persons significantly contribute to Environmental Levy related projects in the shire:

 

·    Councils Coordinator Green Spaces (co-ordinating on ground activities OEH grant for Valla Coastal Reserve EEC and Deep Creek EEC; co-ordinating public reserve restoration program);

·    Council Team Leader Green Spaces (co-ordinating on ground activities Environmental Trust Glycine clandestina project Scotts Head);

·    OEH Senior Coast and Estuary Officer (significant on-ground co-ordination, implementation and specialist input into bank stabilisation projects (acquired root balls from Pacifico and Lend Lease and arranged for storage at Nambucca State Forest as an example), gumma swamp project; coastal projects and general natural resource management support;

·    Other agencies such Local Land Services also contribute to a number of projects.

 

Councils Health and Building Officers, Manager of Development and Environment, Senior Planner and General Manager address environmental compliance in the shire, each issue being considered against Councils compliance Policy which is presently on exhibition. Also, Councils Senior Health and Building Officer is presently project managing an OEH $240,000 grant to investigate and remediate three (3) potentially contaminated sites shire.

 

·    Control of Noxious Weeds - NVCA does not support the use of chemical weed control being funded through the Environmental Levy. NVCA requests a breakdown of costs allocated to weed management activities; NVCA also notes another anomaly between the general budget and the Levy Budget and requests that $5000 increase in weed allocation from last year be re allocated to climate change adaptation.

 

Comment: Council uses hand removal, chemical and biological control methods in weed management program. The methods used are standard best practice methods based on numerous government guidelines available to assist landholders and other authorities to address weed issues. For example, the Noxious and environmental weed control handbook - a guide to weed control in non-crop, aquatic and bushland situations (NSW Department of Primary Industries). It is proposed to continue to use best practice methods of weed control at this time. Council will continue to monitor industry standards in this regard.

 

As a grant recipient under the NSW Environmental Trust program Council recently received a fact sheet presenting the Australian Government’s position on Glyphosates (published by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority – ‘Glyphosate Safety and Use’) (Attachment 4). Essentially this document summarises safety issues in using glyphosates and also details further investigations being undertaken in respect to such products. At present the Australian government considers these chemical products safe to use if in accordance with product instructions. At this stage it is not proposed to change current work methods however staff will respond appropriately to any change in government position on these products and such changes would be reported to Council.

 

In regards to the additional reporting, staff report quarterly and annually on the Environmental Levy which discusses outcomes/ progress of various projects, staff are also required to have record outputs into the regional State of Environment Report. These reporting methods are considered adequate.

 

·    Servicing ‘Doggy Bags’ - NVCA requests this levy budget item be funded from animal registration revenue. $5000 has been allowed for this line item.

 

Comment: The Revenue from the animal registration is significantly less than the operating costs. The environmental levy has supported this program for several years.  This line item has been reduced by $9,000 this year by reallocating some of the budget to waste management. $5000 is required to provide for replacement bags and maintenance as required. The ranger is presently responsible for the replacement of the bags and any required maintenance. No ranger overheads are contributed to the management of this service.

 

As the year progresses should it be clear that the funds will not be spent it could be redistributed to the climate change adaptation budget as requested. This would be reported to Council with a quarterly report for Council consideration

 

·    Heritage Grants – NVCA strongly objects to the use of levy funds on private property and does not support this program. NVCA recommends these funds be allocated to Climate Change Adaptation

 

Comment:  An application has been made to continue the heritage places program this year, however Council is not pursuing heritage advisor funding. Council has recently received advice that our application under the Heritage Places program has been successful and $7,500 has been made available to Council which we are required to match. Council may choose to fund this program through the Environmental Levy or General Fund or not accept the funding.

 

·    Environmental Management Fund – NVCA questions why this allocation is necessary if projects are properly and planned and funded. Unexpected costs may occur from time to time but $10,000 is excessive, using allocation for heritage search fees is unacceptable. NVCA recommends this allocation be reduced to $5000 and the balance be allocated to Climate Change Adaptation.

 

Comment: $5000 is a reasonable contribution to the Environmental Management Fund. Should additional funding be required through the year it will be appropriately reported to Council through the quarterly reporting.  As requested, $5000 will be re-allocated to the Climate Change Adaptation Program which will support important initiatives in the shire.

 

·    Prepare and implement concept plans for CBD Streetscape management - NVCA supports this allocation but feels the budget is excessive and should be reduced to $5000.

 

Comment: It is recommended this budget be retained at $10,000 which is considered an adequate but conservative allocation to support the program. The street tree program has numerous environmental benefits previously reported to Council.   As the year progresses should it be clear that the funds will not be spent it could be re-distributed to the climate change adaptation budget as requested. This would be reported to Council with a quarterly report for Council consideration.

 

·    Boating Now Gordon Park – NVCA seeks assurance that EL funds will not be spent on concrete infrastructure boat ramps, treated pine and the like. No issues with this allocation as long as it can be demonstrated it will be spent on environmental outputs.

 

Comments: The $15,000 is a minor contribution to the project and would not cover all the environmental aspects to be addressed including landscaping and bank stabilisation.

 

 

 

·    Macksville Streetscape revitalisation - NVCA supports the use of levy funds for the installation of native street trees in Macksville but does not support the use of levy funds which have no environmental benefit (concrete). NVCA suggests Nambucca Ringwood as a potential Street Tree (syzygium anisatum)

 

Comments: Noted and will investigate this species as potential street tree.

 

·    Investigate/ implement environmental improvements at Bowraville – NVCA supports the proposal in principle and urges Council to direct this allocation to much needed riverbank stabilisation and rehabilitation with native species.

 

Comments: Noted - A number of grants have been applied for in respect to this funding which would be used to focus on social infrastructure and environmental improvements in Bowraville. The outputs from these grants if successful would be something similar to the Nambucca River Masterplan which could be used to support future grant applications and works programs. The Levy contribution will be targeted at the environmental issues in the landscape and responses to these issues. Should the grant applications be unsuccessful the funding would be targeted to on ground improvements in the area. On ground improvements would also be targeted should the entire budget not be used on planning.

 

Proposed Environmental Levy Budget with Amendments based on community input 2016/17

(changes in red)

 

Environmental Levy Projects

Proposed Budget 2016/17 

 2016/17 subsidy

 2017/18 subsidy

Water quality river health monitoring

 $              5,000

Project Officer - supervisory Vehicle

 $               2,000

Bowraville Flying Fox – Vegetation Management

 $               2,500

Myna bird eradication

 $               2,500

Gross Pollutant Trap Maintenance

 $             10,000

Control of Noxious Weeds

 $             66,200

Servicing Doggy Bags

 $               5,000

Ongoing Our living Coast Websites

 $               2,000

Prepare/review/implement concept plans for CBD streetscape improvements

 $             10,000

Riverbank Erosion Program - rehabilitation

 $             60,000

State of the Environment Reporting

 $               2,500

Heritage Grants

 $               7,500

Dawkins Park Reserve (water quality and environmental improvement investigation

 $             15,000

$                  -

 $                -

Environmental Management Fund

 $             5,000

Glycine clandestina Scotts Head

 $                       -

 $      10,000

 $     10,000

Restoration and Rehabilitation Fund

 $             20,000

Continuation of CZMP Actions (Scotts Head Surfclub precinct OEH NCHP)

 $                       -

 $      92,600

Continuation of Estuary Management plan actions (Bank Stabilisation OEH; RMS)

 $                       -

Continuation of Estuary Management plan actions (Ecohealth Monitoring Program LLS)

 $             15,200

 $      54,000

 $        3,150

Valla Crown Reserve Endangered Ecological Community Restoration

 $                       -

 $        8,266

Fish Habtiat Grant (DPI) no 2 15/16

 $                       -

 $        8,000

Boating Now Gordon Park

 $             15,000

Macksville Streetscape Revitalisation

 $             40,000

Environmental Levy Operations Overheads

 $             30,000

Natural Resources & Environmental Planning Officer

 $             30,000

 

Investigate/ Implement environmental improvements at Bowravillle

 $             25,000

Climate Change Adaptation Projects

 $             25,200

 

TOTALS

 $           395,600

 $ 172,866

 $   13,150

unallocated (held in reserve for grant applications)

 $                            -

16/17 budget

$395,600

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

Manager Finance

Manager Planning and Environment

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Since its inception the Environmental Levy has contributed to a significant number of important initiatives that could not have been supported through general funds.  These initiatives a have spanned a number of core themes contributing to both environmental and social wellbeing.

 

Social

 

See above

 

Economic

 

The environmental levy is used as financial leverage to support environmental programs in the shire.

 

Risk

 

Nil

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The body of the report discusses the proposed levy budget and implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The body of the report discusses the proposed levy budget and implications.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

nil

 


Attachments:

1

20647/2016 - Dr Peter Soby -Submission-NSC-Environmental Levy

 

2

20641/2016 - NVCA Submission on draft 2016-17 EL Program

 

3

19398/2016 - Application for 2016 Environmental Levy Program - Transition Nambucca Valley

 

4

21567/2016 - 13891-glyphosate-fact-sheet-april2016

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

Submissions to the Proposed Environmental Levy Budget 2016/17

 



Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

Submissions to the Proposed Environmental Levy Budget 2016/17

 

Wednesday 15 June 2016

Michael Coulter,                                                                                                               General Manager,                                                                                                       Nambucca Shire Council,                                                                                            Princess Street, MACKSVILLE  NSW 2447

Dear Mr Coulter                                                                                                                    

Re: Submission on the draft 2016-17 Environment Levy (EL) Program

The Nambucca Valley Conservation Association (NVCA) would like to make the following comments and suggestions regarding the annual Environment Levy (EL) Program and also to comment on the existing environment projects reported upon as part of the advertised Environment Levy program information.

1       Water quality and river health monitoring

The NVCA agrees that this spending is appropriate.  However, greater reporting of monitoring results and any actions taken to address identified threats to water quality and/or water pollution incidents should be provided, as part of reporting back to the community on EL spending.  We note that the report states the budget for this program has been reduced from $10,000 (2015/16) to $5,000 (2016/17);  however the line item (W1111) in the draft 2016/17 Operational Plan (budget) does not reflect this, and shows $10,000 for water quality and river health monitoring.  If this is an error resulting in a $5,000 surplus in the EL total budget, NVCA recommends that the surplus be allocated to the Climate Change Adaptations Projects allocation, to bring that total to $25,000.

2       Project Officer’s supervisory vehicle

This allocation is supported.  However, NVCA notes that Council failed to engage a Natural Resources Officer, despite having resolved to do so.  NVCA is in no way criticising the existing staff members who undertake various tasks relating to the EL budget.  However our Association saw Council’s resolution to fund a part-time Natural Resources Officer as a commitment to increase natural resource management hours and outputs, by engaging a qualified Natural Resources Officer whose focus on the EL program would effectively expand and strengthen Council’s EL program activities, and support existing staff working on aspects of the EL program.  Instead, Council re-defined and re-named existing positions within the organisation and ‘absorbed’ the allocated EL Natural Resources Officer funding.  This disappointing 'smoke and mirrors' exercise means that an opportunity to increase environmental improvements and rehabilitation has been wasted.  Also full transparency as to EL spending in particular in terms of existing staff wages is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.  Once again, NVCA recommends that Council engage a part-time Natural Resources Officer to augment existing arrangements and strengthen Council’s environmental management.

3       Control of noxious weeds

Noxious weeds flourish in degraded landscapes.  NVCA does not support the use of chemical weed control such as glyphosates and in particular, strongly objects to such activities being funded from the EL budget.  Use of herbicides not only negatively impacts directly and indirectly on whole ecosystems, it lays the ground bare and vulnerable, for germination of the next generation of weeds.  NVCA advocates for greater use of mechanical and manual removal and/or control of noxious weeds, with a focus on site rehabilitation to prevent further infestations.  Such an approach requires a long term strategy and systematic approach to weed management.  We are often told that such management practices are too expensive;  however NVCA recommends that any additional costs to engage a more environmentally responsible and sustainable approach could be appropriately funded from the EL budget.

No breakdown of the $66,200 EL weed management allocation is offered.  We hereby ask:  What proportion of this budget is spent on chemicals, chemical application and staff wages?  NVCA requests that it receive a response to this question in writing.

The Operational Plan shows Council’s total weed management budget to be $150,000 (W1192), $66,000 (44%) of which is coming from the EL. The Operational Plan also shows (W2136) ‘Environmental weeds’ $10,000 coming from the EL, but no such amount is shown on the advertised EL program list of projects.  This apparent anomaly requires clarification.

 NVCA asks:  What plants are considered ‘environmental weeds’ in this context?

A total of $77,200 of EL is proposed for expenditure on weed management.  This is a significant amount, and is $5,000 more than last year.  NVCA respectfully requests a breakdown of how this EL allocation was spent last year and what environmental benefits have been achieved.  NVCA recommends that the proposed $5,000 increase for line item W1192 be removed, and instead allocated to the Climate Change Adaptation program.

4       Servicing of 'doggy bags'

Dog faeces is more of a problem for people than the environment.  $5,000 seems an excessive amount for plastics bags.  Servicing the bins could be done by the ranger or work crews as and when they pass each dispenser, at minimum cost.  The NVCA believes service of 'doggy bags' should be funded from animal registration revenue. 

5       Heritage grants

Once again, this Association wishes to voice our strongest objection to the use of public funds on private property.  The NVCA sees this as a blatant misuse of EL money which has no demonstrable environmental benefit.  The NVCA urges Council to cease using EL funds for such inappropriate projects, and instead allocate EL funds to a project which has a clear measurable benefit to the natural environment.  NVCA recommends this this $7,500 be allocated instead to the Climate Change Adaptation program.

6       Environmental Management Fund

The NVCA questions why such an allocation is necessary, if projects are properly planned and funded.  Unexpected costs may occur from time to time, but $10,000 is excessive.  Using this allocation for ‘heritage search fees’ is unacceptable.  NVCA recommends this allocation be reduced to $5,000 with the balance being allocated to the Climate Change Adaptation program. 

7       Prepare/review/implement concept plans for CBD streetscape improvements

NVCA supports the stated purpose of this project.  However we believe the proposed $10,000 for the care and maintenance of the street trees and planter boxes in Bowra Street is excessive.  Plantings should consist of native species preferably endemic to this area.  As such, these plantings will not only add to the aesthetics of the locale, providing shade and softening urban streetscapes, but they will also provide habitat for native fauna.  NVCA recommends $5,000 be allocated to this project with $5,000 being re-directed to the Climate Change Adaptation program.

8       Boating now Gordon Park

NVCA seeks assurance that EL funds will not be spent on concrete infrastructure, boat ramps, treated pine and the like.  We have no issues with $15,000 being allocated to this project, provided it can be demonstrated that it will be spent of environmental protection or rehabilitation or landscaping with indigenous native species.

9       Macksville Streetscape revitalisation

NVCA supports the use of EL money for the supply and installation of (native) street trees for Macksville as part of the revitalisation project as proposed.  We re-emphasise that we do not support the use of EL funds for infrastructure which does not demonstrate an environmental benefit ie concrete.

NVCA recommends the use of the rare Nambucca Ringwood Syzygium anisatum which makes an attractive street tree with aniseed fragrant foliage.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygium_anisatum

This beautiful tree is not only rare but it is only known to occur in the Nambucca and some parts of the Bellinger catchment, and is therefore a local treasure that would give Macksville something unique to be proud of.  The ringwood can grow up to 45m in its natural rainforest setting, but like most rainforest trees, when grown in gardens or as street trees it does not nearly achieve such heights.

10     Investigate / Implement environmental improvements at Bowraville.

We support this proposal in principle and urge Council to direct this allocation to much needed riverbank stabilisation and rehabilitation with local native species. 

 

11     General comments

We would like to commend Council for committing to an annual environment levy allocation for much needed climate change adaptations projects.  Installation of solar panels on Council’s buildings, especially the administrative building, libraries, works depot and sewerage treatment plants, are important;  also working with S355 Committees, to assist in installation of solar panels on community halls, is important for reducing emissions and energy costs.  NVCA is keen to see Council pursue the idea of a floating solar power farm installed on the Bowra dam, to reduce pumping costs, emissions, thermal heating of the dam water and evaporation from the dam surface.  Although such a venture would be expensive up front, there are funding opportunities for innovative renewable energy projects.  Such a project could put the Nambucca Valley on the national map.

NVCA recommends that when future EL draft budgets are advertised for public comment, that the previous year’s allocation, be included in the figures, so as to allow consideration of changes to allocations. 

We hope our comments and recommendations will be given careful consideration, and respectfully ask that Council provide answers to the various questions contained in this submission.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the expenditure of the Environment Levy budget.

Yours sincerely

 

Georgette Allen,                                                                                                              President, NVCA

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

Submissions to the Proposed Environmental Levy Budget 2016/17

 












Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

Submissions to the Proposed Environmental Levy Budget 2016/17

 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    30 June 2016

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

ITEM 10.1    SF2130            300616         Making of Rates and Charges 2016/2017

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Chris Wills, Rates Officer         

 

Summary:

 

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) confirmed a rate increase of 5.5% under Section 508A (1) of The Local Government Act 1993 for 2016/2017 financial year.

 

Council is now required to make the rates and charges in accordance with Section 535 of The Local Government Act 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1          Council resolves that in accordance with Section 501 of the Act, the annual access charge for water supply services to all properties connected or able to be connected to Council’s water supply in accordance with Section 552(1) of the Act for 2016/2017 is made at one hundred and thirty eight dollars ($138.00) per occupancy for each assessment, for a 20mm or 25mm connection; five hundred and fifty two dollars ($552.00) for a 40mm connection, eight hundred and sixty three dollars ($863.00) for a 50mm connection, two thousand two hundred and eight dollars ($2,208.00) for a 80mm connection and three thousand four hundred and fifty dollars ($3,450.00) for a 100mm connection, to be charged per connection for each assessment; and one hundred and thirty eight dollars ($138.00) for vacant or unconnected land per assessment, and have a short title of “Water Access”; and a consumption charge of two dollars and eighty three cents ($2.83) per kilolitre to apply to all water consumption billed during the financial year and such charge to have a short title of “Water Charge” in accordance with Section 543 of the Act.

 

2          Council resolves that in accordance with Section 501 of the Act the annual access charge for sewerage services to all properties connected or able to be connected to Council's sewer in accordance with Section 552(3) of the Act for 2016/2017 is made at five hundred and ninety eight dollars ($598.00) per occupancy for each assessment for residential connections; for non-residential connections two hundred and eighteen dollars ($218.00)  for 20mm or 25mm connection, eight hundred and seventy two dollars ($872.00) for 40mm connection, one thousand three hundred and sixty two dollars ($1,362.00) for 50mm connection, three thousand four hundred and eighty eight dollars ($3,488.00) for 80mm connection and five thousand four hundred and fifty dollars ($5,450.00) for 100mm connection, per connection for each assessment; and two hundred and eighteen dollars ($218.00) for vacant or unconnected land per assessment, and have a short title of “Sewer Access”; and a sewer usage charge of three dollars and thirty one cents ($3.31) per kilolitre to be calculated on the estimated volume discharged from properties, excluding residential connections, using the total water consumption based on NSW Department of Water and Energy guidelines and such charge to have a short title of "Sewer Usage Charge" and be included on the ‘Water Account’.

 

3          Council resolves that in accordance with Section 501 of the Act, the waste management tip provision charge for 2016/2017 is made at one hundred and forty three dollars ($143.00) per assessment for properties categorised as Business or Farmland, or are Non Rateable, that are not vacant but do not, or have elected not to, receive a commercial waste service or are not on a waste collection route, or vacant land where the service is available; such charge to have the short title of “Tip Provision”.


 

4          Council resolves that in accordance with Section 496 of the Act, the annual charge for 2016/2017 for domestic waste service on all occupied rateable land in the Shire, categorised Farmland or Residential under Section 515 or 516 of the Act, or are Non Rateable properties to which a domestic waste service is provided, is made at five hundred and twenty seven dollars ($527.00) per occupancy for each assessment which contains up to and including five residential occupancies, such charge to have a short title of “Full Domestic Waste Service”, the amount of the annual charge will be the amount derived by applying the formula A = B x $527.00, where “A” equals the annual charge, “B” equals the number of occupancies and $527.00 is the unit price. Residential assessments with six or more occupancies, upon request, may be charged one full service charge of five hundred and twenty seven dollars ($527.00) and sufficient additional bins, at the appropriate charge, to service the waste collection requirements of the assessment, as agreed between the property owner and the Council’s Waste Management Officer.

            A waste management ‘tip provision’ annual charge of one hundred and forty three dollars ($143.00) for the year 2016/2017 is made for properties categorised Farmland or Residential or are Non Rateable, that are not vacant, but do not receive a domestic waste service or are not on a waste collection route.

 

5          Council resolves that in accordance with Section 496 of the Act the annual charge for 2016/2017 for domestic waste on all vacant rateable land in the Shire, categorised Residential (under Section 516 of the Local Government Act 1993) or are Non Rateable and located within the confines of the towns of Nambucca Heads, Valla Beach, Hyland Park, Macksville, Bowraville and Scotts Head and the villages of Taylors Arm Upper, Taylors Arm Lower, Eungai Rail, Eungai Creek, Warrell Creek and Donnellyville and all land within the rural sector with a residential building entitlement, including land categorised as Farmland, where the domestic waste collection service is available, is made at one hundred and forty three dollars ($143.00) per assessment, such charge to have short title of “Vacant Waste Management”.

 

6          Council resolves that in accordance with Section 501 of the Act, the annual charge for 2016/2017 for waste service on all occupied rateable land in the Shire, categorised Business (under Section 518 of the Act) to which a waste service is provided, or is Non Rateable land to which a non-residential waste service is provided, is made at five hundred and twenty seven dollars ($527.00) per occupancy per assessment, such charge to have a short title of “Full Commercial Waste Service”, the amount of the annual charge will be the amount derived by applying the formula A = B x $527.00, where “A” equals the annual charge, “B” equals the number of separate occupancies and $527.00 is the unit price.

 

7          Council resolves that in accordance with Section 501 of the Act the annual charge for waste for 2016/2017 on all vacant rateable land in the Shire, categorised Business (under Section 518 of the Act) or is Non Rateable land, and located within the confines of the towns of Nambucca Heads, Valla Beach, Hyland Park, Macksville, Bowraville and Scotts Head and the villages of Taylors Arm Upper, Taylors Arm Lower, Eungai Rail, Eungai Creek, Warrell Creek and Donnellyville, is made at one hundred and forty three dollars ($143.00) per assessment, such charge to have a short title of “Vacant Waste Management”.


 

8          Council resolves that in accordance with Section 496A & 510A of the Act the annual charge for 2016/2017 for stormwater management services on all rateable privately owned developed non strata residential land located within the confines of the towns of Nambucca Heads, Valla Beach, Hyland Park, Macksville, Bowraville and Scotts Head is made at twenty five dollars ($25.00) per land parcel/assessment, such charge to have a short title "Stormwater Charge".

 

9          Council resolves that in accordance with Section 496A & 510A of the Act the annual charge for 2016/2017 for stormwater management services on all rateable privately owned developed strata residential land located within the confines of the towns of Nambucca Heads, Valla Beach, Hyland Park, Macksville, Bowraville and Scotts Head is made at twelve dollars and fifty cents ($12.50) per lot/assessment, such charge to have a short title "Stormwater Res-Strata ".

 

10         Council resolves that in accordance with Section 496A & 510A of the Act the annual charge for 2016/2017 for stormwater management services on all rateable privately owned developed business land and located within the confines of the towns of Nambucca Heads, Valla Beach, Hyland Park, Macksville, Bowraville and Scotts Head is made at twenty five dollars ($25.00) per land parcel/assessment plus an additional twenty five dollars ($25.00) for each 350 square metres or part of 350 square metres by which the area of the parcel of land exceeds 350 square metres, such charge to have a short title "Stormwater Business " and be capped at $100.00 per assessment.

 

11         Council resolves that in accordance with Section 496A & 510A of the Act the annual charge for 2016/2017 for stormwater management services on all rateable privately owned developed business strata lots/land and located within the confines of the towns of Nambucca Heads, Valla Beach, Hyland Park, Macksville, Bowraville and Scotts Head is made at an amount equal to twenty five dollars ($25.00) per strata plan land parcel (parent parcel) plus an additional twenty five dollars ($25.00) for each 350 square metres or part of 350 square metres by which the area of the parcel of land exceeds 350 square metres and capped at one hundred dollars ($100.00) then be charged the greater of five dollars ($5.00) or the relevant proportion of the maximum annual charge that would apply to the land subject to the strata scheme (the ‘relevant proportion’ is the proportion that the unit entitlement of that lot in the scheme bears to the aggregate unit entitlement of the scheme), such charge to have a short title "Stormwater Bus-Strata".

 

12         Council resolves that a rate of zero point zero zero five nine two nine dollars ($0.005929) on the land value of all rateable land in the rating category of “Farmland”, is made for the year 2016/2017, subject to a minimum rate of five hundred and six dollars ($506.00) per assessment, in accordance with Section 458 of the Act, such rate to apply to all properties categorised as “Farmland”, pursuant to Section 515 of the Act, such rate to a short title of “Farmland” in accordance with Section 543 of the Act.

 

13         Council resolves that a rate of zero point zero zero six zero nine seven dollars ($0.006097) on the land value of all rateable land in the rating category “Residential” is made for the year 2016/2017, subject to a minimum rate of seven hundred and seventy three dollars ($773.00) per assessment, such rate to apply to all properties categorised as “Residential”, pursuant to Section 516 of the Act, excluding all properties in the sub categories “Town” and “Village/Estates”, such rate to have a separate short title of “Residential Non-Urban”.


 

14         Council resolves that a rate of zero point zero zero six zero nine seven dollars ($0.006097) on the land value of all rateable land in the rating category “Residential”, sub category “Town” is made for the year 2016/2017, pursuant to Section 516 of the Act, subject to a minimum rate of seven hundred and seventy three dollars ($773.00) per assessment, such rate to apply to all rateable land located in centres of population described as comprising all properties zoned residential, located in the towns of Nambucca Heads, Hyland Park, Macksville, Bowraville, Scotts Head and Valla Beach and serviced or able to be serviced with water supply, sewerage, or septic tank, such rate to have a separate short title of “Residential Town”.

 

15         Council resolves that a rate of zero point zero zero six zero nine seven dollars ($0.006097) on the land value of all rateable land in the rating category “Residential”, sub-category “Village/Estates” is made for the year 2016/2017, pursuant to Section 516 of the Act, subject to a minimum rate of seven hundred and seventy three dollars ($773.00) per assessment, such rate to apply to all rateable land located in the villages of Eungai Rail, Eungai Creek, Warrell Creek, Donnellyville, Taylors Arm – Upper and Lower, and all Estates comprising all residential land within the rural sector with a residential building entitlement and within a subdivision both past and present which results in the concentration of holdings to create an estate of two or more lots, all ribbon development residential lots along rural roads contiguous to developed estates and villages and all ribbon development residential lots along rural roads immediately opposite to developed estates, such rate to have a separate short title “Residential Village/Estates”.

 

16        Council resolves that a rate of zero point zero zero eight two dollars ($0.0082) on the land value of all rateable land in the rating category “Business” is made for the year 2016/2017, subject to a minimum rate of seven hundred and seventy three dollars ($773.00) per assessment, such rate to apply to all properties  categorised as “Business”, pursuant to Section 518 of the Act, excluding all properties in the sub categories “Caravan Park”, “CBD” and “Industrial Estate”, such rate to have a separate short title of “Business Ordinary”.

 

17        Council resolves that a rate of zero point zero zero eight nine eight dollars ($0.00898) on the land value of all rateable land in the rating category “Business”, sub category “Caravan Park”, is made for the year 2016/2017,  pursuant to Section 518 of the Act, subject to a minimum rate of seven hundred and seventy three dollars ($773.00) per assessment, such rate to apply to all rateable properties categorised as Business sub category “Caravan Park” and have a short title of “Business Caravan Park”.

 

18        Council resolves that a rate of zero point zero one two four seven dollars ($0.01247) on the land value of all rateable land in the rating category “Business”, sub category “CBD” is made for the year 2016/2017, pursuant to Section 518 of the Act, subject to a minimum rate of seven hundred and seventy three dollars ($773.00) per assessment, such rate to apply to all rateable properties categorised as “Business”, sub category “CBD” in the towns of Nambucca Heads, Bowraville, Macksville, Valla Beach, and Scotts Head and such rate to have a separate short title of “Business CBD”.

 

19      Council resolves that a rate of zero point zero zero seven seven seven three dollars ($0.007773) on the land value of all rateable land in the rating category “Business”, sub category “Industrial Estate” is made for the year 2016/2017, pursuant to Section 518 of the Act, subject to a minimum rate of seven hundred and seventy three dollars ($773.00) per assessment, such rate to apply to all rateable properties categorised as “Business”, sub category “Industrial Estate” in the towns of Nambucca Heads and Macksville, and such rate to have a short title of “Business Industrial”.

 

20    Council resolves that a special rate, pursuant to Section 495 of the Act, consisting of a base amount of twenty one dollars ($21.00) per assessment, with a short title of “Environmental Base” and an ad-valorem amount of zero point zero zero zero one four seven six dollars ($0.0001476) on the land value of all rateable land in Council’s area (refer Section 538 of the Act), with a short title of “Environmental Levy”, is made for the year 2016/2017. The base amount will produce approximately forty nine point three six percent  (49.36%) of the total amount payable by the levying of the special rate so as to comply with Section 500 of the Act.

 

21        Council resolves that an annual charge of ninety six dollars ($96.00) for Category 1 (Low Risk) Sewer Trade Waste, is made for the year 2016/2017 pursuant to Section 501 of the Act and have a short title “Trade Waste Fee–Cat 1”.

 

22        Council resolves that an annual charge of ninety six dollars ($96.00) for Category 1A (Low Risk) Sewer Trade Waste, is made for the year 2016/2017 pursuant to Section 501 of the Act and have a short title “Trade Waste Fee–Cat 1A”, with an additional charge of one dollar and eighty cents ($1.80) per kilolitre for Non-Conforming Usage (if required pre-treatment is not installed or properly maintained), is made for the 2016/2017 pursuant to Section 502 of the Act.

 

23        Council resolves that an annual charge of one hundred and fifty nine dollars ($159.00) for Category 2 (Medium Risk) Sewer Trade Waste, is made for the year 2016/2017 pursuant to Section 501 of the Act and have a short title “Trade Waste Fee–Cat 2”, with a usage charge of one dollar and eighty cents ($1.80) per kilolitre or sixteen dollars and nine cents ($16.09) per kilolitre for Non-Conforming Usage (if required pre-treatment is not installed or properly maintained), is made for the 2016/2017 pursuant to Section 502 of the Act.

 

24        Council resolves that an annual charge of one hundred and fifty nine dollars ($159.00) for Category 3 (High Risk) Sewer Trade Waste, is made for the year 2016/2017 pursuant to Section 501 of the Act and have a short title “Trade Waste Fee–Cat 3”, with an additional charge of one dollar and fifteen cents ($1.15) per kilogram for Excess Mass, is made for the year 2016/2017 pursuant to Section 502 of the Act.

 

25        Council resolves that an annual charge of ninety six dollars ($96.00) for Category 4 Septic tank Effluent Disposal Sewer Trade Waste, is made for the year 2016/2017 pursuant to Section 501 of the Act and have a short title “Trade Waste Fee–Cat 4”.

 

26        Council resolves that an annual charge of ninety six dollars ($96.00) for Category 4 Caravan Dump Effluent Disposal, is made for the year 2016/2017 pursuant to Section 501 of the Act and have a short title “Trade Waste Fee–Cat 4”, with a charge of one hundred and forty dollars ($140.00) for Disposal at Treatment Works with a maximum of 2,500L, disposals over 2,500L will have an additional charge of fifty one dollars ($51.00) per 1000L, is made for the year 2016/2017 pursuant to Section 501 of the Act.

 

27        Council resolves that an annual charge of one hundred and eighty dollars ($180.00) for On-site Sewer Management Systems (OSSMS) operated in the high risk zone is made for the year 2016-2017 pursuant to Section 68 of the Act and have a short title “OSSMS Zone 1”; properties with less than three OSSMS will be charged one charge unit while properties with three or more OSSMS will be charged two charge units.

 

28        Council resolves that an annual charge of fifty five dollars ($55.00) for On-site Sewer Management Systems (OSSMS) operated in the medium risk zone is made for the year 2016-2017 pursuant to Section 68 of the Act and have a short title “OSSMS Zone 5”; properties with less than three OSSMS will be charged one charge unit while properties with three or more OSSMS will be charged two charge units.

 

29        Council resolves that an annual charge of thirty dollars ($30.00) for On-site Sewer Management Systems (OSSMS) operated in the low risk zone is made for the year 2016-2017 pursuant to Section 68 of the Act and have a short title “OSSMS Zone 10”; properties with less than three OSSMS will be charged one charge unit while properties with three or more OSSMS will be charged two charge units.        

 

30        Council resolves that an interest rate of 8.0% per annum is set for the year 2016/2017, pursuant to Section 566 of the Act, and be charged on overdue rates and charges.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may resolve to adopt the Rates and Charges without applying the 5.5% rate increase or to adopt the Rates and Charges with a percentage increase between 0 and 5.5 %.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

IPART has approved a special variation rate increase in general income of 5.5%.

 

Council's minimum rate for Residential and Business categories has been increased by $14.00 to $773.00 (being the rate peg increase of 1.8% and determined by IPART vide, Regulation Clause 126 ).

 

Council’s minimum rate for the Farmland category has been increased by $9.00 to $506.00 (being the rate peg increase of 1.8% and determined by IPART vide, Regulation Clause 126).

 

Items 27, 28 & 29 are new annual charges to facilitate the migration of On-site Sewer Management Systems charges from a labour intensive debtor invoicing system to having them included on the annual rates and charges notice.

 

 

 

 


CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services

Manager Financial Services

Waste Management Officer

Rates Officer

Division of Local Government

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

This report has no environmental impact.

 

Social

 

This report has no social impact.

 

Economic

 

There is no economic impact.

 

Risk

 

There is no risk to Council.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

There are no additional financial implications to the adopted budget.

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    30 June 2016

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

ITEM 10.2    SF251              300616         Schedule of Council Public Meetings

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Lorraine Hemsworth, Executive Assistant         

 

SUMMARY:

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

 

2016

MEETING

DATE

VENUE

COMMENCING

Ordinary Council Meeting

14 July

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

Access Committee Meeting

26 July

Council Chambers

2.00 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

28 July

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

11 August

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

Access Committee Meeting

23 August

Council Chambers

2.00 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

25 August

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

No Council Meeting due to local Government elections

Access Committee Meeting

27 September

Council Chambers

2.00 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

29 September

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

13 October

Bowraville Theatre

5.30 PM

Access Committee Meeting

25 October

Council Chambers

2.00 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

27 October

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

10 November

Nambucca Community & Arts Centre, Nambucca Heads

5.30 PM

Access Committee Meeting

22 November

Council Chambers

2.00 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

24 November

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

15 December

Utungun Community Centre

5.30 PM

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.   


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    30 June 2016

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.1    SF85                300616         Minutes of the NSW Rural Fire Service Liaison Committee - 10 May 2016

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Clint Fitzsummons, Manager Assets         

 

Summary:

 

The NSW Rural Fire Service, Lower North Coast Zone, Liaison Committee met on Wednesday 10 May 2016.  This report provides Council with an overview of the activities of the RFS for the third quarter.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council receive, note the report and endorse the minutes from the RFS Liaison Committee Meeting Service Level Agreement - 2015/16 held on Wednesday 10 May 2016.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Receive and note the report.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Liaison Committee considered the following agenda items:

 

1        The SLA 2015/2016 Q3 Quarterly Business Plan, Operational and Financial Reports; and

2        Budgets 2015/16 – 2016/17.

 

The minutes of the meeting held 10 May 2016 and the SLA quarterly business plan, financial and performance reports are attached.

 

SLA Business Plan/Quarterly Performance Report

 

The Acting RFS Zone Manager presented the third quarterly performance report and advised the committee that overall activities were on target or complete.  Some hazard burning is at risk and is weather dependant, while a data compliance requirement is at risk due to other operational priorities.

 

Financial Report

 

The operating expenditure for Fire Control Expenses at the end of the 3 quarter is $597,297.18, which is 69% of budget allocation.

 

Operational Summary

 

Detailed below please find extracts from the Agenda relating to incidents by Lead Agencies and incidents by Type (RFS).

 



 

 

 

Next Liaison Committee meeting:

 

The next Liaison Committee meeting is scheduled 10 August 2016 – Kempsey Fire Control Centre.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Rural Fire Service

Kempsey Shire Council

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental implications associated with this report.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications associated with this report.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications associated with this report.

 

Risk

 

There are no risk implications associated with this report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The 2015/2016 budget incorporated the RFS contribution.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There was a variation to the budget via another report to Council advising of the increase to the RFS Budget handed down from the State

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no service level changes or resourcing/staff implications associated with this report.

 

Attachments:

1

19343/2016 - Minutes of the NSW RFS Service Level Agreement meeting - 10 May 2016

 

2

14840/2016 - NSW RFS Service Level Agreement - Quarterly Performance Report - Q3

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

Minutes of the NSW Rural Fire Service Liaison Committee - 10 May 2016

 



Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

Minutes of the NSW Rural Fire Service Liaison Committee - 10 May 2016

 




Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    30 June 2016

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.2    SF2080            300616         Pacific Highway Handover Presentation

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Clint Fitzsummons, Manager Assets; Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

Council engaged Greg Powter Consulting to assist in the review of the RMS assets and negotiations on the handover of the Pacific Highway once the new highway has been completed.

 

Mr Powter will provide a progress presentation at 4:30pm prior to the Council meeting on the 30 June 2016. The presentation will highlight his findings and include a current estimated cost to Council once these assets are handed over to Council. Much of these costs will largely depend on the final package being offered by the RMS as compensation and Council’s determination to potentially vary the asset life and componentisation methodologies to reduce the impact on Council.

 

At the time of writing this report, Council have not received the report from the RMS that will outline the road categorisation of the old highway pavement post-handover. This report is expected prior to the Council meeting and will identify the portions of the old highway that may be categorised as a regional road.

 

A Regional Road categorisation will attract additional Block Grant funding, and is considered to be of greater financial benefit to Council than a one-off payment (10 years Maintenance) that will be provided by RMS as compensation if the status of the old highway is determined to be a local road. The ownership of the Bridges has not been determined and will be the subject of another report as the RMS have not determined a position as yet, other than that on the Macksville Bridge. Council may need to take a political stance on the bridge ownership.

 

A meeting between RMS, Greg Powter Consulting and Council Staff is scheduled for 24 June 2016. This meeting may provide additional information that may be able to be included in Greg Powter Consulting’s presentation.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council receive and note the presentation by Greg Powter Consulting on the progress of Pacific Highway asset hand over and estimated costs to Council.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no other options as this is a progress report, provided for Council information.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Discussion is provided in the summary and subject to the information within the presentation from Greg Powter Consulting.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services

Manager Technical Services

 

Comment from General Manager

 

The Council received the attached report headed “Road Status Review” from the RMS on 23 June 2016. 

 

This report is obviously concerning in that it effectively ignores Council’s representations concerning the number of major bridges which are to be handed over to us.  

There is comment on page 12 about Council’s representations about the bridges, but a statement that it is a separate issue and should not affect the network classification.    The report states that, "unless agreed otherwise all bridges (with the exception of the Macksville Traffic Bridge) be transferred with the status of the road of which they are part."

 

The Council should not accept either recommendation in the report concerning the road status changes or the transfer of bridges.

 

It is proposed that Council continue with the engagement of Greg Powter Consulting to prepare a brief document to demonstrate the significant liability attached to the road and bridge handover; the Council’s inability to fund the depreciation and the unfairness of the liability to our ratepayers simply because we have more major bridge structures in the handover than is average for other Mid North Coast Councils.

 

Once that document is prepared the matter should be again reported to Council and a lobbying and media campaign be undertaken.  This should occur before the 10 September 2016 local government elections to maximise community awareness of what is a very significant issue for the future financial sustainability of the Council.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental impacts associated with this report.

 

Social

 

There are no social impacts associated with this report.

 

Economic

 

There are substantial economic impacts associated with the handover of the Old Pacific Highway assets.

 

Risk

 

There are substantial risk impacts associated with the handover of the Old Pacific Highway assets.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The final report and RMS handover package will impact on Council finance by increasing the depreciation expense, and adding to Council’s yearly maintenance and operational costs.

 

A compensation package yet to be determined will be offered to Council

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are a number of service level changes anticipated with the acceptance of the Old Pacific Highwayt assets

 

Attachments:

1

21584/2016 - Proposed Highway Classification

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 June 2016

Pacific Highway Handover Presentation

 































Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    30 June 2016

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.3    SF931              300616         Tender T251516MNC Provision of Linemarking Services 2016 - 2018

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Regional Procurement conducted a Panel Source tender via open tenders for the “Provision of Linemarking Services T251516MNC for participating Mid North Coast member Councils, in accordance with Clause 166(a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

 

A tender is required as the expense of the work over the term of the contract may exceed the tender limit.

 

Tenders closed at 10.00am on 10 May 2016 and a tender evaluation report (TRIM 20385/2016) is attached for Council’s information.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council award the T251516MNC Provision of Linemarking Services contract as a Panel Source Supplier to allow Council the best opportunity of price and flexibility of services the period 1 August 2016 to 30 June 2018, and

 

2        That a provision be allowed by Council for a 12 month extension based on satisfactory supplier performance, which may take this contract through to 30 June 2019.

 

3        That Council endorse the tender evaluation for the tenders as provided in the confidential report for T251516MNC Provision of Linemarking Services as a Panel Source Tender.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are three options that can be considered as follows:

 

1        Accept the tender submissions as  a panel source

2        Not accept the panel source tender and award to an individual company

3        Reject the tenders

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Normally Council would be provided with a Confidential Report and the evaluation criteria and a report to Open Council.  As the tender is recommended as a ‘panel tender’ the tender evaluations are provided for Councillors only by way of a Confidential Attachment outside of this report.

 

Four (4) tenders in total were received from:

 

·           Coastal Line Marking Pty Ltd ATF The Nicol Family Trust

·           Complete Linemarking Services Pty Ltd

·           Jenalad Pty Ltd t/a Whiteline Road Services

·           Oz Linemarking NSW Pty Ltd

 

Note; Coastal Line Marking Pty Ltd is the present supplier of line marking services used by Council.

 

The Tender Evaluation report is attached to Council’s confidential report for Council’s information and no further discussion is considered necessary

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Regional Procurement

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The acceptance of the tender recommendations has no direct environmental implications.

 

Social

 

The acceptance of the tender recommendations has no direct social benefits implications.

 

Economic

 

The tender ensures that Council is obtaining the best possible price and flexibly of services for the supply of linemarking services.

 

Risk

 

There is no risk associated with the acceptance of the tender recommendations.

 

All tenderers comply with the appropriate legislation for traffic control and Work Health and Safety Act and Regulations.

 

FINANCIAL:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no direct or indirect impact on current or future budgets as the supply of linemarking services is incorporated in the maintenance and capital works allocations with in the current 2014/15 and future budgets

 

Source of funds and any variance to working funds

 

Source of funding is within the council approved budgets for capital and maintenance works.

 

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no implications related to levels of service and resourcing.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    30 June 2016

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.4    T009/2016        300616         Tender T009/2016 Panel Tender for the supply of Plant and Truck Hire and Road Maintenance Services

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Paul Gallagher, Assistant General Manager - Engineering Services; Heather Leclercq, Executive Assistant/Business Service Unit         

 

Summary:

 

Approval was granted on 4 May 2016 under the General Managers delegated authority Clause 15.9 to call tenders for the supply of Plant and Truck Hire and Road Maintenance Services for a two year period with a one year option, subject to contractors satisfying Council’s Performance Assessment Criteria, commencing 1 July 2016.

 

An open panel tender was conducted through Tenderlink which closed on 14 June 2016.

 

Twenty-six (26) submissions have been received

 

·           Wayne Noble General Carrying

·           Greatwood P/L t/as TG Hire

·           Stabilised Pavements

·           Stabilcorp Pty Ltd

·           Rollers Australia Pty Ltd

·           Peter White

·           NorthPipe Constructions Pty Ltd

·           Nambucca Valley Equipment

·           Mitchbrook Management Pty Ltd

·           Mid North Coast Contractors Pty Ltd

·           Kingston Industries T/as Tutt Bryant Hire

·           Kennards Hire Pty Ltd

·           K B McMillan & R L Baker

·           Hunternet

·           Howle Earthmoving Pty Ltd

·           Fortade Pty Ltd

·           Ezyquip Hire Pty Ltd

·           Mifsud Excavations & Earthmoving

·           Drew Walker

·           Coates Hire

·           Bucca Creek Pastoral Company Pty Ltd

·           Blue Dog Earthmoving Pty ltd

·           BJL Water Deliveries

·           Archie Turner Excavations Pty Ltd

·           Aqua Assets Pty Ltd

·           Advance Sweepers Pty Ltd

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council accept all twenty-six (26) submissions for Tender T009/2016 for the Supply of Plant and Truck Hire and Road Maintenance Services for the period commencing 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2018 to allow Council the best opportunity of price and flexibility of services.

 

2        That a provision be allowed by Council for a 12 month extension subject to contractors satisfying Council’s Performance Assessment Criteria which may take this contract through to 30 June 2019.

 


OPTIONS:

 

1        That Council accept all submissions.

 

2        That Council not accept the submissions.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has historically called for Expressions of Interest from interested suppliers for the supply of Plant and Truck Wet and/or Dry Hire on an annual basis.  Following the closure of the EOI, the submissions were assessed and a draft contract for each individual supplier was prepared which was a very onerous and time consuming process impacting staff resources. The contract was drafted to each party even though some contractors were not engaged by Council.

 

The change in process for the supply of Plant and Truck Wet and/or Dry Hire is in line with Council’s continuous improvement policy. More importantly the process is in accordance with the ICAC recommendations “Corruption prevention and plant hire” and is now classified as a formal tender instead of an Expressions Of Interest.

 

Council has the option of either an open, selective, group or prescribed tender.  In this instance an Open panel Tender is the preferred option.

 

The new tender process requires the contractor to provide all information electronically through the “Tenderlink Portal”.  Hand written submissions are prohibited through this process enabling, less margin for error in interpreting handwriting, a considerable saving of staff time and consumables, such as photocopying, paper and preparing individual contracts etc.

 

The new tender process also identifies the plant and equipment traditionally hired by Council negating hire Companies supplying reams of paper for plant that may never be hired. As an example a range of smooth drum vibrating rollers were identified in the schedule. 

 

The tender is for a period of two (2) years with an option for a third year.  Tenderers will be requested to provide a revision of their plant equipment rates at twelve months with either an increase or decrease according the market conditions. If a Tenderer does not meet the required performance, they will remain on the schedule however have a lowered ranking indicating that they are not the preferred supplier.

 

Twenty-six (26) submissions have been received

 

·           Wayne Noble General Carrying

·           Greatwood P/L t/as TG Hire

·           Stabilised Pavements

·           Stabilcorp Pty Ltd

·           Rollers Australia Pty Ltd

·           Peter White

·           NorthPipe Constructions Pty Ltd

·           Nambucca Valley Equipment

·           Mitchbrook Management Pty Ltd

·           Mid North Coast Contractors Pty Ltd

·           Kingston Industries T/as Tutt Bryant Hire

·           Kennards Hire Pty Ltd

·           K B McMillan & R L Baker

·           Hunternet

·           Howle Earthmoving Pty Ltd

·           Fortade Pty Ltd

·           Ezyquip Hire Pty Ltd

·           Mifsud Excavations & Earthmoving

·           Drew Walker

·           Coates Hire

·           Bucca Creek Pastoral Company Pty Ltd

·           Blue Dog Earthmoving Pty ltd

·           BJL Water Deliveries

·           Archie Turner Excavations Pty Ltd

·           Aqua Assets Pty Ltd

·           Advance Sweepers Pty Ltd

 

Council has assessed the submissions and will accept all tenders. As this is the first tender, all contractors have been given an equal ranking and shall be assessed after twelve months. A ranking criteria has been established for this assessment.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Assistant General Manager – Engineering Services

Manager Infrastructure Services

Roads Coordinator

Structures Coordinator

Executive Assistant

Coffs Harbour City Council

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental impacts associated with this report.

 

Social

 

There are no social impacts associated with this report.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic impacts associated with this report.

 

Risk

 

The tender has removed a significant risk implication with respect to the interpretation of hand written documents and transfer of information into a contract, as well as electronic receipt of all documentation and Councils new process is now in accordance with the ICAC recommendations “Corruption prevention and plant hire”.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The plant hire is included within the various budgets contained in the 2016/17 management plan and budget for maintenance and construction activities

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

A variance to working funds is not required.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

The change to a formal tender has lessened the burden on staff now not having to produce individual contracts for each contractor.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.