NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

15 December 2016

UTUNGUN COMMUNITY CENTRE

 

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 - 15 December 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

 

1        APOLOGIES

2        PRAYER Pastor Peter Lott (Christian Life Centre)

3        DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4        CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES —

Ordinary Council Meeting - 24 November 2016.............................................................................. 7

5        Notices of Rescission

6.1     Notice of Rescission - Australia Day................................................................................ 21  

 

6        NOTICES OF MOTION

5.1     Notice of Motion - Request for Leave - Cr Anne Smyth (SF1228)....................................... 15

5.2     Notice of Motion - Rubbish Removal at the Annual Nambucca Strikers Challenge Cup (SF575)    16

 

7        PUBLIC FORUM

          i)        Ms Nicole Murphie – Road safety

ii)       Ms Elaine Ward - Wards Lane - Dust

iii)      Mrs Marlene Hillard - - Rubber trees on Bellvue Drive Macksville

iv)      Mr Peter Hill - Adopt a Highway

v)       Mr Marcel De Koning – Cost of Beach Permits

 

8        ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE   

9        QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

10      General Manager Report

10.1   Outstanding Actions and Reports.................................................................................... 27

10.2   Rate Peg for 2017/2018 (1.5%)........................................................................................ 33

10.3   Local Government Remuneration Tribunal - Annual Determination of Fees Payable to Councillors and Mayors.......................................................................................................................... 40

10.4   Replacement of Browns Bridge, Sadlers Lane, Taylors Arm.............................................. 46

10.5   Sale of Proposed Lots 13, 14 and 15 - Railway Road, Nambucca Heads........................... 50

10.6   Temporary Advisers and Financial Controllers.................................................................. 54

10.7   Macksville Hospital Redevelopment................................................................................ 57

10.8   Bowraville Solution Brokerage Task Group....................................................................... 68

10.9   Development of a Model Code of Meeting Practice for NSW Councils.............................. 71

10.10  Pacific Highway Road Noise Affecting Valla Residents.................................................... 75

10.11  MIDROC Contaminated Land Policy and Policy Guidelines .............................................. 83

10.12  Gumma Swamp Land Dedication................................................................................... 157

10.13  Development Application DA2016/192........................................................................... 162

10.14  Minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 25 October 2016 171

10.15  Minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 15 November 2016 175

10.16  Establishment of a Council 'Clean Energy Committee' ................................................... 179


 

 

10.17  Land for Wildlife in the Nambucca Shire......................................................................... 182

10.18  Development Applications greater than 12 months or where submissions received - 15 November to 7 December 2016............................................................................................................ 186

10.19  2016 November - Development and Complying Development Applications Received....... 187

10.20  2016 November - Approved Construction and Complying Development Certificates......... 191

10.21  Draft Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy..................................... 196

10.22  NSW Climate Change Policy Framework and Draft Climate Change Fund Strategic Plan... 219

11      Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

11.1   Investment Report To 30 November 2016 ...................................................................... 225

11.2   Schedule of Council Public Meetings............................................................................. 230

11.3   Burrapine Public Hall Committee of Management - Minutes of Annual General Meeting - 13 November 2016............................................................................................................................. 231

11.4   Talarm Hall Committee of Management - Minutes of Annual General Meeting - 28 November 2016.................................................................................................................................... 235

11.5   Grant Application Status Report ................................................................................... 243

12      Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

12.1   Quotations for Projects ND-NA-50, ND-NA-51 and ND-NA-52 23.5km, 24.9km and 25.7km on North Arm Road under Tender T008/2016 Bowraville....................................................................... 252

12.2   Results of the trial of nose-to-kerb parking in River Street (West) Macksville.................... 256

12.3   Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes - 6 December 2016.......................... 264

12.4   Damaged Roads due to World Rally Event.................................................................... 279

12.5   Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the Period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2016.................................................................................................................................... 281    

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

13.1   Confidential Report Quotations for Project ND-NA-50 and ND-NA-51 23.6km and 24.9km on North Arm Road under Tender T008/2016

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (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.

 

13.2   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.

  

            a      Questions raised by Councillors at 9 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

14      MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

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


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

Description: nambucca valley nsc

 

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 24 November 2016

The following document is the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held 24 November 2016.  These minutes are subject to confirmation as to their accuracy at the next meeting to be held on Thursday 15 December 2016 and therefore subject to change.  Please refer to the minutes of 15 December 2016 for confirmation.

 

 

PRESENT

 

Cr Rhonda Hoban (Mayor)

Cr John Ainsworth

Cr Martin Ballangarry OAM

Cr Brian Finlayson

Cr Susan Jenvey

Cr David Jones

Cr Janine Reed

Cr Anne Smyth

Cr John Wilson

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT

 

Scott Norman (Acting General Manager)

Paul Gallagher (AGM Engineering Services)

Daniel Walsh (Manager Development & Environment

Monika Schuhmacher (Minute Secretary)

 

 

 

APOLOGIES

 

Michael Coulter (General Manager)

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

 

Councillor J Reed declared a non-pecuniary less significant conflict of interest in Item 9.6 Regional State of the Environment Report 2016 under the Local Government Act as Cr Reed is a member of the North Coast Local Land Services.

 

Councillor Jenvey declared a non-pecuniary less significant conflict of interest in Item 11.6 under the Local Government Act as Cr Jenvey is an acquaintance with a landowner affected by one of the several failures of road on the Bowraville/Bellingen Road from the 2009 floods.

 

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council Meeting 10 November 2016

 

487/16 RESOLVED:        (Smyth/Reed)

 

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of 10 November 2016 be confirmed subject to the following amendment:

 

Item 9.7 - That the Nambucca Ringwood be added to the Planting Schedule – Trees Page 23 of the Macksville Town Centre Revitalisation Plan.

 

 

 

PUBLIC FORUM and DELEGATIONS

RESOLVED:

 

That the following delegations be heard:

 

PUBLIC FORUM

Mr Paul Hynes – Proprietor Sparkles Antiques – Use of  A-Frames

(Mr Hynes did not attend the Council meeting)

 

DELEGATION

9.4     Result of Exhibition Nambucca LEP amendment no. 21 Housekeeping and Other Policy Amendments

                    i)        Mr James Ledger – Objector

 

Mr Ledger addressed Council making the following points and provided his speaking notes which are on Trim file SF2208:

·    Lives adjacent to 59 Waratah Street

·    Most affected of all objectors

·    Has 13 reasons for objecting, including:

o    Sufficient commercial zoning in Scotts Head

o    Existing commercial zoning is under utilised

o    Population in Scotts Head not great enough to support further commercial development

o    Re zoning would spread commercial area beyond Village Green

o    Re zoning would set a precedent for Scotts Head

o    Re zoning represents one-off planning – not strategic long term planning

o    Re zoning would render the DCP ineffective

o    Re zoning will affect safety of neighbourhood – vehicular traffic/car parking/camber

 

487/16 Resolved:        (Finlayson/Jones)

 

That Mr Ledger be provided with additional time to present his case to Council.

 

·    Building height – objector will lose access to winter sun

·    Invasion of privacy, building will be too close to objector’s property

 


 

ITEM 9.4      SF2208              241116      Result of Exhibition Nambucca LEP Amendment No. 21 Housekeeping and Other Policy Amendments

488/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

1        That Council note the information concerning the outcome of the exhibition of Amendment No. 21

 

2        That arrangements be made for an inspection of those items which have been the subject of submissions to which objectors will be invited to attend.

 

3        That following the inspection the matter be reported to Council for determination.

 

For the Motion:                         Councillors Hoban, Jones, Reed, Ainsworth, Finlayson, Smyth, Jenvey, Ballangarry and Wilson         (Total 9)

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 of Closed meeting where due notice has been received.

 

 

General Manager Report

 

ITEM 9.1      SF959                241116      Outstanding Actions and Reports

489/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

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

 

 

 

ITEM 9.2      SF621                241116      Advice of Lodgement of Aboriginal Land Claims

490/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

1        That the Aboriginal Investigation Unit from the Department of Industry – Lands be advised:

 

a        In relation to Claim No. 41491, it appears that the Wilson Bridge and Wilson Road runs through the land.  To this extent some of the land may be serving an essential public purpose.  A survey will be required to determine the location of Council’s road and bridge relative to the land.

 

b        In relation to Claim No. 41519, there may be some encroachment of Council’s sewerage pumping station onto this land.  To this extent some of the land may be serving an essential public purpose.

 

c        That in relation to Claim No’s 41485, 41486, 41487, 41488, 41490, 41492 and 41520, the land comprises reserves for public recreation which the community is likely to regard as an essential public purpose being for the retention of native forest for ecological, geotechnical and aesthetic reasons.

 

d        That the Department would be better placed to undertake early consultation with the claimants as much of the land which has been claimed has no inherent “value” and it’s not obvious how transferring ownership or responsibility from the Crown and Council to the Aboriginal claimants will reduce in any way the level of disadvantage experienced by local Aboriginal people.  Conversely there are some parcels of land in the claims which have or may have development potential and the claimants would be better placed to work with the Department and Council in identifying that land and prioritising action to have those claims approved as soon as possible.

 

2        That the Aboriginal Investigation Unit from the Department of Industry – Lands be provided with a copy of this report.

 

3        That Council staff further investigate the lots subject to the claim to ensure they do not dissect or interfere with travelling stock routes and consider whether there are plans for any future Council or public infrastructure or operational needs on the claimed land.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.3      DA2016/146        241116      Request for Donation of DA Fees - Scotts Head Events Committee

491/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

 

That Council provide the Scotts Head Events Committee with a refund of their development application fee for markets in the amount of $431.75.

 

 

 

Item 9.4 was dealt with under Delegations.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.5      SF2173              241116      Development Applications greater than 12 months or where submissions received - 2 November to 14 November 2016

492/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

That the information be noted by Council.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.6      SF135                241116      Regional State of the Environment Report 2016

493/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

That Council endorse the Regional State of the Environment Report 2016.

 

 

 

General Manager Report – LATE

 

ITEM 9.7      SF24                  241116      St James Anglican Church Guild - Annual Christmas Dinner For Senior Citizens Of Bowraville – Thursday 8 December 2016

494/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Reed)

 

That Council make a donation of $250 to the St James Anglican Church Guild of Bowraville towards their provision of a Christmas Dinner for the Senior Citizens of Bowraville on 8 December 2016.

 

 

 

General Manager Report – LATE

 

ITEM 9.8      SF734                241116      Renewal of Nambucca Heads RSL Club Ltd Sub-Lease to Rintoul - Shop 2, Kiosk, Riverside Drive, Nambucca Heads

495/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Wilson)

 

That, as Trust Manager, Council resolves to approve the renewal of the Nambucca Heads RSL Club sub-lease to Rintoul for the period up to 21 May 2021 and attach its seal to any required documentation.

 

 

 

General Manager Report – LATE

 

ITEM 9.9      SF1496              241116      Minutes of the Nambucca Rivers Creeks Estuaries and Coastline Management Committee – 18 November 2016

496/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Smyth)

 

1          That Council adopt the minutes of the Nambucca Rivers Creek Estuaries and Coastline Management Committee held on the Friday 18 November 2016.

 

2          That Committee delegates be provided with an overview of roles and responsibilities at the next Committee meeting.

 

497/16 Resolved:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

3          That Council endorse the existing membership for the Rivers Creeks Estuaries and Coastline Management Committee and voting rights to the Committee and acknowledge that representation for each group may change from time to time.  And further, that Council writes to all member organisations requesting them to advise changes to or confirm their delegates and alternate delegates and this is then to be ratified by Council.

 

498/16 Resolved:        (Reed/Ainsworth)

 

4        That the Terms of Reference and membership of the Nambucca Rivers Creeks Estuaries and Coastline Management Committee be reviewed by the Committee and then ratified by Council.

 

 

 

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

 

ITEM 10.1    SF134                241116      Nambucca Shire Council Annual Report 2015-2016

499/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

 

That Council note the completion of the 2015/2016 Annual Report and that the 2015/2016 Annual Report will be placed on Council’s website and advice be forwarded to the Minister for Local Government as required.

 

 

 

ITEM 10.2    SF2242              241116      September 2016 Budget Review

500/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

1        That the budget review for the quarter ended 30 September 2016 be received.

 

2        That the recommended increases and decreases in votes be included as subsequent votes for the financial year 2016/2017.

 

 

 

ITEM 10.3    SF2230              241116      Investment Report To 31 October 2016

501/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Wilson)

 

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

 

 

 

ITEM 10.4    SF338                241116      Tewinga Community Centre Annual General Meeting - Minutes 22 October 2016

502/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Reed)

 

That Council endorse the Minutes of the Committee of Management for the Tewinga Community Centre’s Annual General Meeting held on 22 October 2016 and thank the outgoing Committee for their work in the past twelve months.

 

 

 

ITEM 10.5    SF251                241116      Schedule of Council Public Meetings

503/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

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

 

 

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

 

ITEM 11.1    SF1676              241116      Capital Works Report - September 2016

504/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

1        That the Capital Works Report for the first quarter of the 2016/17 financial year ending 30 September 2016 and expenditure YTD week ending 11 November 2016 be received and noted.

 

2        That Council endorse the amendment to the plant replacement program to include the option for the purchase of a new truck and chassis only to replace plant No 5138, the refurbishment of the truck body currently on plant No 5138 and the purchase of a chassis mounted water tank to increase the water tank capacity for works and the expenditure is to be contained with the budget that was approved.

 

 

 

ITEM 11.2    SF991                241116      Tender REGPR0181617 Supply and Delivery of Domestic Water Meters

505/16 RESOLVED:        (Smyth/Reed)

 

1        That Council award the contract for the supply and delivery of domestic water meters as a single source tender for the period 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2018 to Elster Metering Pty Ltd;

 

2        That a provision be allowed for a 12 month extension based on satisfactory supplier performance, which may take this contract through to 31 December 2019;

 

3        That Council endorse the tender evaluation as provided in the confidential report for the supply and delivery of domestic water meters single source tender; and

 

4        That Council update the Contract Register (TRIM: 31325/2016).

 

5        That Council note item 12.1 in Closed report.

 

 

For the Motion:               Councillors Hoban, Jones, Reed, Ainsworth, Finlayson, Smyth, Jenvey,                                               Ballangarry and Wilson    (Total 9)

Against the Motion:         Nil

 

 

 

ITEM 11.3    SF931                241116      Tender REGPRO221617 Supply and Delivery of Bulk Bitumen

506/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Ballangarry)

 

1        That Council award the contract for the supply and delivery of Cationic Bitumen CRS (bitumen emulsion) as a single source tender for the period 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2018 to Fulton Hogan Industries,

 

2        That a provision be allowed for a 12 month extension based on satisfactory supplier performance, which may take this contract through to 31 December 2019.

 

3        That Council endorse the tender evaluation as provided in the confidential report for the supply and delivery of Cationic Bitumen CRS (bitumen emulsion) single source tender.

 

4        That Council update the Contract Register (TRIM: 31325/2016).

 

5        That Council note item 12.2 in Closed report.

 

For the Motion:               Councillors Hoban, Jones, Reed, Ainsworth, Finlayson, Smyth, Jenvey,                                               Ballangarry and Wilson    (Total 9)

Against the Motion:         Nil

 

 

 

ITEM 11.4    SF931                241116      Tender REGPRO281617 Supply and Delivery of Passenger Truck and Earthmover Tyres - Nambucca

507/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

1        That Council award the contract for the supply and delivery of passenger truck and earthmoving tyres as the panel source tender to:

 

·      Bridgestone Australia Ltd

·      Tyres4U Pty Ltd as trustee for TWA Trust trading as Tyres4U and

·      Goodyear Dunlop Tyres (Aust) Pty Ltd t/as Beaurepaires

 

          for the period 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2018.

 

2        That a provision be allowed for a 12 month extension based on satisfactory supplier performance, which may take this contract through to 31 December 2019.

 

3        That Council endorse the tender evaluation as provided in the confidential report for the supply and delivery of passenger truck and earthmoving tyres as a panel source tender.

 

4        That Council update the Contract Register (TRIM: 31325/2016).

 

5        That Council note item 12.3 in Closed report.

 

For the Motion:               Councillors Hoban, Jones, Reed, Ainsworth, Finlayson, Smyth, Jenvey,                                               Ballangarry and Wilson    (Total 9)

Against the Motion:         Nil

 

 

 


ITEM 11.5    SF2193              241116      Temporary Road Closure for Bowraville 2016 Kids Christmas Party and Carols by Candlelight

508/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

 

1        That Council approve a request from Dr Guard, Bowraville Lions Club and District Chamber of Commerce for Bowraville 2016 Kids Christmas Party/Carols by Candlelight, noting the following has been received:

 

·      Certificate of Currency for Public Liability Insurance;

·      Traffic Management Plan confirming Accredited Traffic Controllers will be on site; and

·      Police and Roads and Maritime Services notification for the road closures.

 

2        That Council endorse temporary road closures for the Bowraville 2016 Kids Christmas Party/Carols by Candlelight to be held between 3.00pm and 9.30pm Thursday 15 December in High Street Bowraville between Young and Belmore Street.

 

 

 

ITEM 11.6    ND-MB-39          241116      Quotations for Project ND-MB-39 under Tender T008/2016 for Landslip Remediation, Bowraville Bellingen Rd

509/16 RESOLVED:        (Smyth/Ballangarry)

 

1        That Council accept the quotation received from Nviroscope Pty Ltd.

 

2        That Council note that a private engineering consultant will be engaged as project manager to oversee the project on Council’s behalf.

 

3        That Council note item 12.4 in Closed report.

 

 

For the Motion:               Councillors Hoban, Jones, Reed, Ainsworth, Smyth, Jenvey, Ballangarry and                                       Wilson         (Total 8)

Against the Motion:         Finlayson     (Total 1)

 

 

 

ITEM 11.7    SF675                241116      Tender T311617 MNC Crushing of Concrete, Brick and Tile Products

510/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

1        That Council award the contract for the crushing of concrete, brick and tile products as a panel source tender to

 

•      Bretmart Pty Ltd

•      Echo Recycling Ptd Ltd

•      Drumderg Services Pty Ltd

         

          for the period 1 November 2016 to 30 September 2018.

 

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

 

3        That Council endorse the tender evaluation as provided in the confidential report for the supply of crushing of concrete, brick and tile products as a panel source tender.

 

4        That Council update the Contract Register (TRIM: 31325/2016).

 

5        That Council note item 12.5 in Closed report.

 

 

For the Motion:               Councillors Hoban, Jones, Reed, Ainsworth, Finlayson, Smyth, Jenvey,                                               Ballangarry and Wilson    (Total 9)

Against the Motion:         Nil

 

 

 

ITEM 11.8    SF848                241116      Access to Nambucca Heads Island Golf Club Carpark (Timber Bridge)

511/16 RESOLVED:        (Smyth/Wilson)

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

    

 

CLOSURE

 

There being no further business the Mayor then closed the meeting the time being 7.25 pm. 

 

Confirmed and signed by the Mayor on 15 December 2016.

 

 

 

 

CR RHONDA HOBAN

MAYOR

(CHAIRPERSON)

 

    


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                            15 December 2016

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.1      SF2183            151216         Notice of Motion - Request for Leave - Cr Anne Smyth (SF1228)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Anne Smyth, Councillor         

 

Summary:

 

I request leave for the period Friday 16 December 2016 to Wednesday 11 January 2017, inclusive.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Cr Anne Smyth is granted leave of absence in accordance with Section 234(d) of the Local Government Act for the period 16 December 2016 to Wednesday 11 January 2017, inclusive.

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                            15 December 2016

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.2      SF2183            151216         Notice of Motion - Rubbish Removal at the Annual Nambucca Strikers Challenge Cup (SF575)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    David Jones, Councillor         

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council provide the rubbish removal for the Challenge Cup Event to be held on the 17, 18 and 19 of March 2017 at Coronation Park in Nambucca Heads.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The Council can decide whether or not to provide the service, a service it has always provided in the past.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Nambucca Strikers have held an annual event, at Coronation Park, which has attracted a large number of visitors/tourists to the region for a number of years.

 

This year due to the changes in communications and funding applications the Club was informed it would have to remove the rubbish themselves.

 

This motion aims to remove this impediment and allow the event to continue as it has in the past.

 

Note that all of the funds raised by the Nambucca Strikers go to the provision of equipment and keeping fees low for the many junior soccer players in their Club.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Manager Development and Environment.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no issues for the environment.

 

Social

 

The recommendation supports a “not for profit” Community organisation.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no identified risks.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The service has always been provided and as such will have no impact on the funds in Council’s donations budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no changed impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no service level implications.

 

 

COMMENT FROM ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES:

 

Council’s Civic Services Coordinator sent correspondence to them in January 2016 and we did collect the rubbish in March 2016 as it was only short notification of the change in procedure but they were advised to apply to Council for the donation for March 2017 event:

 

Correspondence to date as a result of the change to Councils Donations Policy for the 2016/17 financial year is as follows:

 

Council’s letter dated the 28 January 2016

·      Secretary Nambucca Heads Soccer Club (copy attached)

·      Secretary Nambucca Heads Rugby League Football Club (copy attached)

·      Secretary Nambucca Heads Junior Rugby League (copy attached)

Council’s advertisement dated the 11th February 2016

·      Nambucca Guardian News (copy attached)

Emails during February 2016

·      President Nambucca Strikers Football Club (copy attached)

Council’s letter dated the 19 May 2016

·      Secretary Coronation Park Trust (copy attached)

As a result of Councils change of policy for the 2016/17 financial year, staff no longer have delegated authority to add, approve or provide additional services / requests for events etc. outside of an application being submitted by the relevant organisation(s) for resolution by the Council.

 

I would suggest that you contact Councils General Manager to discuss if any options are available to the organisation as a result of the application period closing on 8 April 2016.

 

 

Attachments:

1

2433/2016 - Formal application for donation of additional waste services is required for events

 

2

3510/2016 - Advertisement for Nambucca Shire Donations Programme - 2016/2017

 

3

17144/2016 - Donations policy - advising no request received when called by Council

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

Notice of Motion - Rubbish Removal at the Annual Nambucca Strikers Challenge Cup (SF575)

 

Enquiries to:       Simon Chapman

Phone:              02 6568 0244

Email:                simon.chapman@nambucca.nsw.gov.au

Our Ref:            SF2198

 

 

 

28 January 2016

 

 

 

«Name»

«Organisation»

«Add1»

«Add2»

 

 

Dear «Salutation»

 

EVENT MANAGEMENT / ORGANISATIONS

 

Council wishes to advise that as a result of the adoption of a Donations Policy, staff no longer have delegated authority to provide additional waste collection services or provisions of wheelie bins without consent by the Council.

 

Council’s Grants Officer calls for applications (by way of newspaper advertisements) during the first quarter of each calendar year where event organisations must make a formal application if they are seeking a donation by the Council for additional waste collection services or provisions of wheelie bins during an event for the following financial year.

 

Please note applications outside of this period will not be considered for existing annual events or activities held throughout the Shire. In this case event organisers will need to provide their own waste collection and disposal services at their own expense.

 

A report will then be compiled and the Council will distribute the annual donations budget accordingly. Successful organisations will be notified accordingly.

 

Should you wish to discuss this matter further please contact Council’s Grant Officer on (02) 6568 0221 or the Coordinator Civic Services on (02) 6568 0244.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Simon Chapman

COORDINATOR CIVIC SERVICES

 

SC:hl

 

Enc   Grants Officer


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

Notice of Motion - Rubbish Removal at the Annual Nambucca Strikers Challenge Cup (SF575)

 

ADVERTISEMENT FOR COPY

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

CALL FOR APPLICATIONS TO COUNCIL’S DONATIONS PROGRAMME

 

Council can make donations or provide other financial assistance to persons or organisations for the purpose of exercising its functions under Section 356 of the Local Government Act.

 

Council is calling for applications from eligible people or organisations for financial assistance in the form of small grants. The total funding pool is $12,000.

 

All applicants must complete an application form, available on Council’s website. The application includes a brief description of the organisation or person, the organisation’s viability, the purpose of the funding, the ability to acquit the funds and how the project contributes to the Nambucca Shire Community Strategic Plan.

 

Successful applicants will be determined by Council and funds will be made available to groups in July 2016.

 

The deadline for applications is 8 April 2016.

 

For more information and a copy of the application, please see the Council’s website www.nambucca.nsw.gov.au. Go to the Enquiry Counter tab and click on Donations Program. The document “Donations Policy” provides information on the financial assistance, and the Nambucca Shire Community Strategic Plan.

 

Alternatively, copies of the application are available from Council Offices, 44 Princess Street, Macksville, or can be posted out upon request. Please contact Teresa Boorer, Grants Officer, on 6568 0221.

 

 

ENQUIRIES TO:

Michael Coulter, General Manager

PO BOX 177

MACKSVILLE   NSW   2447

www.nambucca.nsw.gov.au

 

 

 

Instructions to Paper

 

Guardian News:            Thursday, 11 February 2016

Order No:                      27167

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

Notice of Motion - Rubbish Removal at the Annual Nambucca Strikers Challenge Cup (SF575)

 

Enquiries to:       Mr S Chapman

Phone:              6568 0241

Email:                simon.chapman@nambucca.nsw.gov.au

Our Ref:            SF2198

 

 

 

19 May 2016

 

 

 

Ms R Kennedy

Secretary

Coronation Park Trust

PO Box 460

Nambucca Heads 2448

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

 

DONATIONS POLICY

 

Council refers to its letter dated 28 January 2016 and advertisement in the Nambucca Valley Guardian News, on 11 February 2016 in regards to donations for the 2016/2017 financial year.

 

Council called for applications from organisations that would be seeking a donation for additional waste collection services, or provision of wheelie bins, during an event for the 2016/2017 financial year.  The closing date for submission of applications was 8 April 2016.

 

Council considered, and subsequently approved, all submitted applications at its meeting on 28 April 2016.

 

As no application was received from your organisation for the 2016/2017 financial year, arrangements will need to be made, at the organisations own expense, for waste collection and disposal services, for any events.

 

As the application period has closed, and considered by Council under the Donations Policy for the 2016/2017 financial year, no further applications will be considered for existing annual events or activities held throughout the Shire from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017.

 

Park litter bin(s) located at the fields will continue to be provided and serviced by Council seasonally with configuration of bin(s) to be reviewed.

 

Should you wish to discuss this matter further please contact Council’s Grants Officer on (02) 6568 0221 or the Civic Services Coordinator on (02) 6568 0244.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Simon Chapman

CIVIC SERVICES COORDINATOR

 

SC:tb

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                            15 December 2016

Notice of Rescission

ITEM 6.1      SF794              151216         Notice of Rescission - Australia Day

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Susan  Jenvey, Councillor         

 

Summary:

 

I wish to rescind Council’s resolution from Council's meeting on 10 November 2016 (1/16):

 

1        That Council supports celebrating Australian nationhood.

2        That on Australia Day, Council supports celebrating the achievements of our fine sports people, both young and old and from all communities and in honouring outstanding contribution.

3        That Council supports continuing programs to help Close the Gap.

4        That Council acknowledges that Australia Day is not necessarily a day of celebration for some Indigenous Australians.

5        That Council supports inclusiveness to achieve harmony within our Shire.

 

For the following reasons:

 

a        The motion put forward by Councillors Susan Jenvey was never given the opportunity to be spoken to and debated before the Mayor, Rhonda Hoban took an amendment from Councillor Janine Reed.  As the original motion was never spoken to and debated we don't know whether Councillors' vote for the motion may have been swayed.

 

b        The recommendations adopted by Council as a result of the amendment moved by Councillor Reed should have come as a Notice of Motion so Councillors could have the time to carefully deliberate on the meaning and intention of the motion.

 

c        The intention of Councillor Jenvey's motion was for Council to acknowledge the social impacts faced by Aboriginal Australians stemming from the celebration of Australia Day on January 26.  It was intended that Council show leadership and acknowledge the offense felt by Aboriginal Australians when we celebrate our National day on the day of invasion.

 

d        When the statement: "That Council notes that National Symbols matter" was removed from Councillor Jenvey's motion it removed the rationalisation that a very simple act makes a large difference.  Further, extrapolation of this point is that: unthinking tradition can cause real hurt.  Unfortunately, the day on which we celebrate this country is a day of disharmony.  It was not intended as such, but it is.

 

e        The celebration of January 26 is not a deep tradition.  It can be changed.  It was not until 1994 that States and Territories marked together Australia Day on January 26.  Before then festivities shifted from Monday to Monday at the end of January for the sale of a long weekend.

 

f        Point 2 of the resolution stated: "That on Australia Day, Council supports achievements of our fine sports people, both young and old from all communities and in honouring outstanding contributions".  The original motion was not referring to Australia Day Awards.  It was referring to a straightforward, needless hurt that Aboriginal Australians can feel about Australia Day.

 

g        Point 3 of the resolution: "That Council supports continuing programs to help Close The Gap".  Closing the Gap statement is worth of support but nothing to do with a statement of facts about why Australia Day, in its current form, is not a day of celebration and inclusion of Aboriginal Australians.

 

h        Point 4 of the resolution: "That Council acknowledges that Australia Day is not necessarily a day of celebration for some indigenous Australians".  This statement is not as straight forward in its reading as the original motion which was:  "That Council acknowledges that Australia Day is not a day of celebration for some Indigenous Australians".

 

i         Point 5 of the resolution: "That Council supports inclusiveness to achieve harmony in our Shire".  The use of the word "inclusiveness" speaks against the intention of the original motion.  This was meant to be a stand-alone statement that acknowledges the validity of Indigenous peoples' feelings of exclusion from the current form of Australia Day.  Its intention was for Council to s how leadership and acknowledge feelings of the "other".

 

          It should not be demanded that Indigenous Australians have to justify these statements and then be dismissed as over sensitive and condemned as divisive.  They should not have to argue the injustice and then be branded unpatriotic.  This is a hurt perpetuated by "White Australia" and it should be "White Australia" who fixes it.  the remedy involves government gazetting a change of date for the public holiday.

 

          Expressing only "inclusiveness" when dealing with Aboriginal Australians is to shrink away from knowing ourselves better.  "Inclusiveness" is being used here to stop Aboriginal Australians from having a dissenting voice and it re-legitimises their valid concerns.  The whole point of the motion was to make the statement that Australia Day in its Current form is not inclusive.

 

The idea that there is only "One Australia" when discussing issues to do with Aboriginal Australia has no legality.

 

          Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are different not because they were here first but because the law requires a relationship that sets Aboriginal Australians as different.  This relationship with Aboriginal people must be had in order for the State to legitimately exist in its own sovereignty.

 

          Since 1992 – following the Mabo decision – when the High Court said that Terra Nullius was the wrong application of the law, there is now a legal requirement for the sovereignty of Australia, and its constituent parts, which is the States and Territories of Australia, and the commonwealth to be in lawful relations wit he Aboriginal people of Australia as a nation.

 

          Aboriginal Australians are not multicultural Australians nor do they exist because the State came into existence.  Aboriginal people have always been in this relationship because they have the apparatus to know place and to know Country.  From this knowing invitations can be made to be in relations.

 

          When Aboriginal Australians say they have never seceded sovereignty, that's not apolitical statement that is a legal statement.  What is new is that "White Australia" needs a treaty with Aboriginal Australians to be a lawful and legitimate sovereign under the laws of acquisition of territory.  This is what legitimately sets Aboriginal Australians as different. 

 

A copy of the signed rescission motion is attached.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That the motion be rescinded on the grounds that the original motion was not spoken to and so its debate outcomes remain unknown.

 

2        That the motion that was passed should have been a Notice of Motion in the fairness of good decision making and the motion that was passed was significantly different than the original motion.  It is proposed that a number of further recommendations be put forward:

 

          a        That Council publicly acknowledges that Australia Day in its current form is not a day           of celebration for indigenous Australia.

 

          b        That Council notes that as a national symbol this tradition creates hurt and exclusion           for Aboriginal Australians.

 

          c        That Council would support the government gazetting of a change of date.

 

          d        That being Australian is about understanding your connection to this country and           understanding Aboriginal Peoples' connection to this country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

SIGNED BY:

 

Cr Susan Jenvey                      …………………………………………..

 

 

Cr Martin Ballangarry               …………………………………………..

 

 

Cr Anne Smyth                          .…………………………………………

 

 

Attachments:

1

43230/2016 - Rescission Motion from Cr Susan Jenvey

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

Notice of Rescission - Australia Day

 


 


 

    


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                            15 December 2016

General Manager

ITEM 10.1    SF959              151216         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.

 

Draft being uploaded to Council’s website.

 

Estuary Committee will be considering the study and plan at their meeting on 18 November 2016.

 

The study and plan are on public exhibition until 3 February 2017.  There will be drop in sessions in River Street, Macksville from 9.30am to 12pm on 14 December and also at the Nambucca Entertainment Centre between 1pm and 3.30pm on 14 December.

 

JULY 2011

2

SF1031

21/7/11

That the policy for Climate Change Adaption be deferred to allow amendments to be made to the draft policy

 

GM

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

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

 

AUGUST 2013

 

3

SF1031

14/08/13

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

 

 

AGMES

Report in September 2013.

Deferred to October 2013.

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

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

Staff on leave during December – deferred until February 2014.

Deferred until April – Staff dealing with landslips.

Deferred until May 2014

Deferred until June 2014

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

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

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

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

Provided to Councillors on 29 October for comment.

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

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   

 

New policy and procedures will be presented to the new Council in October for comment following the local government elections.

Deferred to November 2016.

Revised Policy this week 7/12/2016

Policy to be emailed to Councillors week ending 16 December 2016

 


 

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.

 

Proposed 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.

Council received a briefing from the consultants reviewing the RMS assets to be handed over to Council on 30 June 2016 and a compensation package will not be developed until the transfer of traffic onto the new highway as the pavement can’t be assessed until the traffic is transferred off the old highway.

A report on the status of the Bridges is anticipated in August

 

Mayor, GM and AGMES met with Member for Oxley on 16 August 2016.  Agreed that Council consult with other affected councils and submit a paper on the financial implications for the councils and options for a revised policy on Highway handovers.  In particular the Member for Oxley was interested in the proposition of IPART being asked to assess the appropriate handover package.

 

GM’s of Bellingen and Nambucca Shire Councils have now issued a joint letter to both the Member for Oxley and the RMS.


 

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 2016 for further discussion with a report to be presented to Council afterwards.

 

OCTOBER 2015

7

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

Trial date not set as the Coordinator Strategic Planning and Natural Resources has to carry out a further round of public consultation regarding landscaping that includes the design for the roundabout and gauge feedback from effected business.

The roundabout is required to slow approaching traffic, and manage vehicles reversing into the carriageway. Design parameters at the bend require greater investigation before changing the parking arrangements.

 

Councillor’s verbally advised by AGMES on 11 August that the Manager Technical Services has advanced the trial and written to the properties on River Street advising that Council will implement the trial in October, signs have been ordered and order raised for the line marking contractor.

 

Trial underway with new markings installed Wednesday, 14 September 2016.

 

8

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

APRIL 2016

9

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 sent

 

Response from RMS is forthcoming. Councils Manager Technical Services was verbally advised by the RMS that the section does not warrant a reduction in the speed limit to 40km/h and that RMS will be proposing traffic management solutions which are eligible for a 50:50 grant.

 

Still no response to date, MTS to send another letter

 


 

JULY 2016

10

LF968

14/7/16

Council note the inspection of drainage issues at Bangalow Drive, Nambucca Heads and that the drainage plans be discussed with the residents following which there be a further report to Council for its consideration.

 

AGMES

Letter sent to residents thanking them for the meeting and providing them with the three design options and their cost.

AUGUST 2016

11

SF325

25/8/16

That in consultation with the (Gordon Park) Tennis Committee of Management, Council staff investigate the option for not including the new Club house on Council’s asset register.

 

AGMCS

To be discussed with Auditors.

12

SF1541

29/9/16

Council staff report the intended exempt development controls to be implemented into Schedule 2 of the NLEP 2010 to Council for R5 zoned land only.

 

GM

Report in October 2016.

Deferred to November 2016.

Discussed with Manager Development & Environment and due workload proposed to report early in the new year.

OCTOBER 2016

13

SF2251

13/10/16

That the Visitor Information Centre Leasing be deferred to a Council meeting in March 2017

 

GM

Report in March 2017

14

SF842

13/10/16

Staff report back on the establishment of a Clean Energy Committee

 

GM

Report in November 2017

Have discussed with staff and there will be a report to Council’s meeting on 15 December 2016.

15

SF842

13/10/16

MBD provide Council with an information session on approaches to economic development prior to the establishment of a Business Advisory Committee.

 

GM

Briefing to be provided at 5pm on 24 November 2016

16

SF2230

13/10/16

There be a report to Council on options for Council’s investments.

 

AGMCS

February 2017

17

SF873

27/10/16

Council consider the option of avoiding all investment products offer by the Commonwealth Bank unless it reverses its decision to close the Macksville Branch.

 

AGMCS

Report in February 2017 in association with the previous report.

18

SF2183

27/10/16

Staff report on the library service status and progress as a stand-alone service, including existing infrastructure & future infrastructure needs.  Ideas be sought on the formulation of a Library Strategic Plan.  Views of appropriate staff be sought on formation of a Library Committee.

 

GM

Report January 2017

19

 

27/1016

GM provide options to Council regarding parameters for public forums.

 

GM

Report December 2016

20

RF391

27/10/16

Outcome of negotiations re replacement of Browns Bridge be reported to Council.

 

GM

Report December 2016

NOVEMBER 2016

21

RF275

10/11/16

Member for Oxley be requested to advise what funding assistance the State can provide to the proposed Bowralea dairy underpass on Bellingen Road.

 

GM

Letter written w/e 18/11/2016

22

PRF14

10/11/16

A decision on the future of Brook Park be deferred until the end of January 2017 and in the interim the use of the park be monitored.

 

GM

Report February 2017.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                            15 December 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.2    SF611              151216         Rate Peg for 2017/2018 (1.5%)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the information concerning IPART’s determination of a 1.5% rate peg for the 2017-2018 financial year be received.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no options.  The report is for information.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has now been advised that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) has fixed the rate peg for the 2017-2018 financial year at 1.5%.  The rate peg sets the maximum increase in each council’s general income for the 2017-2018 financial year.  The rate peg applies to general income in total, and not to individual ratepayers’ rates.

 

In terms of Council’s rating strategy for 2017-2018, there is also a general revaluation of properties in the Shire being undertaken which will provide a new valuation base date of 1 July 2016 for rating in 2017-2018.

 

IPART state that the decision to set the rate peg at 1.5% is based on the change in the Local Government Cost Index (LGCI) and consideration of a productivity factor.  The LGCI is a price index for councils in NSW and is similar in principle to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which is used to measure changes in prices for a typical household.

 

IPART list the main contributors to increasing the level of the index over the year ending September 2016 as:

 

·           An increase of 2.3% in employee benefits and on-costs

·           An increase of 1.5% in other expenses

·           An increase of 0.6% in construction works

·           An increase of 2.7% in buildings

·           An increase of 1.9% in other business services costs.

 

Partly offsetting these impacts were decreases in automotive fuels, gas and telecommunications and internet services.

 

A media release and fact sheet from IPART explaining the decision is attached.

 

Like any index, its accuracy depends on how well the basket of cost items (inputs) and their weighting reflects the operating cost experience of different councils across the state.  Prima facie a cost increase of 2.3% in wages being by far the largest cost component in a Council’s operations would suggest a higher index.  And when those wages are a significant component of Council’s construction works (road, drains, footpaths, kerbing, bridges) it is difficult to accept that the cost input for construction works is the reported 0.13% increase.

 

As Council’s approved special rate variation increases end in this financial year, Council’s budgeting for its 2017-2018 operational plan and 4 year delivery program will based on a maximum 1.5% increase in its rate revenue.  With the pending Pacific Highway handover and the additional unfunded depreciation, it is foreshadowed that in preparing the operational plan and delivery program that Council staff will be recommending that Council increase rates by the full 1.5% rate peg limit.

 

Given the relatively low rate peg, of particular concern for Council’s financing will be the lifting of the freeze on increases to the Federal financial assistance grants.  The announced freeze was to end in 2016/17 but it is open to the Federal Government to review this when they prepare their budget for next year.  If the Federal Government decides to extend the freeze it will make the Council’s budgeting even more difficult.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Assistant General Manager Corporate Services.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The financing of Council affects the funds available to be spent on environmental improvements.

 

Social

 

The financing of Council affects the funds we have available for community services.

 

Economic

 

The economic implications are largely limited to Council’s operations.

 

Risk

 

The major risk issues are outlined in the report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Cash wise a 1.5% increase in the rate peg means additional income of approximately $150,000.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The rate peg will be incorporated into the budget so will not directly affect working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

At this stage it is difficult to assess what implications the rate peg will have on service levels.  The view of Local Government NSW is that it fails to recognise the ongoing squeeze on councils that comes from the combination of rate pegging and cost shifting and deteriorating infrastructure.

 

Attachments:

1

42418/2016 - media-release

 

2

42423/2016 - fact-sheet

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

Rate Peg for 2017/2018 (1.5%)

 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

Rate Peg for 2017/2018 (1.5%)

 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                            15 December 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.3    SF270              151216         Local Government Remuneration Tribunal - Annual Determination of Fees Payable to Councillors and Mayors

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the information concerning the review for the 2017 annual determination on the fees payable to Councillors and Mayors to take effect from 1 July 2017.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The Council can make a submission to the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal has advised it has commenced its review for the 2017 annual determination on the fees payable to Councillors and Mayors to take effect from 1 July 2017.

 

A copy of the advice from the Tribunal is attached.

 

It will be noted that the recent Council amalgamations will require changes to the Council categorisation. 

 

As far as this Council is concerned, the existing Regional Rural and Rural categories will be retained.

 

It will be noted that the Tribunal is required to apply the Government’s public sector wages policy to the determination of ranges of fees for Councillors and Mayors.  The public sector wages policy currently provides a cap on increases of 2.5%.

 

The Tribunal is calling for submissions from individual councils in respect to the proposed categorisation structure and fees and any general matters as part of this annual review.  Any comments that Council may wish to make need to be lodged by 30 January 2017.

 

Any submission in relation to the range of fees payable to each category should be made having regard to the Tribunal’s obligations under section 242A of the Local Government Act.  The provisions of section 242A of the Act are as follows:

242A   Tribunal to give effect to declared government policy on remuneration for public sector staff

(1)  In making a determination, the Remuneration Tribunal is to give effect to the same policies on increases in remuneration as those that the Industrial Relations Commission is required to give effect to under section 146C of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 when making or varying awards or orders relating to the conditions of employment of public sector employees.

 

(2)  The policies referred to in subsection (1) do not include any policy that provides for increases in remuneration based on employee-related savings.

 

(3)  This section does not apply to a determination by the Remuneration Tribunal that changes the category of a council or mayoral office (whether or not the effect of the change is to increase the range of amounts payable to the councillors and mayor of a council).

 

(4)  To avoid doubt, this section extends to a determination of the minimum and maximum amounts payable for a category in existence when the determination is made.

 

In the circumstances of the cap on fee increases of 2.5% and the proposal to retain the existing Regional Rural and Rural categories there would not seem to be much value in making a submission to the Tribunal, however it is still open to the Council to do so if it wishes.

 

Notwithstanding, it should be noted that there is a substantial inequity between mayoral and councillor salaries across the classification of councils.  For example a mayor or a councillor in a smaller council often needs to be able to do much more for themselves than in a larger council and in order to do that it could be argued that they need to be much more up to speed with what is happening in their council - politically and operationally.  There is nobody to write speeches or to draft letters and emails or to do research.

 

In order to be Fit For the Future small councils cannot afford significant administrative support for their councillors and mayors but whether their LGA is small or large they still have to deal with the same issues, be just as knowledgeable and probably attend just as many functions - albeit smaller functions. There will also be an additional work load at least for mayors and GM's with the advent of JO's.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation in preparing the report.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

There are no identified risks.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

There is no budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

There are no resourcing implications.

 

Attachments:

1

42579/2016 - Local Government Remuneration Tribunal

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

Local Government Remuneration Tribunal - Annual Determination of Fees Payable to Councillors and Mayors

 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                            15 December 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.4    RF391              151216         Replacement of Browns Bridge, Sadlers Lane, Taylors Arm

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

Council’s bridge replacement program for 2016/2017 includes the replacement of Brown’s Bridge at the end of Sadlers Lane, Taylors Arm.  The existing single lane timber bridge is at the end of its life and is in a poor state of repair.

 

Council is in effect planning to spend $271,000 on providing access to a single property.  On the face of it, this investment of ratepayer funds represents an extraordinarily high level of service which the Council can no longer afford.

 

Consideration has been given to opportunities which might be available to transfer responsibility for the on-going maintenance of the bridge to the benefitting property owner.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council replace Brown’s Bridge as per Council’s Bridge Replacement Program, utilising the $25,000 offered by the property owner to improve the bridge approaches.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

A range of potential options were canvassed in the report to Council’s meeting on 27 October 2016 being:

 

1        Council replaces the bridge (do nothing/status quo).  This effectively accepts the existing service level as a “community service obligation”.

2        Council seeks a reasonable capital contribution, say 33.4%, towards the replacement of the bridge from the benefitting property owner or in the alternative the Council constructs the bridge without the capital contribution but the benefitting property owner agrees to accept on-going responsibility.

3        The Council advises the benefitting property owner that it no longer wishes to have responsibility for the bridge and negotiates a cash settlement with the property owner for them to take responsibility for the replacement of the bridge and its on-going maintenance.

4        The Council advises the benefitting property owner that it cannot afford to replace the bridge and that the property owner make arrangements for its repair, maintenance and replacement.

 

Consideration was also given to other options including the imposition of a special rate and the preparation of a Section 94 developer contribution plan in the event that the benefitting property is ever subdivided or additional dwellings built.

 

Section 495 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that a council may make a special rate for or towards meeting the cost of any works, services, facilities or activities provided or undertaken, or proposed to be provided or undertaken, by the council within the whole or any part of the council’s area.  The special rate is to be levied on such rateable land in the council’s area as, in the Council’s opinion:

 

a        benefits or will benefit from the works, services, facilities or activities, or

b        contributes or will contribute to the need for the works, services, facilities or activities, or

c        has or will have access to the works, services, facilities or activities.

 

Clearly the proposed bridge replacement could be the subject of a special rate.  However if Council seeks to introduce a special rate, besides the obvious objection which would be received in relation to an additional tax, there is an equity issue as to when such special rates should be applied.  There are other potential examples across the Shire, and particularly in the more remote rural areas, of Council regularly spending very large sums of money to provide access to a small number of properties.  Also the quantum of expenditure is such that a special rate at say an indexed $1,000 per annum would take 271 years to recoup the planned expenditure.  A further issue is that special rates which would result in Council exceeding its rate cap require the approval of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART).

 

Council could also consider preparing a Section 94 developer contributions plan to seek a contribution towards the bridge replacement in the event the property is ever subdivided or additional dwellings are erected.  Again such a contribution plan is unlikely to yield much of the planned expenditure and indeed would only be relevant in the event of further development occurring.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council’s bridge replacement program for 2016/2017 includes the replacement of Brown’s Bridge at the end of Sadlers Lane, Taylors Arm.  The existing single lane timber bridge is at the end of its life and is in a poor state of repair.  Also the approach to the bridge from the northern bank is severely eroded and is in poor condition.

 

The bridge provides access over the Taylors Arm of the Nambucca River to a single property, being 38 Sadlers Lane, Taylors Arm.  The property is comprised of Lot 1 DP 358908 which has an area of 76.32 hectares and Lot 34 DP 665511 which has an area of 80.94 hectares.  A plan showing the proposed bridge is attached.  It will be noted from the plan that the existing road approach on the northern side is not within the road alignment and nor would the road approach to the proposed replacement bridge be within the road alignment.

 

The Council considered this matter at its meeting on 27 October 2016 and resolved as follows:

 

1        That the Mayor, General Manager and Assistant General Manager Engineering Services be provided with delegated authority to enter into a negotiated settlement and deed of agreement in relation to a negotiated outcome.

         

2        That the outcome of the matter be reported back to Council for its information.

 

The Mayor, General Manager and Assistant General Manager Engineering Services met on site with the property owner on 23 November 2016.  After an explanation of Council’s financial situation and the financial impost of the Pacific Highway handover, the property owner would not accept any agreement requiring a contribution from him towards the replacement of the bridge nor on-going responsibility for the bridge if the Council was to fund its replacement.  However the property owner did make a (reluctant) ex-gratia offer of $25,000 towards the work.

 

The property owner did say that if the Council was to transfer responsibility for the bridge regardless of his objection, he would require at a minimum the creation of a legal right of way across the adjoining property so as to provide access to the Taylors Arm Road in the event that the bridge was damaged or destroyed by a flood.  This would mean the compulsory acquisition of a road at least 1.2 kilometres in length which is not considered realistic in terms of the likely cost.

 

The arguments put by the property owner were that the transfer of such responsibility is inequitable in that other property owners are not required to maintain their Council road and bridge access; that he could not afford to replace the bridge if it was damaged by a flood; and that he has previously made enquiries about the replacement of the bridge and understood it would be carried out as part of Council’s bridge replacement program.

 

Council’s bridge replacement program listed the bridge replacement at $271,000.  An attempt has been made to reduce this estimated cost by providing the replacement bridge slightly downstream of the existing bridge at a narrower crossing point.  However it will still comprise a 15m single span with concrete deck 3.6m wide plus a galvanised steel kerb rail.  It is proposed that the piers and superstructure be all concrete.  To avoid the cost of replacing the bridge and the on-going risk of flood damage, alternatives have been investigated of providing access across adjoining properties to other roads.  However these alternatives are assessed as being more expensive than replacing the bridge.

 

As no agreement has been reached, the matter is reported back to Council for determination.

 

The options would seem to be either the status quo and replace the bridge as per Council’s bridge replacement program, utilising the $25,000 offered by the property owner to improve the access on the approaches to the bridge or to try and force an agreement by not replacing the bridge until the property owner agrees to endorse an appropriate deed, for example to transfer on-going responsibility from Council to the property owner.

 

In assessing these options, consideration has been given to the depreciation cost of the new bridge. 

 

Assuming a bridge life of 80 years and a total cost of $271,000 being the budgeted provision, the annual depreciation cost in 2016 dollars is $3,387.50 per annum.  This compares with the rates being paid by the property owner of $2,869.26 in 2016/17.  Whilst this is an exceptional return for a property owner on their rates, the depreciation cost is negligible in relation to Council’s financial management and not worth a potentially lengthy and acrimonious dispute.

 

Given these considerations it is recommended that Council replace the bridge as per Council’s bridge replacement program, utilising the $25,000 offered by the property owner to improve the access on the approaches to the bridge.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the property owner, the Mayor and Assistant General Manager Engineering Services.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

It is often argued that Council’s most basic community service obligation is the provision of vehicle access to properties.  However with the foreshadowed hand over of 30km of the Pacific Highway to Council, it is flagged that Council will have to reduce service levels and/or increase rates to remain financially viable or “fit for the future”.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

The risks mainly concern deterioration in Council’s financial sustainability.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

The budgetary impacts are discussed in the report.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

The recommendation has no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

The recommendation does not have any service level implications.

 

Attachments:

1

31404/2016 - Site Diagram - Browns Bridge

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

Replacement of Browns Bridge, Sadlers Lane, Taylors Arm

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                            15 December 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.5    SF1479            151216         Sale of Proposed Lots 13, 14 and 15 - Railway Road, Nambucca Heads

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

Council has received an offer to purchase proposed Lots 13, 14 and 15, being land owned by Council in Railway Road, Nambucca Heads and zoned IN1 General Industrial for $370,000 inclusive of GST.  The purchaser wishes to erect a factory unit complex on the land.  These factory units are required to allow new business start-ups and without them the opportunity for economic development in Nambucca Heads will be constrained.

 

It is recommended that Council accept the offer and sell proposed Lots 13 and 14 (to be known as Lot 131) and Lot 15 (to be known as Lot 132).

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council approve the sale of proposed Lots 13 and 14 (to be known as Lot 131) and Lot 15 (to be known as Lot 132) to Mr Paul Kelsall or his company for a price of $370,000 inclusive of GST with the contract conditions to be as per those listed in the report.

 

2        That Council’s seal be attached to documents relating to the registration of the lots and the sale of the land as required.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council does not have to sell the land.  There are signs the property market is getting stronger and Council could sit on the land in the hope of achieving a higher return.  Balanced against this is the economic benefit which will be achieved by the development of the land.  Mr Kelsall has undertaken considerable work in developing his feasibility for factory units and the contract makes provision for a performance bond for the delivery of his proposal.  It is recommended that Council realise the likely economic benefits over the less certain prospect of a higher purchase price.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

For the past 6 months there have been negotiations concerning the sale of Lots 13, 14 and 15 being land owned by Council in Railway Road, Nambucca Heads and zoned IN1 General Industrial.

 

The subject land is shown on the attached plan.

 

Proposed Lot 13 has an area of 2,209m2, proposed Lot 14 has an area of 2,210m2, and proposed Lot 15 has an area of 4,241m2.  It is proposed that Lots 13 and 14 be consolidated to create Lot 131 whilst Lot 15 will become known as Lot 132.

 

It is important to note that out of all of this land, after taking into account batters and easements, there is 7,300m2 of developable land available and not 8,660m2 being the combined area of the land.

 

Agreement has now been reached on the sale of the three lots for a price of $370,000 inclusive of GST. 

 

The purchaser, Mr Paul Kelsall, proposes to erect a factory unit complex on the land in two stages.

 

The proposed conditions for the contract of sale are:

 

1        Council to obtain registration of the land, with proposed Lots 13 and 14 to be consolidated as one lot (to be known as Lot 131) with proposed lot 15 becoming Lot 132.

2        Purchase price of $370,000 for all of the land inclusive of GST.

 

3        Payment of a deposit of $37,000 to be held by Council.

 

4        On settlement of Lots 13 and 14 (Lot 131), the payment to Council of $205,200.

 

5        Provision for the TAFE training facility to remain on proposed Lot 15 until 29 March 2017.

 

6        Following relocation of the TAFE training facility, settlement on Lot 15 and the payment of the balance being $127,800.

 

7        Council will hold a performance bond of $30,000 until the occupation certificate is issued for the first stage of 5 factory units being constructed on proposed Lots 13 and 14.  The bond will not be refunded if an occupation certificate is not issued within 30 months.

 

The purchase price represents a value of $50.68 per square metre of developable land (7,300m2).  Council has recently sold Lot 12 for $165,000 inclusive of GST but it did include a fence with a value of approximately $10,000.  This represents a value of $69.66 per square metre.  In terms of the difference between the value of Lot 12 and the proposed sale of Lots 13, 14 and 15 it should be noted that:

 

·           The proposed area of the three lots is significantly larger resulting in a lesser value per square metre.

·           Lots 13, 14 and 15 are of lower “quality” than Lots 11 and 12, being below the road level and the subject of fill, with more fill and retaining walls being required if they are to be brought to a level closer to the road.

·           There is some loss of land in the front batters, further reducing the effective area which can be developed.

·           There has been less interest in the purchase of these lots notwithstanding active marketing for the last 2 years.

 

The proposed sale price is comparable to a sale of the residue of the Buildev subdivision (adjoining Australian Precast Solutions) in Macksville.  In comparison the Buildev subdivision is level, developed industrial land with minimal building costs.

 

The other aspect of the proposed sale is that currently there are no available vacant factory units in Nambucca Heads.  These factory units are required to allow new business start-ups and without them the opportunity for economic development in Nambucca Heads will be constrained.

 

The development of Lots 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 will have cost Council in the vicinity of $450,000 and will result in property sales of $700,000 inclusive of GST.  The land was obtained by Council via a land swap with State Forests approximately 10 years ago but agreed to approximately 15 years ago.  The Council swapped land it owned adjacent to a State Forest for the subject land on Railway Road.  Whilst this land did have a value, the development of the Railway Road industrial land has been cash flow positive for Council as well as securing new economic development.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The negotiations concerning the sale of the land have involved the Mayor, General Manager and Manager Business Development.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

The proposed sale of the land should secure a needed stock of additional factory units for Nambucca Heads.

 

Risk

 

There is the risk that the purchaser may not, for whatever reason, proceed to construct the factory units.  The contract provides for a performance bond in relation to this.  It is not possible to eliminate all risk but the proposed contract provides a reasonable balance between a financial return to council and promoting new economic development.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The sale of this land has been included in Council’s budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

An opportunity has arisen to take 4,000m3 of good quality hardstand fill from the new service centre site.  This fill is to be used on the proposed lot 16 and Council’s only cost is in transporting the fill the short distance to the site.  The transport cost is estimated at $15,000.  The fill has a market value of around $25m3 and will provide Council with a saving of over $100,000 on the development of the proposed Lot 16.

 

The placement of the fill has been achieved following work by TAFE students in removing 11,000m3 of top soil (at no cost to Council) from proposed Lot 16.  Some of this top soil went to the Bowra Dam for repairs to scouring on the wall with the remainder going to noise mitigation of houses affected by road noise at Valla.  The general fund incurred no costs in the removal of this material.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no service level implications.

 

Attachments:

1

43134/2016 - Railway Rd - Proposed Lots

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

Sale of Proposed Lots 13, 14 and 15 - Railway Road, Nambucca Heads

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                            15 December 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.6    SF611              151216         Temporary Advisers and Financial Controllers

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

New provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 allowing for the appointment of temporary advisers and financial controllers to councils have now commenced and a regulation has also been made. 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the information about the legislation to allow the appointment of temporary advisers and financial controllers to councils be received.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no options.  The report is for information.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council should be aware that an initiative promulgated as part of the Fit for the Future reforms being the appointment of financial controllers to councils has now become law.

 

New provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 allowing for the appointment of financial controllers to councils have now commenced and a regulation has also been made.  The provisions are part of a new section dealing with the performance management of councils.

 

Section 438A provides that the Minister may issue an order in respect of a council if the Minister reasonably considers that action must be taken to improve the performance of the council.

 

Section 438E provides that the governing body of a council is responsible for ensuring the council’s compliance with a performance improvement order.  A council complies with a performance improvement order only if the actions required by the performance improvement order are taken to the satisfaction of the Minister.

 

Section 438G provides that if the Minister issues a performance improvement order in respect of a council, the Minister may appoint one or more persons as a temporary adviser to the council.  The principal functions of a temporary adviser are to provide advice and assistance to the council for the purpose of ensuring that it complies with the performance improvement order and to monitor the council’s compliance with the performance improvement order.

 

Section 438HB also provides that if the Minister issues a performance improvement order in respect of a council, the Minister may appoint a person as a financial controller to the council.  The principal functions of a financial controller are to implement financial controls, and other functions relating to council finances, as specified by a performance improvement order or a subsequent order appointing the financial controller as well as any other related or ancillary functions specified in the order.  A financial controller must be paid a salary determined by the Minister from the council’s funds.  A person may be appointed as both a financial controller and a temporary adviser.

 

Significantly, under Section 438HC if a financial controller is appointed to a council, a payment may not be made from any funds of the council unless payment is authorised by the financial controller.  A financial controller may refuse to authorise a payment from the funds of the council if the financial controller reasonably believes that the payment:

 

(a)      May cause the council to become insolvent, or

(b)      Is unlawful, or

(c)      Is related to activities not identified in the council’s integrated planning and reporting framework, or

(d)      Is from grant moneys and is not for a purpose for which the grant was given.

 

If a financial controller is appointed to a council, councillors and members of the staff of the council are required to co-operate with the financial controller and to provide any information or assistance the financial controller reasonably requires to exercise his or her functions.

 

The criteria for deciding on the appointment of a Temporary Adviser and/or a Financial Controller are quite broad.

 

Under Clause 413DA of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, the Minister simply has to consider whether the appointment of a temporary adviser will, in their opinion, assist the council to comply with, or implement actions under, the performance improvement order issued in respect of the council. 

 

Similarly the criteria to be considered by the Minister in deciding whether to appoint a financial controller to a council are:

 

(a)        Whether the appointment of a financial controller will, in the opinion of the Minister, contribute to improving the financial operations of the council,

(b)        Whether the appointment of a financial controller will, in the opinion of the Minister, contribute to mitigating any financial risk to the operations of the council.

 

These provisions may be described as “the stick” in the Fit for the Future reforms.  The appointment of a financial controller to a council would largely remove the authority of the council in relation to expenditure decisions.

 

For those councils which might be considering a controversial expenditure decision (such as occurred with The Glasshouse in Port Macquarie), the legislation provides the Minister with the opportunity to appoint another party to effectively take over the Council’s financial planning.

 

At a more mundane level, for those councils that have not been determined as “Fit for the Future” or for those councils who are fit but may lapse for whatever reason, the provisions could be similarly applied.

 

Previously, to exercise the same level of control the Minister would have to sack the Council (following an Inquiry) and appoint an administrator.  This is a politically difficult and expensive exercise.  The new provisions effectively provide for a similar level of control via simple administrative decrees.  As such it might be expected that the provisions will be used on a semi-regular basis.

 

Council needs to be aware of the existence of this “stick” when attending to its budgeting and financial planning.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

It is expected that there could be significant damage to a council’s reputation if the Minister was to appoint either a temporary adviser or a financial controller.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The report has no budgetary implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The report has no implications for working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no resourcing/staff implications.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                            15 December 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.7    SF988              151216         Macksville Hospital Redevelopment

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

In line with commitments to improve hospital facilities across the state, the NSW Government announced $50 million towards the Macksville District Hospital Redevelopment.

 

As part of the planning work, the Clinical Services Plan for Macksville Hospital has been endorsed by the Ministry of Health.  The Clinical Services Plan outlines the District’s healthcare priorities.  Health Infrastructure is managing the planning, design and delivery of the project which began in early 2016.

 

Some queries about the wisdom of making such a large investment in the existing constrained site were raised by members of the community during community briefings held at Bowraville and Macksville in June 2016.  Council has now been advised of a petition which is circulating along the same lines.

 

Council staff are aware of a potential alternative site at North Macksville which is owned by the State Government and currently used by the contractor Pacifico to manufacture pre-cast concrete bridge girders.  It is a very large, flat, flood free site which will have excellent access following the upgrade of the Pacific Highway.  It is also reasonably close to services.

 

Given the proposed investment in the redevelopment of the Macksville Hospital consideration should be given to the cost/benefit of potential alternative sites.  The process of assessing alternatives should also be the subject of public consultation.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That given the allocated $50m for the redevelopment of the Macksville Hospital, Council request the Mid North Coast Local Health District and the NSW Department of Health to investigate the cost/benefit of establishing the Macksville hospital on a new site, including the option of RMS owned land at North Macksville.

 

2        That Council request the Mid North Coast Local Health District and the NSW Department of Health to consult with the public on the cost/benefit of establishing the Macksville hospital on a new site.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can choose to take no action or have no position on the redevelopment of the Macksville Hospital.  This option would be inconsistent with the State Government’s view of Council’s role in community strategic planning.

 

Alternatively the Council can accept, without equivocation, the redevelopment of the hospital on the existing site.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received advice of a petition which is circulating concerning the proposed redevelopment of the Macksville Hospital.

 

The petition states as follows:

 

“The decision has been made to renovate the Macksville Hospital.  The cost of 50 million is a magnificent contribution by the State Government that brings tears of joy to those who appreciate this news.

 

The Bowraville Community meeting held at the Recreation Club was appreciated by those given the opportunity to attend.  The question was asked is the current site restricted, possibly favouring alternative sites as the best investment for the future?

 

The current hospital is no doubt in a well-recognised and convenient location.  But, the question the community also wants answered would the 50 million go further, achieve more, and provide better options for growth on an alternative site?  The future of the hospital is vital for the people (of) the Nambucca Valley and surrounding areas.  The funding of the upgrade is critical to its future.  The amount of money required demands that all potential options be considered, and presented to the community so we can be assured we are getting the best from this maybe one in a lifetime funding opportunity.

 

We would like to call another meeting at the Bowraville Recreation Club with those who attended the last one, and any other interested citizen, to discuss further possible options”.

 

An extract of the petition is attached.

 

For those who attended the Bowraville meeting, it was clear that the existing Macksville Hospital site has some significant limitations in relation to its redevelopment.

 

What was announced at the community meetings at Bowraville on 15 June and Macksville on 16 June 2016 was for a new four storey building to be erected on the existing hospital car park with a ground floor emergency department, two floors of wards and the fourth floor dedicated to two operating theatres.  Overall it was flagged that the new hospital might have 10-14 extra beds and an increased role in minor surgery and rehabilitation.

 

There was no clear answer as to how off street parking would be provided for, only that there would be some parking near the street plus some on the site of the Agnes Grant centre.

 

At the Bowraville community meeting there was some discussion from community members about the need for long term planning for hospital sites so they can sustain the growth of a community over the long term and not require expensive, ad hoc additions and site acquisitions because of poor initial planning.  It was argued by some community representatives that over time such poor planning would cost the public purse more than any budget saving in the first instance.

 

The constraints of the existing Macksville Hospital site are obvious from the attached cadastral aerial photo with the available level land being restricted to the main building complex and car park.  It is evident that any further development of the site will require expensive building demolition or site acquisition.  In relation to the site, the assessment in the petition is agreed and other potential site options should be investigated in a process which includes public consultation.

 

The most recent community update on the Macksville Hospital redevelopment is attached.  It makes no reference to any alternatives other than a redevelopment of the existing site.

 

Alternative Site for the Macksville Hospital – RMS owned land at North Macksville

 

The contractors, Pacifico are currently completing the fabrication of bridge girders for the new Pacific Highway on an RMS owned site at North Macksville.  The location of the site is shown on the attached map.  It is a very large, flat, flood free site and even allowing for say a 100m buffer from the off ramp to the new Pacific Highway it still has an area of about 43 hectares.  It is understood that Pacifico will be vacating the site in the first half of 2017 as their operations move to new highway work north of Woolgoolga.

 

In general terms the site has excellent accessibility to the Nambucca Valley as a whole and good access from Macksville being 2.6km from the Post Office compared to a distance of 800m between the Post Office and the existing hospital.

 

In particular the accessibility of the site needs to be considered in the context of the upgrade of the Pacific Highway.  Attached is a recently released RMS update on the north bound and south bound access ramps at North Macksville.  The RMS land can be easily accessed from what is labelled as the “private access road” heading north from Letitia Close.

 

Therefore access to the site from Macksville is via the existing Old Coast Road for a short distance and then turning right at the proposed Letitia Close roundabout.  Coming from the north the site adjoins the southbound off ramp from the new highway requiring a left turn at the Letitia Close roundabout.  Alternatively access from the north can be obtained by driving along the existing Pacific Highway and then turning right into the existing Old Coast Road.  As per the diagram you would also be able to access the site from Nambucca Heads and Bowraville via Wirrimbi Road and Old Coast Road.  Old Coast Road has been rebuilt on the western side of the new highway and will connect with the Letitia Close roundabout.

 

The site would have excellent access for emergency services because as per the attached RMS update, there will be a break in the median of the new highway to allow emergency services using the on and off ramps to come from any direction or to leave in any direction.  In this respect the access for emergency services would probably be quicker than the existing hospital post highway upgrade.

 

In relation to the provision of services to the site, Council has a sewer pump station at the caravan park in Nursery Road being approximately 1km from the site by road.  Reticulated water is a similar distance.

 

A significant benefit in a “greenfield” site as opposed to redeveloping the hospital at its existing site is that all of the costs, disruption, inconvenience and nuisance associated with a major building project occurring on the site of a functioning hospital will be avoided.

 

One further thought with the identified alternative site is that it would free up the existing hospital site for another use.  One option could be a combined local emergency service operations centre whereby the existing Macksville Fire Brigade, State Emergency Service, and Rural Fire Service could accommodated on a larger site which is off the floodplain.  Joint location would provide some economies for meetings and operations with the potential to share some rooms and infrastructure.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The appropriate action in response to the circulation of the petition has been discussed with the Mayor.

 

 

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

 

The report is concerned with the long term financial risks associated with making a large, $50 million investment in an existing highly constrained site.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no budgetary implications for Council.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There is no service level or resourcing implications.

 

Attachments:

1

43141/2016 - Macksville Hospital Site Petition

 

2

43168/2016 - Macksville Hospital

 

3

21523/2016 - Macksville Hospital redevelopment update - June 2016

 

4

43190/2016 - Macksville Hospital - Alternative Site

 

5

43197/2016 - Macksville-north-ramps-update-june-2016

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

Macksville Hospital Redevelopment

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

Macksville Hospital Redevelopment

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

Macksville Hospital Redevelopment

 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

Macksville Hospital Redevelopment

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

Macksville Hospital Redevelopment

 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                            15 December 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.8    SF2150            151216         Bowraville Solution Brokerage Task Group

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the formation of the Bowraville Solution Brokerage Task Group.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The report is for information.  There are no identified options.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has been advised of the formation of a “Bowraville Solution Brokerage Task Group”, an initiative of the NSW Department of Aboriginal Affairs with the aim of providing “a high level senior executive holistic, coordinated approach to building lasting community resilience in Bowraville with a particular focus on healing”.

 

By way of background NSW Government agency responses to the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Bowraville murders and community consultations had raised concerns that service provision within Bowraville is fragmented and not well understood.

 

In response, the Department of Premier and Cabinet, partnering with Family and Community Services (FACS) and Aboriginal Affairs (AA) initiated a facilitated discussion about how to collaborate to improve service delivery to Bowraville.  This led to the first draft of a service delivery reform agenda.

 

The various State agencies see the work of the Service Delivery Reform Group as an important element of Solution Brokerage.  A decision was therefore made to strengthen and expand the existing Service Delivery Reform Group’s work, where required, by establishing it as a Task Group, retitled as Bowraville Solution Brokerage Task Group, under the State Government’s North Coast Regional Leadership Group.

 

The role/purpose of the Bowraville Solution Brokerage Task Group is described as follows:

 

“The Bowraville Solution Brokerage Task Group will report directly to the North Coast Regional Leadership Group (RLG).

 

The role of the Bowraville Solution Brokerage Task Group (Group) is to provide strategic direction and leadership to ensure all government and non-government players work in a coordinated and collective manner to ensure efficient and effective service delivery to the community.

 

The Group will determine how best to improve coordination and impact of effort.

 

Specific outcomes include;

 

·           Understanding all government delivered and funded activity, its status, successes and challenges

·           Identify key ideas, gaps, overlaps or issues for focus

·           Determining priorities for collaboration to maximise collective impact

 

It is imperative that the Group remain flexible in order to incorporate any requirements that arise from the Solution Brokerage Declaration and the direction it receives via the RLG.”

 

The Group comprises:

 

·           Department of Premier & Cabinet

·           Aboriginal Affairs

·           NSW Police Force

·           Family & Community Services

·           Education

·           Mid North Coast Local Health District

·           Aboriginal Housing Office

·           Transport for NSW

·           Juvenile Justice

·           Department of Human Services

·           North Coast Primary Health Network

·           Nambucca Shire Council (represented by Council’s Manager Community Development or nominee)

 

Meetings of the Bowraville Solution Brokerage Task Group are chaired by the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

 

The Solution Brokerage Officer in Charge is the Secretary for Planning and Environment, Ms Carolyn McNally.

 

The Solution Brokerage recently met in Bowraville to investigate and discuss the following initiatives:

 

·        A Business Case around the timetabling of additional bus services from Macksville/Nambucca to Bowraville to return earlier and possibility after the 3.55pm service

·        Service mapping of current counsellor and clinical services in Bowraville

·        Process and timetable for design of the Youth Outreach Service for the youth program.

 

There will be further reports to Council on the achievements of the Bowraville Solution Brokerage Task Group.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with Council’s Senior Community Development Officer.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

The Solution Brokerage Task Group is responsible to issues identified in the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Bowraville murders.  Any improvement to provision of community services and transport will have positive social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There is no risk to Council.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no budgetary impacts.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

At this stage there are only minor resourcing/staff implications as a consequence of staff attendance at meetings.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                            15 December 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.9    SF42                151216         Development of a Model Code of Meeting Practice for NSW Councils

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the Office of Local Government be advised of the observations and comments in the report concerning meeting rules.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can choose whether or not to lodge a submission.  The Council can also choose the matters to raise in its submission.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Office of Local Government (OLG) has advised that it has commenced the process of developing a model meeting code.  As part of this process, the OLG is:

 

·           Undertaking a review of the existing meeting rules prescribed by the Regulation, and

·           Seeking to identify examples of better practice meeting rules contained in councils’ adopted codes of meeting practice.

 

The OLG is seeking submissions on the following:

 

o    How the current meeting rules prescribed by the Regulation can be improved,

o    Any areas of meeting practice that are not currently prescribed that should be prescribed, and

o    Any examples of better practice that may be incorporated in the non-mandatory provisions of the model meeting code.

 

Submissions have to be made before Friday 20 January 2017.

 

A copy of the circular is attached.

 

Consideration has been given to this Council’s experience with the operation of the Code of Meeting Practice.

 

The Council has been previously “caught” by the requirement of Section 372 of the Local Government Act that a resolution passed by the Council may not be altered or rescinded except by a motion to that effect of which three days’ notice has been duly given.  It can be the case that a Council, unaware of a previous contrary resolution from many years past, inadvertently supports a motion “from the floor” at a Council meeting which is contrary to a previous resolution.  In this instance, the Council would be in breach of the minimum three day notice period in Section 372.  Given the number of resolutions adopted by Council the risk of breaching Section 372 whilst acting in good faith is considered to be quite high.

 

Another related issue with the Code of Meeting Practice are the provisions for rescission motions generally.  There is nothing in the Act or Regulations which provides a maximum time period for the lodgement of a rescission motion.  Section 372 simply states that a notice of motion to alter or rescind a resolution, and a notice of motion which has the same effect as a motion which has been negatived by the Council, must be signed by three Councillors if less than three months has elapsed since the resolution was passed, or the motion was negatived, as the case may be.

 

Section 372 provides that if a notice of motion to rescind a resolution is given at the meeting at which the resolution is carried, the resolution must not be carried into effect until the motion of rescission has been dealt with.  However it is often the case that councillors require some additional time is consider a rescission motion and obtain the necessary signatures.  Nambucca Shire Council utilises a local policy whereby if a Councillor advises the General Manager of their intention to lodge a rescission motion in relation to a particular matter, the resolution will not be acted upon until after the expiration of 5 calendar days from the date of the meeting.  Further that following receipt of a rescission motion by the General Manager that there will be no action to implement that resolution.

 

It would seem that some consideration needs to be given to the appropriate period following a Council meeting for the lodgement of rescission motions and an arrangement similar to that used by this Council to avoid the resolution being acted upon before it’s re-debated.

 

Whilst the practice of this Council is not to conduct “workshops” and certainly not workshops which are not open to the public, it is a common practice in NSW Councils.  As the Model Code of Meeting Practice is predicated upon Council business being conducted in Council meetings, the OLG should consider whether there should be requirements or recommended better practice procedures in relation to unpublicised council “workshops”.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Mayor.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

There are no identified risks.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

There is no budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

There is no service level or staffing implications.

 

Attachments:

1

43393/2016 - Model Code of Meeting Practice Circular

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

Development of a Model Code of Meeting Practice for NSW Councils

 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                            15 December 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.10  SF1540            151216         Pacific Highway Road Noise Affecting Valla Residents

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council enquire with the RMS as to what action is being taken in relation to the noise complaints it has received from Valla and Valla Beach residents and secondly in view of those complaints, whether or not the RMS is reviewing proposed noise mitigation on the Warrell Creek to Nambucca Heads section of highway.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

A range of action is available to Council.  At this stage it is recommended that the RMS be provided with an opportunity to respond to the concerns and indicate whether or not the complaints will cause a review of proposed noise mitigation on the Warrell Creek to Nambucca Heads section of highway.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Mayor and General Manager attended a meeting of the Valla Beach Community Association on 21 November 2016.

 

One of the matters discussed at the meeting was on-going concern from many residents about the noise from the upgraded Pacific Highway and particularly the concrete sections as opposed to the sections which have been finished in noise reducing asphalt.

 

Mr Simon Wagg addressed the meeting and advised that a petition was being circulated with an expectation of 500 signatures being obtained by the end of 2016.

 

Mr Wagg has now emailed the following update from the meeting on 21 November.

 

Hi Michael

 

Thank you for your support at Monday night’s Valla Community Association meeting.

 

A quick update re progress on addressing Valla highway noise concerns.

 

·           We are working as a community to gain 500 signatures on the petition (approx 200ish at present)

·           I received a call today from Yvonne Bowls senior project manager RMS Nambucca to Urunga upgrade, she is in currently drafting a response for Valla residents concerned about highway noise, in her words she has had quite a few complaints. I will forward you a copy of her response when I receive it.

·           Noise monitoring contractor Acom has installed 28 monitoring stations operating from today for 1 week only, these are to be compared with the 17 stations installed prior to construction.

·           Yvonne was helpful and understood the complaints, however she did go on to say that the concrete surface (that’s creating the bulk of noise) cannot physically have the bitumen laid on it!

 

As I mentioned in the meeting I hope they have a lot more bitumen planned for the Macksville section?

 

Thanks again for your interest and support

 

Best regards

 

Simon Wagg

It is understood that the Valla Beach Community Association are making arrangements for a representative of the RMS to address the Association’s next meeting in February 2017.

 

When the petition is finalised the matter will be reported to Council.

 

The December 2016 quarterly project update for the Pacific Highway upgrade between Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour was received by Council on 7 December 2016.  In relation to the Nambucca Heads to Urunga upgrade the update notes as follows:

 

“During November, we carried out monitoring of road traffic noise at over 20 sites across the project.  AECOM Australia Pty Ltd has been contracted to carry out the monitoring and prepare the final operational noise report.  The report is expected to be released in the first half of 2017.

 

If the report finds differences between the road traffic noise model and the actual road traffic noise, then mitigation measures may be considered.  You can find out more about how we manage road traffic noise on the fact sheet www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/projects/factsheet-traffic-noise.pdf. “

 

A copy of the December project update is attached.

 

The project update makes it plain the issue is being investigated, although there is no assurance that mitigation measures will be put in place if a problem is identified.  In the interim it is recommended that Council enquire with the RMS as to what action is being taken in relation to the noise complaints it has received from Valla and Valla Beach residents and secondly in view of those complaints, whether or not the RMS is reviewing the length of noise suppressing asphalt pavement proposed for the Warrell Creek to Nambucca Heads section of highway.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Valla Beach Community Association.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The report concerns noise being generated by the concrete surface of the new Pacific Highway affecting residential amenity.

 

Social

 

There are concerns about residential amenity which is a social impact.

 

Economic

 

If the noise impacts result in the depreciation of property, then there will be negative economic impact.

 

Risk

 

There are no risks to Council.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

At this stage there is no budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

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

 

Attachments:

1

43611/2016 - Pacific Highway Upgrade December 2016 Update

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

Pacific Highway Road Noise Affecting Valla Residents

 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                            15 December 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.11  SF578              151216         MIDROC Contaminated Land Policy and Policy Guidelines

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Daniel Walsh, Senior Town Planner         

 

Summary:

 

This report contains information to support the exhibition of the draft Mid North Coast Regional Organisation of Councils (MIDROC) Contaminated Land Policy (the policy).  The policy and supplementary guidelines have been included within attachments 1 & 2.

 

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:

 

1          The Policy and guidelines be placed on exhibition for a minimum of 28 days.  

 

2        After the completion of the exhibition period, the policy be referred back to Council for consideration.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1        Proceed to place the policy on exhibition in accordance with the recommendation.

2        Resolve not to proceed to place the policy on exhibition.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Background on policy development

Contaminated land matters are inherently complex, often requiring a high level of technical expertise and knowledge to appropriately assess and manage. To improve the capacity of MIDROC member Councils in this area the MIDROC Contaminated Land Program (the ‘Program’) has been developed with assistance from the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and the NSW Environmental Trust.

 

A key aim of the Program is to provide MIDROC members the resources needed to appropriately deal with contaminated land matters in line with relevant laws, standards and guidelines. The MIDROC Contaminated land Policy has been developed as part of a suite of contaminated land resources developed under the MIDROC Program, and aims to provide a legally compliant framework for managing contaminated land matters in a regionally responsible manner.  

 

The Policy has been developed in consultation with MIDROC member Councils to provide a relevant and regionally consistent approach for managing land contamination across the Mid North Coast region, with the aim of improving regional development standards and outcomes.

 

What is land contamination?

Land contamination is a condition where either directly or indirectly human activities have caused a substance to be incorporated into the landscape at concentrations that have the potential to harm human health or the environment. This is typically found on sites where hazardous substances have been used, stored or manufactured over prolonged periods of time, or where pathways exist between a contamination source and another part of the environment. In the MIDROC region this typically includes land uses such as:

 

§  Existing or former service stations

§  Factories, storage yards and other industrial sites

§  Timber treatment facilities

§  Tick dip sites

§  Legacy mine sites and processing plants

§  Intensive agriculture sites

§  Lands where unclassified fill materials have been used or dumped

The presence of contamination can often have significant economic, planning and legal implications for a site and how it is used. Depending on its nature, land contamination can present a substantial risk of harm to human health and other aspects of the environment if not picked up and managed early enough.

 

Why have a contaminated land policy?

When carrying out planning functions Council must consider whether contamination may make a site unsuitable for its intended uses. In instances where Council do not suitably consider land contamination issue, and inappropriate land uses are approved on a site, Council can be held legally liable for costly site remediation and management activities.         

 

Part 7A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the act) provides Councils with an exemption from liability for planning decisions preformed substantially in accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) Planning Guidelines. These planning guidelines strongly recommend that Council should adopt a formal contaminated land policy that outlines the commitments and processes that a Council will use to meet the requirements of the planning guidelines, as well as other relevant laws, standards and guidelines.

 

All planning functions performed in accordance with this policy should be considered to be performed in good faith, and will qualify council for exemptions for liability under Part 7A of the Act. 

 

What are the main aspects of the policy?

The MIDROC Contaminated Land Policy closely follows the format and principles of the SEPP55 Planning Guidelines with standards added to reflect our local needs and context. The Policy aims to provide an easy to follow framework for the assessment and management of land contamination issues within the MIDROC Region. The Policy is targeted at local government staff, contaminated land management practitioners, property developers, land managers, and the general public.

 

The Policy provides focussed guidance on the following topics:

 

1    Councils commitments to considering contaminated land issues

2    Site investigation, remediation and management triggers and standards

3    Contaminated land management practitioner standards

4    Contaminated land reporting standards

5    Triggers for requiring a site to be audited

6    Council record management standards

7    Information to be included on Section 149 Planning Certificates

8    Preventing land contamination standards.

What are the benefits of a regionally consistent approach for dealing with contaminated land issues?

By dealing with contaminated land issues in a regionally consistent manner Councils support:

 

§  Consistent approach to restricting the development of lands where contamination may be a factor

§  Opportunity for MIDROC members to share learning and coordinate better contaminated land practices as a group

§  A regionally consistent approach for land managers, property developers and contaminated land practitioners will:

o    Reduce confusion amongst stakeholder groups that work between LGA’ s

o    Reduce complaints and appeals by contractors

§  Increase quality of outputs through improved processes and standards

§  Enriched regional collaboration, coordination between all stakeholders.

Key legal requirements

Clause 6 of SEPP 55 requires a planning authority to consider whether a land is contaminated during the preparation of an environmental planning instrument. This includes the consideration of planning proposals, preparation of LEP’s and DCP’s.

 

Similarly, Clause 7 of SEPP55 requires that a consent authority must not consent to development on land unless contamination has been considered, and if present then the site has been remediated to a state that makes it suitable for its intended uses.

 

Section 145B of the act ‘Exemptions from Liability – Contaminated Land’, states:

 

(1)  A planning authority does not incur any liability in respect of anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the authority in duly exercising any planning function of the authority to which this section applies in so far as it relates to contaminated land (including the likelihood of land being contaminated land) or to the nature or extent of contamination of land.

(3)   Without limiting any other circumstance in which a planning authority may have acted in good faith, a planning authority is (unless the contrary is proved) taken to have acted in good faith if the thing was done or omitted to be done substantially in accordance with the contaminated land planning guidelines in force at the time the thing was done or omitted to be done.

In regards to exemptions from liability the SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines states the following:

Part 7A of the act provides that planning authorities who act substantially in accordance with these Guidelines are taken to have acted in good faith. This means that before an authority can be found negligent of an act or omission related to a particular planning function, it must be shown that they did not substantially comply with the Guidelines.

The planning functions covered by this statutory protection are:

a) the preparation or making of an environmental planning instrument

b) the preparation or making of a development control plan

c) the processing and determination of a development application

d) the modification of a development consent

e) the furnishing of advice in a planning certificate under s. 149 of the Act

f) anything incidental or ancillary to the carrying out of any function listed in paragraphs (a)–(e).

 

The SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines also state:

To supplement these Guidelines, it is strongly recommended that each local council develop and adopt a formal policy for managing land contamination to provide a local context for decision making. The policy should be consistent with these Guidelines and either adopt or be based on them, with variations based on local conditions and procedures.

Budgetary implications

This Policy will not create additional Council fees and charges. The matters that this Policy pertains to are covered under existing development application and planning proposal fee structures contained within Councils adopted fees and charges.

 

Sustainability assessment

The Policy will contribute to the sustainable development of lands within the MIDROC Region through setting the following commitments:

 

§  Development or land use changes are restricted unless all appropriate assessments have been performed by Council and the proponent until satisfied that a site does not contain contamination that may pose a threat to human health or the environment. 

§  Remedial actions will be performed on sites where needed to make a site suitable of its intended uses during the planning and development control process.

§  Only Contaminated Land Practitioners with demonstrated experience and skills can provide report, plans and formal advice to council for consideration.

§  Council will prevent the development of contamination wherever possible by appropriately responding to instances of pollution, and restricting the approval of land uses that may cause contamination without appropriate controls.

CONSULTATION:

 

MIDROC Contaminated Land Project Officer 

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

As highlighted throughout the above report, the policy will result in a more proactive approach to land contamination assessment and remediation which will improve environmental outcomes.

 

Social

 

The policy will assist in resolving contaminated land matters during the planning proposal/development assessment process which will minimise potential social impacts.

 

Economic

 

The policy will minimise Councils liability.

 

Risk

 

The policy will minimise Councils liability.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

Nil.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

N/A

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

N/A

 

Attachments:

1

41477/2016 - Attachment 1 - Draft Contaminated Land Policy

 

2

41476/2016 - Attachment 2 - Draft Contaminated Land Policy Guidelines

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

MIDROC Contaminated Land Policy and Policy Guidelines

 

MIDROC
CONTAMINATED 
LAND PROGRAM

Contaminated Land Policy
June 2016 


 

REGIONAL VISIONHealthy environments are an essential foundation for the development of healthy and thriving communities. The Mid North Coast Regional Organisation of Councils and its members are committed to protecting and restoring the quality of environments through informed planning decisions and the implementation of effective land management practices. In dealing with contaminated land matters a consistent regional approach will be followed when conducting Council’s functions for identifying, assessing and managing contamination for the benefit of the community and local environment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This Model Contaminated Land Policy has been prepared for members of the Mid North Coast Regional Organisation of Councils (MIDROC) as part of the MIDROC Contaminated Land Program. This program has been assisted by the New South Wales Government through the NSW Environmental Protection Authorities (EPA) Contaminated Land Management Program under funding provided by the NSW Environmental Trust.

 

Produced by

MIDROC - Contaminated Land Services Division

PO Box 117

BELLINGEN, NSW 2454

 

Acknowledgments

Description: NSW-Government.jpgDescription: EPA-colour-medium-primaryDescription: OEH_ETlogoBW

FOREWORD

MIDROC recognises that the appropriate assessment and management of contaminated land matters is an important function of local government. The MIDROC Contaminated Land Program has been developed to provide MIDROC members with the technical training and resources needed to appropriately respond to these issues.

This Model Contaminated Land Policy (the ‘Policy’) forms part of a suite of regional contaminated land management resources and tools. This Policy outlines the Councils commitments and practices used in dealing with land contamination matters.

This policy has been developed in consultation with relevant staff from each of the MIDROC member Councils, with oversight and support from the General Managers Advisory Committee to MIDROC. This document is a proforma version of the Policy and is to be reviewed in practice by the Councils prior to being release in its final form in May 2017.

Inquiries on this document should be directed to:

Brendon Hooper

MIDROC Contaminated Land Program

PO Box 117

BELLINGEN, NSW 2454

Phone: (02) 6655 7382 

Fax: (02) 6655 2310

Email: bhooper@bellingen.nsw.gov.au

 

 

 

 

Replace pages 1-3 of this Model Policy with Council specific cover page and foreword

 

 

 

COUNCIL DISCLAIMER

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information in this publication, < Insert Council Name > disclaims any liability to any person in respect of anything done or not done as a result of the contents of these Policy Guidelines.

The Policy Guidelines should be read in conjunction with relevant legislation, guidelines and codes of practice. Where inconsistencies exist the most recent legislation should prevail.

These Policy Guidelines do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on. Legal advice should be sought in relation to particular circumstances, and liability will not be accepted by < Insert Council Name > for losses incurred or damage suffered as a result of reliance on these Policy Guidelines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS

1.    INTRODUCTION

1

1.1       PURPOSE

1

1.2       SCOPE

1

2.    INTERPRETATION

1

3.    PLANNING AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

2

4.    POLICY OBJECTIVES

2

5.    POLICY STATEMENT

2

6.    COMPLIANCE WITH THIS POLICY

12

7.    POLICY REVIEW

12

Appendix A - Abbreviations

14

Appendix B - Definitions

15

Appendix C - Contaminated Land Planning and Legislative Framework

17

Appendix D - Potentially Contaminating Land Uses

20

Appendix E - Relevant Contacts

21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.   INTRODUCTION

 

1.1.     PURPOSE

Land contamination stemming from the improper use and storage of hazardous substances can leave a broad range of complex and lasting impacts on the land. Contamination and its effects can often remain unnoticed within the environment for long periods of time, and can have serious implications on a sites ability to sustain healthy ecosystems and communities. In dealing with this issue it is important that Planning Authorities and land managers consider contamination and its potential impacts on the ways that land can be used.  

In New South Wales the EPA and local government preform various key roles in dealing with contaminated lands matters. The role of the EPA is to regulate and enforce management action on sites where contamination is considered significant. Local government on the other hand manage contamination whilst performing duties as a planning authority, public land manager and as regulatory authority.

This Policy provides a framework through which Council will manage land contamination within the Local Government Area. The <Insert Council Name> Contaminated Land Policy defines the principles that <Insert Council Name> are committed to upholding when performing Council functions. This Policy observes a cautionary approach and promotes processes that ensure land contamination is identified and dealt with at the earliest possible opportunity whilst carrying out planning, regulatory and land management activities.

Under 145B of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), Council are provided with exemptions of liability for planning decisions made in ‘good faith’.  To qualify for this good faith status the Act requires that Council act substantially in accordance with ‘Managing Land Contamination - Planning Guidelines (Planning Guidelines)’. This Policy has been developed in accordance with the Planning Guidelines and its requirements.

1.2.     POLICY SCOPE

This Policy applies to all land within the <Insert Council Name> Local Government Area.

The content of this Policy is relevant to:

§ Local government staff

§ Contaminated land management practitioners

§ Property developers

§ Land managers

§ The general public 

This Policy does not provide procedural guidance on how to satisfy policy statements. Additional information on suitable approaches, procedures and considerations for implementing policy statements can be found in:

§ <Insert Council Name>Contaminated Land Policy Guidelines

§ <Insert Council Name>  Asbestos Management Plan

§ <Insert other relevant documents that pertain to the identification, assessment, remediation, transport or disposal of materials that may be contaminated>

§ Other relevant legislation, guidelines and codes of practices including but not limited to those listed under Appendix C – Contaminated Land Planning and Legislative Framework

 

2.   INTERPRETATION

Terms used in this Policy are as they are defined in the relevant legislation.

Abbreviations provided in Appendix A.

Definitions provided in Appendix B.

3.   STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

Key documents that make up the contaminated land planning and legislative framework are:

§ Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

§ Contaminated Land Management Act 1997

§ Protection of Environmental Operations Act 1997(POEO Act)

§ SEPP 55 – Remediation of Lands(SEPP 55)

§ Managing Land Contamination - Planning Guidelines (Planning Guidelines)

A more detailed review of the framework and its effects can be found in Appendix C.

4.   POLICY OBJECTIVES

 

The objectives of this policy include:

§ To ensure that contamination is being appropriately considered and dealt with at the earliest possible stage whilst carrying out Council regulatory, land management, or planning activities

§ To provide a contaminated land policy framework that follows the practices and standards of relevant legislation(s), guidelines and codes

§ To facilitate an approach to assessing and dealing with contaminated land issues that is regionally consistent and cooperative

§ To ensure Council maintains suitable contaminated land information management systems and provides the community and stakeholders with reliable information on contamination where applicable

§ To ensure contamination is appropriately considered prior to approving changes to land uses

§ To avoid placing  inappropriate restrictions on land uses due to land contamination

 

5.   POLICY STATEMENT

 

5.1.     Local Government Commitment to Dealing With Land Contamination

Council will consider and respond to the presence of land contamination in all instances where it is the appropriate:

 

·      Planning Authority

·      Regulatory Authority

·      Public lands/assets  manager

 

When performing these roles, Council will adhere to the requirements of this Policy and the Policy Guidelines in addition to the requirements of applicable legislation, guidelines and standards (see Appendix C)

5.2.     Executing Councils Planning Decision Making Processes

Whilst performing roles as a planning authority Council will ensure that land contamination is being appropriately considered, identified, assessed and managed in accordance with the requirements of this Policy and the Policy Guidelines. In instances where the Policy and Policy Guidelines do not apply, a review of applicable legislation, guidelines and standards should be undertaken by Council.  

In its function as a Planning Authority Council will:

§  Consider the likelihood of land contamination as early as possible in the planning and development control process

§  Link decisions about the development of land with the information available about contamination possibilities

§  Adopt a policy approach that will provide strategic and statutory planning options based on the information about contamination

§  Exercise statutory planning functions with a reasonable standard of care

 

If contamination status of land is unknown, no change in use should occur which may increase the risk of harm until the land has been investigated. If contamination causes an unacceptable risk of harm, the use of the land should be restricted to reduce the risk to accepted levels.

 

5.3.     Initial Evaluation by Planning Authority

An initial evaluation of contamination is performed by Council to assess whether contamination may be an issue at a site and if sufficient information is available to carry out a planning function in good faith. Council will perform an initial evaluation of contamination, in the first possible instance, when assessing the suitability of a planning proposals and development applications. This internal evaluation should be performed in accordance with the objectives and processes outlined in the Policy Guidelines as well as the Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines.

Further information on the initial evaluation process is provided in Section 5.3 of the Policy Guidelines

5.4.     Review of Environmental Factors (REF)

Where undertaking or reviewing environmental assessments performed under Part 5 of the EP&A Act, Council will ensure that contamination is being appropriately assessed and managed. If contamination has the potential to be a factor at a site that is the subject of an REF then further investigations and management processes should be carried out in accordance with this Policy and the Policy Guidelines. See Figure 1 and Figure 2 of the Policy Guidelines for site assessment and management processes.

5.5.     Preliminary Investigation

Stage 1 – Preliminary Investigations are undertaken to identify any past or present potentially contaminating activities performed at a site, provide a preliminary assessment of any site contamination and, if required, provide a basis for a more Detailed Investigation. This stage of a site assessment must be undertaken by a ‘suitably qualified and experienced contaminated land practitioner’ (see Section 5.11 and 5.12).

Prior to exercising a planning function Council may request a Preliminary Investigation Report be provided by the proponent in instances where:

§ Past land uses have the potential to have caused site contamination (refer to Appendix D)

§ Site records do not outline a clear or complete site history

§ Gaps exist in knowledge of past land uses

§ Site history information provided by the applicant is not reliable or verifiable

§ Land surrounding the site has the potential to be contaminated

§ The site is within 50m of underground storage tank(s) or below ground infrastructure used for storing hazardous substances i.e. petroleum products or chemicals

Further information on the Preliminary Investigation stage is provided in Section 5.4 of the Policy Guidelines.

5.6.     Detailed Investigation

Stage 2 - Detailed Investigations are undertaken to identify the nature, extent and degree of contamination at a site that is known or suspected of being contaminated. This is a highly technical phase of the site assessment process and must only be performed by a ‘suitably qualified and experienced contaminated land practitioner’ (see Section 5.11 and 5.12).

Prior to exercising a planning function Council may request a Detailed Investigation Report be provided by the proponent in instances where:

§ Indications of contamination have been acknowledged in a Preliminary Investigation

§ Contamination has been previously identified on the site during a site assessment

§ Pathways exist between the site and a known source of contamination (i.e. surface or groundwater)

§ Contamination is considered to occur at the site and a Preliminary Investigation is deemed not necessary

§ Changes to land uses may increase exposure of the community or the environment to hazardous contaminants (eg a proposed land-use change from industrial land use to residential land use)

§ To accompany a remediation proposal that requires Development Consent

 

Further information on the Detailed Investigation stage is outlined in Section 5.5 of the Policy Guidelines.

5.7.     Remedial Action Plan (RAP)

In instances where remedial actions are required to make a site suitable for its current or intended uses, a RAP may be required by Council. An RAP’s outline the objectives and methods that a contaminated land practitioner intends to employ when remediating a site to a suitable standard. This plan can only be developed by a ‘suitably qualified and experienced contaminated land practitioner’ (see Section 5.11 and 5.12).

Council shall request that a RAP be provide by the proponent in instance where:

§ Contamination has been identified during a site assessment and remedial actions are required to make the site suitable for any proposed or approved land uses

§ The remediation works are considered Category 1 Remediation works (see clause 6.13 below)

§ The remediation works are being undertaken in preparation for a future Development Application or Planning Proposal

 

Further information on Remedial Action Plans are provided in Section 5.6 of the Policy Guidelines.

5.8.     Site Validation

Where remedial actions have been carried out under the guidance of a RAP a validation assessment must be undertaken to confirm whether the objectives of the RAP have been achieved. If the remedial targets have not been achieved the Validation Report must explain why and outline any additional works required to satisfy the requirements of the RAP. This assessment must only be undertaken by a ‘suitably qualified and experienced contaminated land practitioner’ (see Section 5.11 and 5.12).

 

Further information on Validation Reports are outlined in the Section 5.7 of the Policy Guidelines.

 

 

 

5.9.     Ongoing Site Monitoring

Ongoing Site Monitoring Plans are created in circumstances where contamination may not be suitable for remediation or is to be controlled on site.

Council shall request an Ongoing Site Monitoring Plan be provided for its consideration in instances where:

§ A full clean-up of a site is not feasible

§ Contamination is to be contained on the site

This plan must only be developed by a ‘suitably qualified and experienced contaminated land professional’ (as outlined in Section 6.11).

Further information on Ongoing Site Monitoring Plan are outlined in Section 5.8 of the Policy Guidelines.

5.10.   Site Audit

A Site Audit is an independent review of any or all stages of the site investigation processes conducted in accordance with the CLM Act and associated EPA Guidelines. Site Audits are only to be performed by auditors accredited under the EPA administered Site Auditors Scheme. Council may request a Site Audit where:

§ It is believed that the information provided by the proponent is incorrect or incomplete

§ Verification is required to confirm that information provided by the proponent adheres to appropriate standards, procedures and guidelines

§ Council does not have the internal resources or expertise needed to conduct its own technical review

§ Land use is proposed to change to a more sensitive land use (for example, rezoning commercial to residential)

In circumstances where an audit may not be necessary, Council may request that a formal review be conducted on a contaminated land practitioner’s reports, works and/or advice by another suitably qualified practitioner. See Section 6 of Policy Guidelines for further information on Site Audits.

5.11.   Remediation of lands

SEPP 55 sets contaminated land remediation works into two key categories to help ensure that works are performed in an appropriate and responsible manner. In instances where a proposed remedial activity is classed as Category 1 works, consent must be sought from a consent authority such as Council. Remedial activities that are classed as Category 2 do not require consent from a consent authority, however certain information must be provided to Council on their nature and scope prior to them being performed (see Clause 16-18 of SEPP 55 for further information).  

Note: If remediation has reduced all risks to human health and the environment to acceptable level, no restriction on land use will be placed on the site.

Category 1 – Remediation Works

Category 1 remediation works are works that require planning consent due to their scope, type or potential impacts that they can pose on the community and/or environment. SEPP 55 outlines Category 1 works as works that:

§ Form part of designated development

§ Are to be conducted on land declared to be a critical habitat

§ Are likely to have a significant effect on a critical habitat or a threatened species, population or ecological community

§ Are associated with development for which another SEPP or a regional environmental plan requires development consent

§ Are to be carried out in an area classified under Clause 9(e) of SEPP 55

In accordance with the provision of Clause 9(f) of SEPP 55, Council requires all Category 1 works to be performed in line with applicable Council policy, including where:

§  Restrictions are placed on the hours of operation for work

§  Restrictions are placed on the vehicle routes that can be used when performing work

§  Restrictions are placed on parking

§  Restrictions are placed on the disposal of contaminated spoil removed from remediated land

Category 2 – Remediation Works

Category 2 remediation works are all remediation works that are not classified as Category 1 under Clause 9 of SEPP 55 or works identified in this Council Contaminated Land Policy.

Person undertaking Category 2 remediation works must act in accordance with SEPP 55 which requires the proponent to:

§ Notify Council of the commencement of works 30 days prior to their commencement

§ In accordance with Clause 16(3) of SEPP 55 provide detail on the site and works to be undertaken

§ Notify Council of the completion of works within 30 days of their conclusion

 

5.12.   Contaminated Land Practitioner Standards

Prior to considering information provided by a contaminated land practitioner, the practitioner must be able to suitably demonstrate to council that they have the necessary competencies and experience in the field that they intend to offer services in.  

Prior to 1 April 2018 the attributes that should qualify a person as a ‘suitably qualified and experienced practitioner’ are:

§ At least five years of experience in contaminated land services that are relevant to those being offered

§ Relevant Bachelor Degree or similar tertiary qualifications

§ Regular professional development training in the contaminated land field

§ Record of strong ethical and professional conduct

 

As of the 1 April 2018, <insert Council name> will only accept services, reports or advice from contaminated land practitioners accredited under an EPA supported accreditation scheme (information on contaminated land practitioner schemes can be found on the EPA website).

 

See Section 7 of the Policy Guidelines for further information on Contaminated Land Practitioners and their use.

5.13.   Professional contaminated land reports, plans and advice

All professional contaminated land related reports, plans or official advice to be considered by Council must be accompanied by a cover letter that includes the following information:

§ Company/practitioners contact details

§ Scope of works to be overseen by the practitioner

§ Qualifications relevant to services being provided

§ Past professional experience in comparable projects

§ Two references from past clients that have received similar services

A practitioner may choose to include a copy of their CV to Council with initial correspondence or documents.

5.14.   Council Contaminated Land Records

Contaminated land issues can be dynamic, changing over time as site assessments and remedial actions are performed, and new sites are identified. Due to this nature of contamination Council do not hold a definitive ‘register’ of contaminated sites.  

Keeping an accurate, reliable and up-to-date record of information on land contamination can be a valuable resource for Council to use when performing various planning, regulatory and land management functions.

Wherever possible Council’s records shall maintain accurate and reliable information on sites that:

§ Have been assessed or regulated by the EPA under the provision of the CLM Act

§ Have undergone previous contaminated land assessments or management actions and reports have been provided to Council

§ Have undergone a site audit by an accredited site auditor

§ Are known by Council to be contaminated

§ Have had a development applications accepted for Category 1 remediation works

§ Have provided notifications of Category 2 remediation works

Information pertaining to contaminated land matters should be recorded and managed by Council in line with the Policy Guidelines and other applicable standards.

5.14.1.  Section 149 Planning Certificates

A planning certificate issued under Section 149 of the EP&A Act, is specific to a certain property and provides information about how the site may be used and if land use restrictions apply. Information on land contamination must be included in Section 149 planning certificates in line with the requirements of Section 59(2) of the CLM Act and the Policy Guidelines. If land use restrictions are placed on the land due to contamination this will be reflected within Section 149 planning certificates.

Section 149(2) Planning Certificates

Section 149(2) Planning Certificates issued by Council will provide information, relevant to the property on the date the certificate is issued:

a)     Identified as significantly contaminated

b)    Subject to a management order

c)     The subject of an approved voluntary management proposal

d)    Subject to an ongoing maintenance order

e)    Site has been subject to a site audit where a Site Audit Statement has been produced and provided to Council

f)     Whether or not the land is affected by an adopted policy of the Council or any other public authority that restricts the development of land because of the likelihood of any risk of contamination

 

Further information including standard 149(2) entries and explanations are provided in the Policy Guidelines Appendix J.

Section 149(5) Planning Certificates

In Instances where Councils records indicate that a site is or has the potential to be impacted by contamination, a special note will be added to the Section 149(5) planning certificate declaring that certain restrictions may apply to a site due to contamination. In instances where this declaration is present on the planning certificate a proponent should contact Council to seek further information on the nature and consequences of potential contamination issues at the site.

Council may also choose to add other specific information on contaminated land matter in to the Section 149(5) planning certificate, including where:

a)     The site is known to have been used for a land use listed in Table 1 of Appendix D

b)    A Statement of Environmental Effect has identified that the contamination may be a factor at the site

c)     A contaminated land assessment report has been produced and provided to Council

d)    A validation of remediation has been undertaken and report provided to Council

e)    Remedial actions have been approved for the remediating of the site

f)     Council have been notified of remediation that is to be undertaken at the site

g)     Historic or unvalidated remediation is known to have been undertaken at the site

h)    Underground Petroleum Storage System are known to be present on the site

i)      Advice that is associated with information provided under a 149(2) certificate    

 

Further information including standard 149(5) entries and explanations are provided in the Policy Guidelines Appendix J.

 

5.15.   Preventing Contamination

Measures to prevent possible pollution at its source may help to reduce future land contamination issues. Council will endeavour to prevent the occurrence of pollution and associated land contamination, where applicable, by:

§ Applying appropriate controls on development and rezoning to reduce polluting activities and impacts

§ Proactively investigate and regulatory land use activities that may cause contamination

§ Manage public land and assets in line with the requirements of this policy and relevant regulation

§ Promote the adoption of environmental practices that reduce the potential for contamination

 

6.   COMPLIANCE WITH THE POLICY

This Policy provides a best practice approach for dealing with contaminated land matters in the <insert Council name> Local Government Area. The processes and standards provided in this document adhere to and exceed the requirements of the contaminated land legislative frameworks and associated planning guidelines.

 

Planning decisions made in compliance with this Policy should be considered to be performed in good faith and are afforded exemption from liability under Part 7A of the EP&A Act.

Council staff should seek legal guidance wherever they are uncertain about the application of this Policy

7.   POLICY REVIEW

This Policy may be reviewed, varied or revoked at the discretion of Council.

 

This Policy is to undergo an annual review by a regional working group made up of appropriate staff from all member Councils. This review process is to commence in June 2018.

 

Where changes occur to relevant legislation, guidelines and standards, appropriate amendments must be made to the Policy document.

 

 

 

Appendix A: Acronyms

 

ARA

Appropriate Regulatory Authority – used in regulation

ANZECC

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

CLM Act

Contaminated Land Management Act 1997

DA

Development Application

DCP

Development Control Plan

DP&E

Department of Planning & Environment

EPA

Environment Protection Authority

EP&A Act

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

LEP

Local Environmental Plan

LGA

Local Government Area

NSW

New South Wales

POEO

Protection of the Environment Operations

RAP

Remedial Action Plan

SEPP

State Environmental Planning Policy

UST

Underground Storage Tanks

UPSS

Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B: Definitions

 

Category 1 remediation work 

has the same meaning as in SEPP55, and is remediation work that needs development consent

Category 2 remediation work

has the same meaning as in SEPP55, and is remediation work that does not need development consent

CLM Act

means the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 (NSW) as amended from time to time.

Contamination of land

depending on the context:

has the same meaning as in section 5(1) of the CLM Act, being the presence in, on or under the land of a substance at a concentration above that normally present in, on or under the land in the same locality, being a presence that presents a risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment, and “Contaminate” and “Contaminated” are to be construed accordingly.  The words “land”, “harm” and “environment” are defined as in the CLM Act.

OR

has the same meaning as in section 145A of the EP&A Act, being  land in, on or under which any substance is present at a concentration above the concentration at which the substance is normally present in, on or under (respectively) land in the same locality, being a presence that presents a risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment.  The words “land” and “environment” are defined as in the EP&A Act.

Detailed investigation

means an investigation to define the extent and degree of contamination, to assess potential risk posed by contaminants to health and the environment, and to obtain sufficient information for the development of a remedial action plan if required.

EP&A Act

means the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1997 (NSW) as amended from time to time.

Independent review

means an evaluation by an independent expert required by a planning authority of any information submitted by a proponent, conducted at the proponent’s expense.

Initial evaluation

means an assessment of readily available factual information to determine whether contamination may be an issue relevant to the decision being made.

Preliminary investigation order

means a preliminary investigation order issued by the EPA under s 10 of the CLM Act to investigate whether specified land is Contaminated, and the nature and extent of any such Contamination.

Notice of completion

means a notice to the Council (or Minister for Planning where the Minister is the consent authority) in accordance with SEPP 55 that remediation work has been completed.

Notification of remediation

means prior notice of a category 2 remediation work given to the Council in accordance with SEPP 55.

Planning authority

means a public authority or other person responsible for exercising a planning function.

Planning Certificate

means a planning certificate issued under s149 of the EP&A Act.

Planning function

means a function exercised by the Council as a planning authority under the EP&A Act, including the functions listed in s145B EP&A Act such as the preparation or making of an environmental planning instrument and the determination of a development application.

Preliminary investigation

means an investigation to identify any past or present potentially contaminating activities and to provide a preliminary assessment of any site contamination.

Remedial Action Plan

means a plan which sets remediation goals and documents the process to remediate a site.

Management Order

means a management order issued by the EPA under section 14 of the CLM Act, requiring the carrying out of specified actions in relation to the management of contaminated land (including remediation).

Significantly Contaminated Land

means a site declared by the EPA under section 11 of the CLM  Act to be significantly contaminated land.

Remediation 

has the same meaning as in the CLM Act and includes:

(a)   preparing a long-term management plan (if any) for the land;

(b)   removing, dispersing, destroying, reducing, mitigating or containing the contamination of the land; and

(c)   eliminating or reducing any hazard arising from the contamination of the land (including by preventing the entry of persons or animals on the land).

SEPP 55

means the State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

Site audit

has the same meaning as in the CLM Act, being a review:

(a)   that relates to management (whether under this Act or otherwise) of the actual or possible contamination of land; and

(b)   that is conducted for the purpose of determining any one or more of the following matters:

i.      the nature and extent of any contamination of the land,

ii.     the nature and extent of any management of actual or possible contamination of the land,

iii.    whether the land is suitable for any specified use or range of uses,

iv.    what management remains necessary before the land is suitable for any specified use or range of uses,

v.     the suitability and appropriateness of a plan of management, long-term management plan or a voluntary management proposal.

Site auditor

has the same meaning as in the CLM Act, being a person accredited by the EPA under the CLM Act to conduct site audits.

Site audit statement

means a site audit statement issued by a site auditor in accordance with Part 4 of the CLM Act.

Site audit report

means a report prepared by a site auditor containing the key information and the basis of consideration which leads to the issue of a site audit statement.

Site history

means a land use history of a site which identifies activities or land uses which may have contaminated the site, establishes the geographical location of particular processes within the site, and determines the approximate time periods over which these activities took place. See (Edwards et al 1994)

Site investigation process

means the process of investigating land which may be, or is, contaminated, for the purpose of providing information to a planning authority.

Validation

means the process of determining whether the objectives for remediation and any conditions of development consent in relation to the remediation have been achieved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C- Contaminated Land Planning and Legislative Framework

The key legislation and planning instruments that make up the contaminated land planning and legislative framework are:

§ Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

§ Contaminated Land Management Act 1997

§ Protection of Environmental Operations Act 1997

§ SEPP 55 – Remediation of Lands

§ Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines - SEPP 55 – Remediation of Lands

Other relevant legislation and planning instruments that affect the way that local government deal with contaminated land matters include:

§ Local Government Act 1993

§ NSW Health and Safety Act 2011

§ Pesticides Act 1999

§ Dangerous Goods (Road and Rail Transport) Act 2008

§ Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals Act 1985

§ Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation

§ Protection of Environmental Operations (General) Regulation

§ Protection of Environmental Operations (Waste) Regulation

§ Protection of Environmental Operations (Clean Air) Regulation

§ Protection of Environmental Operations (Underground Petroleum Storage Systems) Regulation

§ SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

Guidelines made under CLM Act:

§ Guidelines for the Vertical Mixing of Soil on Former Broad-acre Agricultural Land

§ Sampling Design Guidelines

§ Guidelines for Assessing Banana Plantation Sites

§ Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites

§ Guidelines for Assessing Former Orchards and Market Gardens

§ Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme, 2nd edition

§ Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Groundwater Contamination

§ Guidelines on the Duty to Report Contamination under the CLM Act

Relevant National Standards

§ National Environmental Protection Measures

§ Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality

Overview of Contaminated Land Planning and Legislative Framework effects

 

 

 

Contaminated Land Management Act 1997

Provide powers to the EPA to:

§ Regulate sites that are significantly contaminated (or assumed to be)

§ Issue orders to a public authority to carry out certain regulatory functions

§ Creates guidelines for the assessment and management of contaminated sites

§ Administer the NSW Site Auditor Scheme

§ Impose penalties and cost recovery actions

§ Duty of land owners to notify EPA of contamination

§ Offsets program that may allow those responsible for significant contamination to implement offsets to mitigate its impacts

Provides Site Auditors with:

§ Legal framework for undertaking statutory site audits

Requires local planning authorities to:

§ Provide advice in planning certificates made under section 149(2) of the EP&A Act that outline where a site has undergone EPA regulatory actions or site audits in accordance with the provisions of the CLM act.

Environmental Protection and Assessment Act 1979

Provides powers to Department of Planning and Environment to:

§ Develop environmental planning instruments such as State Environmental Planning Policies

Provides planning authorities with legal framework for:

§ Planning and development control process including

Developing Local Environmental Plans that are to be approved by the Minister

Developing and implementing Development Control Plans

§ Exemptions from liability for planning authorities if they are acting substantially in accordance with contaminated land planning guidelines and guidelines developed under provisions of CLM Act

§ Planning certificates for the recording and presenting of contaminated land information

§ Issuing orders that cease activities that do not align with conditions of a development consent

Protection of Environment Operations Act 1997

Provides planning authorities with legal framework for:

§ Issuing notices for the assessment and clean-up of contaminated lands and associated pollution issues

§ Regulation of waste materials

§ Prevent or prohibit certain land use activities that have the potential to  exacerbate or contribute to land contamination issues

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Lands

 

SEPP 55 sets out a state-wide planning approach to remediating lands. This SEPP:

§ Requires remediation works to be carried out in accordance with the contaminated land planning guidelines and other guidelines created under the CLM Act 

§ Specifies when consent is required for remediation works and remediation processes

§ Outlines contaminated land consideration relevant during planning processes

§ Specifics notices to be provided to Council when carrying out remediation works

 

Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines - SEPP 55 – Remediation of Lands

Provides local government with:

§ Outline of best practice contaminated land assessment, remediation and site management practices

§ Information on the Site Audit process and when they should be considered

§ Planning and land management decision making approaches and considerations

§ Approaches for recording and managing contaminated land information

§ Recommendations to develop a formal policy for dealing with contaminated land issues

§ List of land uses that have the potential to cause contamination

SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

This SEPP:

§ Overrides provisions of SEPP 55 and applicable LEP

§ Provides streamlined assessment processes for development that complies with specified development standards, including

Development that is considered exempt from planning approvals

Development that complies with the code and can be conducted in accordance with a complying development certificate without the need to planning approvals

 

National Environmental Protection Measures (NEPM)

Implemented in NSW under the National Environmental Council (NSW) Act 1995, the NEPM establishes national standard for:

§ Acceptable thresholds for contaminants in soil, air and water.

§ Processes and standards for assessing contaminated sites

§ Processes and standards monitoring ambient air quality

§ Standards for moving controlled waste materials

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D: Potentially Contaminating Land Uses

 

List of land use activities that may cause contamination (as identified in Table 1 of the Planning Guidelines).

 

Table 1. Some Activities that may Cause Contamination

§ acid/alkali plant and formulation

§ agricultural/horticultural activities

§ airports

§ asbestos production and disposal

§ chemicals manufacture and formulation

§ defence works

§ drum re-conditioning works

§ dry cleaning establishments

§ electrical manufacturing (transformers)

§ electroplating and heat treatment premises

§ engine works

§ explosives industry

§ gas works

§ iron and steel works

§ landfill sites

§ metal treatment

§ mining and extractive industries

§ oil production and storage

§ paint formulation and manufacture

§ pesticide manufacture and formulation

§ power stations

§ railway yards

§ scrap yards

§ service stations

§ sheep and cattle dips

§ smelting and refining

§ tanning and associated trades

§ waste storage and treatment

§ wood preservation

 

Note: It is not sufficient to rely solely on the contents of this Table to determine whether a site is likely to be contaminated or not. The Table is a guide only. A conclusive status can only be determined after a review of the site history and, if necessary, sampling and analysis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E: Relevant Contacts

 

<Insert Relevant Council Contact Details>

<Insert Relevant Stakeholder Contact Details>

 

NSW Environmental Protection Authority

Environmental Line Phone: 131 555 or 9995 5999

Email: info@environment.nsw.gov.au

 

MIDROC Contaminated Land Services

Phone: (02) 6655 7382 

Email: bhooper@bellingen.nsw.gov.au

WorkSafe NSW

Phone: 131 050

Email: contact@safework.nsw.gov.au

 

Health NSW –Public Health Unit

Phone: 1300 066 055

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

MIDROC Contaminated Land Policy and Policy Guidelines

 

Contaminated Land Policy Guidelines 
June 2016 


MIDROC
CONTAMINATED 
LAND PROGRAM

 

Healthy environments are an essential foundation for the development of healthy and thriving communities. The Mid North Coast Regional Organisation of Councils and its members are committed to protecting and restoring the quality of environments through informed planning decisions and the implementation of effective land management practices. In dealing with contaminated land matters a consistent regional approach will be followed when conducting Council’s functions for identifying, assessing and managing contamination for the benefit of the community and local environment.



,REGIONAL VISION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


These Contaminated Land Policy Guidelines have been produced for members of the Mid North Coast Regional Organisation of Councils (MIDROC) as part of the MIDROC Contaminated Land Program. This program has been assisted by the New South Wales Government through the NSW Environmental Protection Authorities (EPA) Contaminated Land Management Program under funding provided by the NSW Environmental Trust.

 

Produced by

MIDROC - Contaminated Land Services Division

PO Box 117

BELLINGEN, NSW 2454

 

Acknowledgments

Description: NSW-Government.jpgDescription: EPA-colour-medium-primaryDescription: OEH_ETlogoBW

FOREWORD

MIDROC recognises that the appropriate assessment and management of contaminated land matters is an important function of local government. The MIDROC Contaminated Land Program has been developed to provide MIDROC members with the technical training and resources needed to appropriately deal with land contamination matters.

This Model Contaminated Land Policy Guidelines (the ‘Policy Guidelines’) forms part of a suite of regional contaminated land management resources and tools. These guidelines explore acceptable local government planning, regulatory and land management processes that are to be observed by MIDROC member councils.

These Guidelines have been developed in consultation with council staff. This document is a proforma version of the Policy Guidelines and is to be reviewed and finalised by May 2017.

Inquiries on this document should be directed to:

Brendon Hooper

MIDROC Contaminated Land Program

PO Box 117

BELLINGEN, NSW 2454

Phone: (02) 6655 7382 

Fax: (02) 6655 2310

Email: bhooper@bellingen.nsw.gov.au

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL DISCLAIMER

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information in this publication, < Insert Council Name > disclaims any liability to any person in respect of anything done or not done as a result of the contents of these Policy Guidelines.

The Policy Guidelines should be read in conjunction with relevant legislation, guidelines and codes of practice. Where inconsistencies exist the most recent legislation should prevail.

These Policy Guidelines do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on. Legal advice should be sought in relation to particular circumstances, and liability will not be accepted by < Insert Council Name > for losses incurred or damage suffered as a result of reliance on these Policy Guidelines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS

1.   BACKGROUND

1

1.1.     What is Land Contamination?

1

1.2.     Purpose of the Policy Guidelines

1

1.3.     Scope of the Policy Guidelines

1

2.   LOCAL GOVERNMENT  ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2

2.1.     What is Land Contamination?

2

2.2.     Purpose of the Policy Guidelines

2

2.3.     Scope of the Policy Guidelines

3

2.4.     Management of public lands and assets

3

2.5.     Responsibilities to worker and the community health

3

3.   CONTAMINATED LAND MANAGEMENT STAKEHOLDER GROUPS

4

3.1.     NSW Environmental Protection Authority 

4

3.2.     SafeWork NSW

5

3.3.     Department of Primary Industry – Consider rewording

5

3.4.     Department of Planning and Environment

5

3.5.     NSW Health – Public Health Unit

5

3.6.     Community Stakeholders 

5

4.   COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PROCESS

6

4.1.     Development and Planning Approvals

6

4.2.     Conditions of Consent

7

4.3.     Councils exemption from liability 

8

5.   SITE ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIATION PROCESS

8

5.1.     Site investigation processes

8

5.2.     Site Remediation

9

5.3.     Initial Evaluation Process

11

5.4.     Preliminary Investigation Review Process

11

5.5.     Detailed Investigation Review Process

11

5.6.     Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Review Process

12

5.7.     Validation Report Review Process

12

5.8.     Ongoing Site Monitoring

12

6.   SITE AUDITS

13

6.1.     What is a Site Audit?

13

6.2.     Enacting a Site Audit

13

6.3.     Review of works by other suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner

14

7.   CONTAMINATED LAND PRACTITIONERS

14

7.1.     Contaminated land practitioners and accreditation standards

14

7.2.     Finding a suitable contaminated land practitioner

14

8.    REPORTING AND SUBMISSION STANDARDS

15

8.1.     Submitting contaminated land reports, plans and formal advice

15

8.2.     Cover Letters to accompany submissions

15

8.3.     Standards of information that can be accepted by Council from proponents?

15

9.    CONTAMINATED LAND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

16

9.1.     Recording and management of contaminated lands information

16

9.2.     Section 149 Planning Certificates

16

10.  PREVENTING CONTAMINATION

16

Appendix A: Abbreviations

 

Appendix B: Definitions

 

Appendix C: Legislation, Regulation, Policy and Guidelines Relevant to the Management of Contaminated Land Matters

 

Appendix E: Initial Evaluation Procedure

 

Appendix E: Preliminary Investigation Report Review Procedure

 

Appendix F: Detailed Investigation Report Review Procedure

 

 

 

Appendix G: Remedial Action Plan Review Procedure

 

Appendix H: Validation Report Review Procedure

 

Appendix I: Ongoing Monitoring Report Review Procedure

 

Appendix J: Standardised Section 149 (2) and (5) Entries

 

Appendix K: Standard Conditions of Consent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 December 2016

MIDROC Contaminated Land Policy and Policy Guidelines

 

1. BACKGROUND

1.1.     What is Land Contamination?

Land contamination is the condition where either directly or indirectly human activities have caused a substance to be incorporated into the landscape at concentrations that have the potential to harm human health or the environment. This is typically found on sites where hazardous substances have been used, stored or manufactured over prolonged periods of time such as those listed in Appendix C of the <insert Council name> Contaminated Land Policy (the ‘Policy’). Land contamination is often dynamic, changing over time, and can exist in vastly different forms depending on its source and setting. In many cases contamination and its effects can remain unnoticed within the landscape for long periods of time, and can have serious implications on a site’s ability to sustain healthy ecosystems and communities.    

The Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 (CLM Act) defines contamination of land as:

‘the presence in, on or under the land of a substance at a concentration above the concentration at which the substance is normally present in, on or under (respectively) land in the same locality, being a presence that presents a risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment.’

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 similarly defines contaminated land as:

‘land in, on or under which any substance is present at a concentration above the concentration at which the substance is normally present in, on or under (respectively) land in the same locality, being a presence that presents a risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment.’

The presence of contamination can often have significant economic, planning and legal implications for a site and how it is used. Where Council are aware of potential or known contaminated sites, relevant information will be stored within Council’s records.

Council should be informed of sites that are suspected or have the potential to be contaminated.

1.2.     Purpose of the Policy Guidelines

Land contamination has the potential to occur anywhere within the <inset Council name> local government area. To limit the potential impacts of land contamination on the community and environment, these guidelines outline a series of best practice processes for considering and dealing with land contamination matters when undertaking Council planning, regulatory and land management functions. This document has been developed to provide a practical framework for achieving the standards set out in the ‘Policy’ as well as to provide context to contaminated land matters.

The Policy Guidelines provide general information on:

·      Roles and responsibilities of local government in dealing with land contamination

·      Relevant stakeholder groups that are involved in managing contamination

·      Processes and standards to be followed when undertaking contaminated land investigations and site management actions

·      Considerations for Council in undertaking decision making processes in relation to land contamination

 

1.3.     Scope of the Policy Guidelines

The Policy Guidelines apply to all lands within the <insert Council Name> Local Government Area.

This document should be read in conjunction with the:

§ <Insert Council Name> Contaminated Land Policy

§ <Insert Council Name>  Asbestos Management Plan (if applicable)

§ <Insert other relevant documents that pertain to the identifications, assessment, remediation, transport or disposal of materials that may be contaminated>

§ Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines SEPP 55–Remediation of Land (SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines), with reference to Part 7A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act)

§ Other relevant legislation, guidelines and codes of practices listed in Appendix C.

This Policy covers information that is relevant to the following groups:

§ The general public 

§ Local Government staff

§ Property developers

§ Land managers

§ Contaminated land management practitioners.

 

2.   LOCAL GOVERNMENT  ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Councils play a variety of different roles in dealing with land contamination issues. This section of the Policy Guidelines provides an overview of the key duties and responsibilities of local government in carrying out their planning, regulatory and land/asset management functions in good faith.

2.1.     Reviewing contamination whilst undertaking planning and development control functions

Whilst executing planning and development control functions under the provisions of the EP&A Act, it is the duty of Council to consider the possibility that a previous land use or activity may have left the site in a contaminated state. The State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Lands (SEPP 55) requires that Council cannot approve a land use change or grant development consent unless it has considered whether contamination may be a factor at the site and, if so, is satisfied with respect to specified matters regarding the suitability of the land for the proposed development.

Clause 6 of SEPP 55 also has the effect of requiring Council to consider contamination before preparing a planning proposal that would have the effect of zoning or rezoning land.

The process used by Council to identify, assess and appropriately manage contamination when executing planning and development control functions is outlined in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Councils decision making process for land use changes

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2.     Regulatory responsibilities and tools

Council has regulatory responsibilities in relation to contamination under the following legislation, policies and standards in situations where council is the appropriate regulatory authority or planning authority:

•          Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 (NSW)

•          Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)

•          Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW)

•          Local Government Act 1993 (NSW)

•          Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW)

•          Protection of the Environment Operations (General) Regulation 2009 (NSW)

•          Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014 (NSW)

•          State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

•          State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

•          Demolition work code of practice 2015 (catalogue no. WC03841).

 

Additional legislation, policies and standards relating to the safe management of asbestos are listed in Appendix C of these guidelines or Appendix C of the Policy.

2.3.     Contaminated land information management

Keeping an accurate, reliable and up-to-date record of information on contaminated land matters can be a valuable resource for Council when performing planning and land management functions. In accordance with the requirements of the Policy, <insert Council name> will endeavour to maintain accurate information (i.e. reports, notices, correspondence), where practical, on known contaminated sites that have been formally identified in a Council or other contaminated land register, has been previously assessed for contamination or has undergone management actions. All such information provided to or produced by Council should be catalogued within the property files.

 

Sites that Council consider to have the potential of being contaminated but have not undergone a contaminated land assessment, are to be recorded as potentially contaminated in corresponding property files.  When undertaking future planning functions and/or land management activities at sites that have been identified as potentially contaminated, Council must ensure that appropriate assessments are performed to determine if contamination may be a factor at the site.

 

Information stored within council’s records in relation to contamination is to be readily available to the general public as advice and incorporated into Planning Certificates issued under Section 149 of the EP&A Act. More information on planning certificates and the correct presentation of information can be found in Section 9 of these Policy Guidelines.

2.4.     Management of public lands and assets

Councils are responsible for managing a diverse range of public lands and assets that have the potential to be impacted by contamination. Whilst performing land management duties Council shall consider the potential for contamination to be a factor at a site. If a site managed by Council is considered or found to be in a contaminated state then Council shall ensure that lands are appropriately assessed, remediated and managed in accordance with the requirements of these Policy Guidelines and relevant legislation, guidelines and standards (See Appendix C).

Note: In instances where Council intend to release or sell Council-owned or managed land, Council should consider whether an Initial Evaluation should be performed by an appropriate person in Council to identify if further site investigations are warranted. Where Council identifies or suspects that contamination is present on lands that it owns or manages and that contamination presents a risk of harm to people of the environment, potentially affected community users should be informed as soon as practicable.

2.5.     Responsibilities to staff and community health

Council are committed to promoting a safe and healthy working environment, ensuring that any risks of exposure to land contamination is appropriately considered and managed prior to undertaking operational works. This commitment is extended to ensuring that council operations for the management or contaminated lands do not unduly impact on the health of the environment or community.

Council are committed to complying with Work Health and Safety Act 2011, the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011, and applicable Standards, Guidelines and Codes of Practice. For further information please refer to <insert relevant Council WH&S Policy>

3.   CONTAMINATED LAND MANAGEMENT STAKEHOLDER GROUPS

The appropriate management of contaminated land issues can require interactions between a variety of different government agencies and stakeholder groups. This section provides an overview of various stakeholder groups, the scope of their responsibilities, and triggers for their engagement in contaminated land matters. 

3.1.     NSW Environmental Protection Authority 

Under the CLM Act the EPA is provided with powers to regulate contaminated land. In accordance with Under section 11 of the CLM Act, the EPA may declare land to be significantly contaminated land if the EPA has reason to believe that the land is contaminated and the contamination is significant enough to warrant regulation. The matters that the EPA must take into account before declaring land to be ‘significantly contaminated land’ are outlined in section 12 of the CLM Act. 

Under section 60 of the CLM Act a person whose activities have contaminated land and an owner of land that has been contaminated, has a duty to notify in circumstances specified in section 60, as soon as practicable after the person becomes aware of the contamination.

If the contamination is considered to not warrant regulation under the CLM Act then the EPA will inform Council of the matter and Council will deal with the issue under its regulatory, planning or land management functions.

Contaminated sites are primarily regulated by the EPA under the CLM Act through the following:

a)     Preliminary Investigation Order

Written order directing a person to conduct a preliminary investigation on a site to facilitate a better understanding of the nature and extent of contaminants, if present.

b)    Management Order

Written order directing a person to carry out management actions and to provide a suitable plan of management for addressing contamination at the site.

c)     Voluntary management proposal

Any person or company can put forward a voluntary management proposal to the EPA that outlines a plan for the management of significantly contaminated land. The EPA may approve the proposal with or without conditions.

d)    Ongoing Maintenance Order

Where land has been the subject of a management order or voluntary management proposal, the EPA can direct that a person undertake certain ongoing actions that may involve managing, monitoring or restricting land uses at a site, and report information back to the EPA.

The EPA may issue a preliminary investigation order or a management order on:

1. A person/s responsible for the contamination

2. The owner/s of the contaminated land

3. The notional owner/s of the contaminated land.

The EPA may also issue a preliminary investigation order or a management order to a public authority such as Council.

When issuing a management order the EPA must issue the order in accordance with the hierarchy set out above, unless it is not practicable to do so (e.g. if the person responsible for contamination is insolvent, the EPA can then issue the order on the owner of the land).

The EPA also administers the Site Auditor Scheme under Part 4 of the CLM Act. This scheme accredits industry practitioners with considerable experience and expertise as Site Auditors who are able to independently review the works of other contaminated land practitioners.

3.2.     SafeWork NSW

SafeWork NSW is the government regulatory body responsible for investigating workplace incidents and enforcing work health and safety laws. SafeWork NSW is to be notified of any instances where a worker has become ill or was exposed to hazardous substances whilst undertaking work duties, due to the presence of contaminants on a worksite. 

SafeWork NSW must be informed of all instances where Asbestos has become uncovered or disturbed in a workplace. Council owned or managed lands should be considered a workplace in instances where a Council worker or contractors are present on the lands for the purposes or performing their role.  

3.3.     Department of Primary Industry

The Department of Primary Industry (DPI) falls under a number of different divisions including:

§ Agriculture

§ Biosecurity 

§ Fisheries

§ Food Authority

§ Lands

If land contamination is or has the potential to interfere with the regulatory objectives of Department then Council should consider whether to inform the corresponding division of DPI. 

3.4.     Department of Planning and Environment

Some development types are declared to be State significant under section 89C of the EP&A Act due to factors including the size, economic value or potential impacts that they may incur. State significant development applications are assessed by the Department of Planning and Environment, not by local government.

In considering State significant development applications the Department will generally seek feedback from local government in regards to certain aspects of the development. If contamination is believed to be a factor at these sites then Council will need to ensure that appropriate information is passed on during this consultation process.

3.5.     NSW Health – Public Health Unit

The role of NSW Health Public Health Units are to identify, prevent and minimise health risk that may adversely affect the community. Where land contamination is having offsite impacts that have the potential to cause harm to human health (i.e. vapour, dust or subsurface plumes of toxic chemicals), the applicable Public Health Unit should be notified as early as possible to assist, where practical, in any investigations, deliberations, and planning for management responses.

3.6.     Community Stakeholders 

Council should notify the community of land contamination issues that it is aware of where the notification is considered to be within public interests. This could be due to potential harm that contamination may cause to human health or the environment. 

Community notification methods may include:

§ Warning signage

§ Public announcements

§ Informational publications distributed to the community.

 

4.   Council Planning and Development Control Process

 

4.1.     Development and Planning Approvals

Through the planning and development control functions performed by Council under the EP&A Act, Council plays an important role in assessing and managing land contamination issues. In all circumstances where a site is being considered for a planning proposal or development application Council must consider whether contamination may influence the suitability of the site for its proposed use. In instances where Council considers contamination has the potential to exist on a site due to Council having knowledge of a potentially contaminating land use having occurred on that site or Council otherwise having reasonable grounds for suspecting that the site may be contaminated, Council will require the proponent to undertake investigations to satisfy a certain standard of proof that the contamination does not make the site unsuitable for its approved or proposed uses, or can alternatively be made suitable through remedial actions.

Clause 6 of SEPP 55 has the effect of requiring the consideration of contamination before preparing a planning proposal that would have the effect of zoning or rezoning land. 

As outlined in the SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines the process for considering land contamination issues when assessing planning proposals are:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Clause 7(1) of SEPP 55 requires that land contamination be considered upon the receipt of a development application in respect of any land.  As outlined in the SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines the process for considering land contamination issues when assessing development applications are:

 

YES,NO,Remediation without consent,Remediation with consent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


4.2.     Conditions of Consent

Council may grant development consent subject to conditions that require certain actions in respect of contamination to be undertaken.  Such actions may be required to be undertaken prior to the issuing of a construction certificate. In instances where Council considers that contamination may potentially exist at a site, conditions of consent may be imposed that will require that appropriate site investigations and management actions be undertaken (process outlined in Figure 2 in section 5.2 below).

Through these measures Council must be satisfied that the site will be suitable for the purpose for which development is proposed to be carried out.  That is, that contamination at the site will not present an unacceptable risk of harm to human health and the environment. For further information on site investigation and management stages that may be included in conditions of consent see Sections 5 and 6.

A set of standard conditions of consent are provided in Appendix K: Standard Conditions of Consent. 

4.3.     Councils exemption from liability  

Under the provisions of Part 7A of the EP&A Act Council does not incur any liability for things done or omitted to be done in ‘good faith’ whilst performing planning functions specified in section 145B(2) of the EP&A Act, in so far as it relates to contaminated land (including the likelihood of land being contaminated land) or to the nature or extent of contamination of land. The specific planning functions that are afforded such protection are specified in section 145B(2) of the EP&A Act to include:

§ Preparing a planning proposal for a proposed environmental planning instrument

§ Preparing a development control plan

§ Processing and determining development applications

§ Modifying a development consent

§ Processing and determining applications for a complying development certificate

§ Furnishing advice in a certificate under section 149

§ Anything incidental or ancillary to carrying out planning functions listed above

Without limiting any other circumstance in which Council may have acted in ‘good faith’, Council are expressly taken to have acted in ‘good faith’ if the thing was done or omitted to be done by Council substantially in accordance with the SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines. 

Whether or not something done or omitted to be done by Council is ‘substantially in accordance with’ the SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines will not always be clear, particularly given that:

§ in places the SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines uses non-directive language such as ‘should’ or ‘may’;

§ as a guideline, the SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines are inherently not as prescriptive as legislative requirements; and

§ in section 1.1 of the SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines it states that: ‘Obviously they cannot provide a definitive answer in all cases, so planning authorities will also need to exercise their judgement’.

However, in section 1.4 of the SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines it states that: ‘Any significant departure from the Guidelines should be justified by demonstrating that the overall aims and principles have been met.’ 

Also, in Australians for Sustainable Development Inc v Minister for Planning [2011] NSWLEC 33, Biscoe J cautions that the following principle of statutory construction should be applied to the SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines: ‘legislative provisions that exempt government bodies from legal liability as a result of the exercise of statutory power should be narrowly construed and should not “be carried further than a jealous interpretation will allow”’.      

This means that where suggestive rather than directive language is used in the SEPP Planning Guidelines:

§ Council should be cautious in departing from the suggested actions; and

§ where it does choose to depart, Council should demonstrate that the overall aims and principles of the SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines will still be met (noting that the stated purpose of the SEPP Planning Guidelines ‘is to establish “best practice” for managing land contamination through the planning and development control process’).

 

5.   Site Assessment and Remediation Processes

 

5.1.     Site Assessment Process

The purpose of a site assessment during planning and development processes is to determine whether contamination at a site may be significant enough to warrant management actions to make the site suitable for its current or proposed uses, and whether sufficient information is available to carry out the planning function in ‘good faith’.

The SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines prescribes three key segments for site assessment in this context. These include:

a)     Initial Evaluation 

When considering all planning proposals or development applications an internal evaluation is undertaken by Council to identify whether Contamination has the potential to exist at a site, and whether further information is required from the proponent. See 5.3 for outline of process and considerations.

 

b)    Preliminary Investigation

A Preliminary Investigation is a site assessment undertaken by a contaminated land specialist on behalf of the proponent. These site assessments generally comprise a review of a sites land use history and characteristics to identify whether there are indications of contamination at a site and if further investigation is warranted. See 5.4 for outline of process and considerations.

 

c)     Detailed Investigation

This phase of investigation is also undertaken by a suitable contaminated land specialist on behalf of the proponent, to identify the nature, extent and level of contamination that may exist at the site.  Where contamination is considered likely to have occurred at a site the proponent may forgo the preliminary investigation phase and chose to just do a Detailed Investigation. See 5.5 for outline of processes and considerations.

 

5.2.     Site Remediation Process

Where contamination is found to make a site unsuitable for its current or proposed uses remediation works may be required to make the site suitable. Remediation works will often include a series of measures performed by suitably qualified practitioners to either isolate, ameliorate or remove contaminants from the site. Further information on finding a suitably qualified practitioner can be found in Section 7 of these Policy Guidelines.

Remediation Categories

SEPP 55 groups remediation works into two key categories;

-       category 1 remediation work is a remediation work that requires development consent

-       category 2 remediation work is a remediation work that does not require development consent, but which still must be notified to Council prior to the work commencing.

Category 1 Remediation Works

Clause 9 of SEPP 55 specifies the criteria for remediation work that is category 1 remediation work.  A summary of the types of remediation works that classify as a category 1 remediation work are provided in Section 5.13 of the Policy.

Category 2 Remediation Works

All remediation works that do not qualify as Category 1 remediation work are classified as Category 2 remediation work.  Category 2 remediation works do not require consent from a planning authority (see Clause 14 of SEPP 55 for further information and applicability). When undertaking Category 2 remediation works the proponent must, subject to limited exceptions, inform Council of their plans to perform the works at least 30 days prior to its commencement, and upon finishing the works a notice must be provided within 30 days of its conclusion. Further information on Notices that must be provided to Council for Category 2 remediation works can be located in Clause 16-18 of SEPP 55.

 

Figure 2: Contaminated Land Site Assessment Process used during the planning and development control process.

Initial Evaluation
Does Council suspect contamination of existing at the site? 
,Preliminary Investigation 
Does contamination have the potential to exist at the site?
,Detailed Investigation 
Do concentrations of contaminants at the site exceed acceptable levels for proposed land uses? 
,Where contamination is expected at a site the, the proponent may forgo the preliminary stage and go straight to a detailed investigation ,NO,YES,NO,Continue with normal planning processes ,YES,Remedial Action Plan 

,Site Validation 
Where a site has been fully remediated and validated Council should continue with normal planning functions
,Ongoing Monitoring 
Plan must be made to monitor the site. Land use restriction may be necessary. 
,Can the site be fully remediated? ,NO,YES,YES,NO 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


5.3.     Initial Evaluation Process

Prior to exercising all planning and development control functions Council will perform an Initial Evaluation of site contamination to identify whether contamination has the potential to exist at a site and if further more detailed site assessments may be warranted. During the Initial Evaluation process Council will perform an assessment of various forms of factual and reliable information that are readily available to it. This may include a review of:

§ Councils property files and land use records

§ Knowledge of staff and local residents

§ Factual evidence provided by the proponent (See 8.3 for further information)

§ Observable conditions of the site and its surroundings

Appendix D outlines the procedure that Council follow whilst performing an Initial Evaluation of contamination.

5.4.     Preliminary Investigation Review Process

Where an Initial Evaluation identifies that a site has the potential to be contaminated and Council considers that further information is required in order to carry out its planning functions in ‘good faith’, further site investigations are to be undertaken by the proponent to assess whether contamination may influence the suitability of current and proposed land uses at the site. A Preliminary Investigation is often referred to as a Phase 1 Site Investigation and examines a site’s existing conditions and land use history to determine whether contamination could exist and if a more comprehensive site investigation, including sampling, is warranted. This investigation stage must only be undertaken by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner (see Clause 5.11 of the Policy for practitioner standards).

A report on the findings of a Preliminary Investigation should include:

§ Appraisal of the site history to identify if the site has been used for contaminating land uses or activities

§ Potential contamination types that may exist at the site

§ Discussion on site conditions and characteristics

§ Preliminary assessment on whether site contamination does or could exist

§ Recommendations on whether further investigations are warranted

Appendix E outlines the procedure that Council follow whilst performing a review of the suitability of a Preliminary Investigation report.

5.5.     Detailed Investigation Review Process

Where contamination is known or considered by Council to likely exist at a site a Detailed Investigation is to be undertaken by the proponent to confirm the presence or absence of contamination. This level of site assessment involves the collection of samples from site soils, air/vapour, groundwater, and other water sources to identify the nature, type and extent of contamination at the site. Information gained from the findings of this investigation can form the basis for remedial actions at this site. This investigation stage must only be undertaken by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner as they are defined in the Policy.

A report on the findings of a Detailed Investigation will include:

§ Outline of sampling regime used at the site

§ Analysis of material sampling results against approved threshold levels

§ Summary of the type and extent of contamination found at the site

§ Risks posed by contaminants to human health or the environment

§ Offsite impacts (where applicable)

Appendix F outlines the procedure that Council follow when reviewing the suitability of a Detailed Investigation.

5.6.     Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Review Process

 

If the results of a site assessment indicate that the site poses a risk to human health or the environment if development is carried out for a purpose that is currently or proposed to be permitted on the site, then in determining whether to grant development consent or prepare or make a planning proposal, Council will impose a condition requiring that remediation works must be undertaken to make the site suitable for the proposed uses. Where remediation works are being performed at a site, a condition will require that a RAP must be prepared and implemented.

A RAP is a document that sets out clear strategies for the remediation of land in line with the findings of previous site investigations and any requirements for proposed land uses.  A RAP can only be developed by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner as they are defined in the Policy.

A RAP will include:

§ Identification of key stakeholders and responsibilities

§ Outline of remediation objectives that ensure land is left in a state that is suitable for proposed land uses

§ Review of remediation options and determination of preferred approach

§ Summary of all procedures and plans to be executed during the remediation processes

§ Establishment of validation program to be used to demonstrate successful completion of remedial works

§ Inclusion of all necessary statutory approvals and licences required to be obtained to carry out the remediation work

§ Protocol for managing unexpected findings

Appendix G outlines the procedure that Council will follow when reviewing the suitability of a RAP.

Where remediation involves the clean-up of Asbestos the <insert Asbestos Management Plan name> should be adhered to.

Note: Schedule B1 of the National Environmental Protection Measures (NEPM) specify concentrations of chemical substances that may exist in the landscape before an investigation is triggered.  Depending on the land use type these concentrations may differ, for instance arsenic may exist on residential sites at concentrations of up to 100ppm, whereas on commercial or industrial sites arsenic may be present at levels of up to 3000ppm. When remediating a site a contaminated land practitioner will typically aim to reduce the concentrations of relevant contaminants to concentrations below the NEPM levels.

Typically when assessing the suitability of a new land use, or when setting site remediation objectives, the contaminated land practitioner will aim to bring contaminant levels to below thresholds specified in the NEPM. However in some environments a practitioner may judge that due to the way a site is used levels can exceed what is outlined in the NEPM without placing undue risk on human health or the environment. In these circumstances Council must make sure that principals and reasoning behind variations are suitable. Land use restrictions may be considered for sites that have been granted adjusted thresholds, to limit future uses that may increase exposure.

 

 

5.7.     Validation Report Review Process

All remediation works must be validated to demonstrate that the RAP objectives have been achieved. During the site validation process, post-remediation sampling will be undertaken at the site, and the results analysed to statistically confirm remedial outcomes. In cases where the remediation objectives have not been achieved through the remedial actions performed at the site, the validation report will provide an overview of the reasons why and will propose additional site works that should be undertaken to achieve the original RAP objectives. Site validation can only be conducted by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner as they are defined in the Policy.

The validation report should also include information confirming that relevant licence conditions and approvals have been met. In particular, documentary evidence is needed to confirm that any disposal of contaminated materials off-site is done in accordance with the RAP and with law.

Appendix H outlines the procedure that Council follow when reviewing the suitability of a Validation Report.

5.8.     Ongoing Site Monitoring

Where it is not feasible to achieve a complete clean-up of a site, or contamination is managed through isolation and containment, an ongoing Site Monitoring Plan may be required to monitor the risks of contamination spreading or impacting upon the site.

Ongoing monitoring plans should include:

§ Proposed monitoring strategies

§ Parameters to be monitored

§ Monitoring Locations

§ Frequency of monitoring

§ Reporting requirements.

Appendix I outlines the procedure that Council follow when reviewing the suitability of a Site Monitoring Plan.

5.9.     Site Management Plans

 A Site Management Plan (SMP) is required when contamination is to remain on site. The SMP should be developed in consultation with Council to determine that it can be reasonably complied with and enforced. It should make provisions for Council to carry out checks of relevant compliance.

Further information of the use and need for an SMP can be found in section 3.4.6 Environmental management plans in the Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme (2nd edition) (DEC NSW 2006).

Council may charge a fee for inspections or other services in relation to the monitoring of compliance of the SMP in accordance with provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

Any SMP should be provided to Council along with any other report that recommends such a plan. The existence of an SMP that has been provided to Council will be noted on s149 planning certificates and included in relevant Council records.

Where there is an SMP, and where Council is able to do so, a standard condition of consent will require the registration of a covenant on title requiring compliance with the SMP. This shall be a standard condition of consent for all development applications and Category 1 remediation where there is an SMP. It is a requirement relating to the conduct of Category 2 remediation under this policy.

Council will endeavour to have any SMP that Council is aware of, or relating to a consent condition predating this policy, registered on title by the land owner or relevant party.

{this may be by explaining to the owner the benefits of registering on title (eg the ability to limit the current owner's exposure to future liability if remediation measures are not maintained) or through a development consent condition on a subsequent DA where the SMP has been considered during assessment of the DA under SEPP 55}

6.   Site Assessment and Remediation Processes

 

6.1.     What is a Site Audit?

The EPA administered Site Auditor Scheme has been developed to improve access to competent technical advice and increase certainty in the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites. Accredited Site Auditors are able to independently review any or all stages of the site investigation process, remediation and validation works performed by contaminated land practitioners to ensure that they meet relevant legislation and guidelines. Council will request a site audit by an accredited Site Auditor in all circumstances where Clause 5.10 of the Policy applies. 

The key products of a site audit are a site audit statement and site audit report. The site audit statement is the written opinion of a Site Auditor on the essential findings of the audit. Depending on the kind of site audit statement that is sought, this may include a statement on the suitability of a practitioner’s works and whether a site is appropriate for its current or proposed uses. A site audit report forms the basis of the site audit statement and is a comprehensive report outlining all of the site auditor’s assessments, rationale, and conclusions.

Site audits can be classified as either statutory or non-statutory. In cases where a site audit is required by Council or another government agency as a condition of development consent or as a requirement imposed by or under an Act, the site audit is considered statutory. Where a proponent chooses to undertake a site audit without a legal requirement to do so, (eg. at the request of a developer on a consultants work) the site audit is considered non-statutory. For all statutory site audits, or where a site audit statement is required, an accredited Site Auditor must be used. Where a non-statutory site audit has been undertaken a copy of the site audit report must be provided to Council upon request.   

A site audit statement must be provided to Council in all instances where a statutory site audit has been performed.

6.2.     Enacting a Site Audit

Where Council determine that a site audit is necessary the proponent will be provided with an official notice from Council stating that a site audit must be undertaken in accordance with Section 5.10 of the Policy. This notice will provide the audits scope, rationale of why it is being requested, and if applicable the timeframe that it is to be commissioned within by the proponent.

Alternatively, in certain circumstances Council may grant development consent with conditions of consent outlining a requirement that a site auditor be engaged to review any or all stages of the contaminated land site assessment and remediation process.

A list of accredited Site Auditors is provided on the EPA’s Site Auditor Webpage.

 

6.3.     Review of Works by Other Suitably Qualified Contaminated Land Practitioner

In some instances a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner may be used to independently review and verify a practitioner’s works. These reviews may only be undertaken in place of a site audit where a statutory site audit is not required.

Council may request this review at any stage during the assessment, remediation or validation process where a contaminated land practitioner’s work needs to be confirmed.

Where Council identify that a practitioner used by the proponent does not adhere to Section 5.11 of Policy ‘Contaminated Land Practitioner Standards’, an independent review may be undertaken by another suitably qualified practitioner to validate works that have been performed.

7.   Contaminated Land Practitioners

 

7.1.     Contaminated land practitioners and accreditation standards

Contaminated land practitioners are specialist professionals that have competencies and skills in assessing and managing contamination issues. As contaminated sites can exist in diverse variety forms and at varying levels of technical complexity it is essential that the practitioner has the appropriate competencies needed to undertake the works. No one practitioner should be considered suitable for every job in this field and practitioners should be chosen with care. Section 5.11 of the Policy provides an outline of practitioner qualification standards required by <insert Council name>.

To promote sound industry practice various EPA supported professional accreditation schemes have been developed over recent years to distinguish ethically and professionally competent contaminated land practitioners. These schemes require members to have high standards of experience, tertiary qualifications and sustained regime of professional development to stay up to date with changes within the industry. In accordance with Section 5.11 of the Policy all contaminated land practitioners performing work for Council’s consideration must be accredited under an EPA supported professional accreditation scheme as of 1 April 2018. 

Professional accreditation schemes currently include:

§ Site Contamination Practitioners Australia (SCPA)

Practitioner must have a degree in the field, at least 5 years of experience in the specific area of works, and 50hrs per year of professional development

§ Contaminated Land Assessment Specialist - Certified Environmental Practitioners (CEnvP)

Practitioner must have a degree in the field, three industry references, 10 years of full time professional experience in the field over the past 15 years, be classified as an ethical practitioner, and committed to ongoing training.

7.2.     Finding a suitable contaminated land practitioner

To find suitable practitioners the following method may be used:

§ Conduct an online search for contaminated land practitioners in your area or region

Search term ‘contaminated land consultant’ – (insert area name); or

Search term ‘Occupational Hygienist’  for matters involving asbestos or clan labs – (insert area name)

§ Conduct a search of the yellow pages for environmental consultants

§ Contact professional association for details on suitable members. Associations include:

Australian Contaminated Land Association

Australian Institute of Geoscientists

Australasian Land and Groundwater Association

Australian Society of Soil Science

Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand

International Association of Hydrogeologists (Australian Chapter)

Consult Australia

Engineers Australia

§ Refer to SCPA and CEnvP webpage for list of practitioners accredited under these schemes

§ Consult other entities, or people who may have undergone similar works

§ Undertake an expression of interest.

 

8.   Reporting and Submission Standards

 

8.1.     Submitting contaminated land reports, plans and formal advice

All contaminated land reports, plans or formal advice provided to Council for consideration when undertaking planning, land management and regulatory functions, must adhere to the processes and standards of these Policy Guidelines, as well as the:

§ <insert Council name> Contaminated Land Policy

§ SEPP 55 Remediation of Lands

§ SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines

§ EPA Guidelines for  Reporting on Contaminated Sites

§ Other key Legislation, Regulation, Policy and Guidelines (see Appendix C).

All contaminated land reports provided to Council must not have liability exclusions that prevent Council from relying on the information provided for carrying out its functions including maintaining and sharing information in accordance with the Policy or the Policy Guidelines.

Reports provided to Council should contain factual information and avoid subjective opinion, language or analysis that has the potential to mislead Council or a third party to whom the report may be disclosed under s149(5) of the EP&A Act.

8.2.     Cover letters to accompany submissions

In accordance with Section 5.12 of the Policy all submissions provided to Council must be accompanied by a cover letter providing the contact details, relatable experience and professional references of the contaminated land practitioners who undertook the works. All submissions that are not accompanied by an appropriate cover letter will be refused by Council.

8.3.     Standards of information that can be accepted by Council from proponents?

Council will only accept information or evidence provided by a proponent that is considered factual and reliable. This may include:

§ Formal reports, plans or statements undertaken by a contaminated land practitioner at the site, current or historic.

§ Official correspondence between proponent and NSW government agencies regarding contamination or absence thereof at the site.

§ A statutory declaration from a reliable source that has direct and extensive knowledge of the site’s history.

§ Site images, topographic maps and other illustrative evidence that can be accurately dated.

 

9.    Contaminated Land Information Management

 

9.1.     Recording and management of contaminated lands information

Information kept by local government on land contamination can be an important resource for Council when performing planning, land management and regulatory activities, to ensure that Council identifies and responds to contamination at the earliest possible instance. To ensure the effectiveness of these records Council strive to maintain accurate, reliable and up-to date information on potential and known sites, in accordance with the MIDROC Contaminated Land Information Management Strategy 2016 and the Policy. A list of the types of information that Council will retain in its information system are outlined in Clause 5.14 of the Policy.  

9.2.     Section 149 Planning Certificates

Section 149 Planning Certificates are documents issued under Section 149 of the EP&A Act that contain information in relation to a property’s zoning, planning controls and restrictions on development.

Council is obliged to provide certain information on the Section 149 Planning Certificate as specified in Schedule 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (NSW) and section 59 of the CLM Act. That is:

a)     clause 7, Schedule 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (NSW) requires that the certificate identify whether or not the land is affected by any policy (adopted by Council or by a public authority for the express purpose of its adoption being referred to in Section 149 Planning Certificates issued by Council) that restricts the development of land because of the likelihood of any risk; and 

b)    section 59 of the CLM Act requires that the certificate address the specific matters relating to the management of contaminated land set out in that section.

Contaminated land information kept by Council shall be provided in s149 Planning Certificates requested pursuant to section 149(2) and section 149(5) of the EP&A Act in accordance with the standards outlined in Section 5.14.1 of the Policy.

Appendix J provides a set of standard Section 149 planning certificate notations that Council may use.

10. Preventing Contamination

Measures to prevent contamination at its source can help to reduce future contamination and the need for remedial actions. Once contamination has been detected, environmental damage may have occurred and clean-up bills could be high. Therefore, future economic consequences of contamination play a part in the current motivation for prevention.

A pro-active approach which ensures that the potential for contamination is reduced or that it does not occur must be linked to the nature of an activity on a particular site. Contamination of land may often be associated with new developments involving potentially contaminating activities. Such activities may result in accidental releases of chemicals to land which in turn will render the land contaminated. When assessing the suitability of a land use change Council will consider the following:

1.     Does the proposal include a land use where a hazardous substance will be applied, stored, handled or disposed of on the site?

2.     Can the land use or process be altered to eliminate the potential for land contamination to develop?

3.     Are the management controls and responsibilities outlined in sufficient detail in the proposal and are they appropriate?

4.     Is an Environmental Management Plan required?

5.     For development applications, are appropriate conditions of consent able to be imposed to ensure potentially contaminating land uses are being monitored and managed over time?

 


 

Appendix A: Abbreviations

ANZECC

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

CLM Act

Contaminated Land Management Act 1997

DA

Development Application

DCP

Development Control Plan

DP&E

Department of Planning & Environment

EPA

Environment Protection Authority

EP&A Act

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

ESD

Ecological Sustainable Development

LEP

Local Environment Plan

NEHF

National Environmental Health Forum

POEO Act

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

RAP

Remedial Action Plan

SEPP 55

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

Table 1

Table 1 - Some Activities that May Cause Contamination

UST

Underground Storage Tanks

UPSS

Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B: Definitions

Category 1 remediation work 

has the same meaning as in SEPP55, and is remediation work that needs development consent

Category 2 remediation work

has the same meaning as in SEPP55, and is remediation work that does not need development consent

CLM Act

means the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 (NSW) as amended from time to time.

Contamination of land

depending on the context:

has the same meaning as in section 5(1) of the CLM Act, being the presence in, on or under the land of a substance at a concentration above that normally present in, on or under the land in the same locality, being a presence that presents a risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment, and “Contaminate” and “Contaminated” are to be construed accordingly.  The words “land”, “harm” and “environment” are defined as in the CLM Act.

OR

has the same meaning as in section 145A of the EP&A Act, being  land in, on or under which any substance is present at a concentration above the concentration at which the substance is normally present in, on or under (respectively) land in the same locality, being a presence that presents a risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment.  The words “land” and “environment” are defined as in the EP&A Act.

Detailed investigation

means an investigation to define the extent and degree of contamination, to assess potential risk posed by contaminants to health and the environment, and to obtain sufficient information for the development of a remedial action plan if required.

EP&A Act

means the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1997 (NSW) as amended from time to time.

Independent review

means an evaluation by an independent expert required by a planning authority of any information submitted by a proponent, conducted at the proponent’s expense.

Initial evaluation

means an assessment of readily available factual information to determine whether contamination may be an issue relevant to the decision being made.

Preliminary investigation order

means a preliminary investigation order issued by the EPA under s 10 of the CLM Act to investigate whether specified land is Contaminated, and the nature and extent of any such Contamination.

Notice of completion

means a notice to the Council (or Minister for Planning where the Minister is the consent authority) in accordance with SEPP 55 that remediation work has been completed.

Notification of remediation

means prior notice of a category 2 remediation work given to the Council in accordance with SEPP 55.

Planning authority

means a public authority or other person responsible for exercising a planning function.

Planning Certificate

means a planning certificate issued under s149 of the EP&A Act.

Planning function

means a function exercised by the Council as a planning authority under the EP&A Act, including the functions listed in s145B EP&A Act such as the preparation or making of an environmental planning instrument and the determination of a development application.

Preliminary investigation

means an investigation to identify any past or present potentially contaminating activities and to provide a preliminary assessment of any site contamination.

Remedial Action Plan

means a plan which sets remediation goals and documents the process to remediate a site.

Management Order

means a management order issued by the EPA under section 14 of the CLM Act, requiring the carrying out of specified actions in relation to the management of contaminated land (including remediation).

Significantly Contaminated Land

means a site declared by the EPA under section 11 of the CLM  Act to be significantly contaminated land.

Remediation 

has the same meaning as in the CLM Act and includes:

(a)  preparing a long-term management plan (if any) for the land;

(b)  removing, dispersing, destroying, reducing, mitigating or containing the contamination of the land; and

(c)   eliminating or reducing any hazard arising from the contamination of the land (including by preventing the entry of persons or animals on the land).

SEPP 55

means the State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

Site audit

has the same meaning as in the CLM Act, being a review:

(a)  that relates to management (whether under this Act or otherwise) of the actual or possible contamination of land; and

(b)  that is conducted for the purpose of determining any one or more of the following matters:

i.      the nature and extent of any contamination of the land,

ii.     the nature and extent of any management of actual or possible contamination of the land,

iii.    whether the land is suitable for any specified use or range of uses,

iv.   what management remains necessary before the land is suitable for any specified use or range of uses,

v.    the suitability and appropriateness of a plan of management, long-term management plan or a voluntary management proposal.

Site auditor

has the same meaning as in the CLM Act, being a person accredited by the EPA under the CLM Act to conduct site audits.

Site audit statement

means a site audit statement issued by a site auditor in accordance with Part 4 of the CLM Act.

Site audit report

means a report prepared by a site auditor containing the key information and the basis of consideration which leads to the issue of a site audit statement.

Site history

means a land use history of a site which identifies activities or land uses which may have contaminated the site, establishes the geographical location of particular processes within the site, and determines the approximate time periods over which these activities took place. See (Edwards et al 1994)

Site investigation process

means the process of investigating land which may be, or is, contaminated, for the purpose of providing information to a planning authority.

Validation

means the process of determining whether the objectives for remediation and any conditions of development consent in relation to the remediation have been achieved.

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Legislation, Regulation, Policy and Guidelines Relevant to the Management of Contaminated Land Matters

 

Acts

§ Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

§ Contaminated Land Management Act 1997

§ Protection of Environmental Operations Act 1997

§ Local Government Act 1993

§ NSW Health and Safety Act 2011

 

Regulation

§ Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

§ Protection of the Environment Operations (General) Regulation 2009

§ Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014

§ Protection of the Environment Operations (Clean Air) Regulation 2010

§ Protection of the Environment Operations (Underground Petroleum Storage Systems) Regulation 2014

§ NSW Health and Safety Regulation 2011

Policy

§ State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

§ State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Planning Guidelines 1998

§ State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

 

Others

§ <Insert Councils LEP>

§ <Insert Councils DCP>

§ EPA guidelines

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E: Initial Evaluation Procedure

The process that Council employs to undertake an Initial Evaluation should include:

1.      Review of previous contaminated land investigations

a.     Are Council aware of previous contaminated land investigations undertaken at the site? This may include site investigations undertaken outside of the planning and development process that have been provided to Council as part of the planning applications. 

i.  No – Go to question 2

ii. Yes – Go to 1b

b.     Were the investigations undertaken by a suitably qualified contaminated land specialist?

i.  No – Investigation and its findings should be considered as not suitable to base planning decisions.

If contamination was identified during the assessment then further investigation is warranted and conditions of consent must be put in the determination requiring further investigation of contamination at the site. 

If no contamination was found then go to question 2.

ii. Yes – Go to 1c

c.     Did the investigation find contamination that has the potential to make the site unsuitable for its proposed uses?

i.  No – Go to question 1d

ii. Yes – Conditions of consent must be put in the determination requiring further investigation of contamination at the site.

d.     Are Council aware of land use activities that have been undertaken at the site since the investigation that have the potential to cause contamination (eg. storage, dumping, manufacturing or application of hazardous substances? See Appendix D of the Policy for a list of contaminating land uses)?

i.  No – Go to question 2

ii. Yes - Conditions of consent must be put in the determination requiring further investigation of contamination at the site.

2.      Review of Council land use records

a.     Are there thorough records kept by Council on the site’s previous land uses?

i.  No – Conditions of consent must be put in the determination requiring further investigation of contamination at the site.

ii. Yes – Go to question 2b.

b.     Has the site been used for a potentially contaminating land use? See Appendix D of the Policy for list of potentially contaminating land uses.

i.  No – Go to question 3

ii. Yes - Conditions of consent must be put in the determination requiring further investigation of contamination at the site.

3.      Consideration of zoning

a.     Was the site ever zoned for industrial, agricultural or defence purposes?

i.  No – Go to question 4

ii. Yes – Conditions of consent must be put in the determination requiring further investigation of contamination at the site.

4.   Current use of land in and around the site

a.     Is the site currently used for an activity or land use that is listed in Appendix D of the Policy?

i.  No – Go to question 4b

ii. Yes – Conditions of consent must be put in the determination requiring further investigation of contamination at the site.

b.     Is there an Underground Petroleum Storage System within 50m of the site?

i.  No – Go to question 4c

ii. Yes – Conditions of consent must be put in the determination requiring further investigation of contamination at the site.

c.     Is the land neighbouring the site used for land uses listed in Appendix D of the Policy

i.  No – Go to question 5

ii. Yes – A visual site inspection should be undertaken at the site to identify whether contamination sources have the potential to impact upon the site. See site inspection checklist for further information.

iii.      Where the reviewer is unsure or considers contamination to be present appropriate conditions of consent must be put in the determination requiring further investigation of contamination at the site.

5.   Regulations on land uses or activities at the site

a.     Are Council aware of any current or past land uses restrictions placed on the site due to the presence of contamination? This may include sites that have been restricted for use by the EPA or other government agencies?

i.  No – Go to question 6

ii. Yes – Council should contact the relevant government agency to discuss the suitability of the planning proposal or development application. 

Conditions of consent must be put in the determination requiring further investigation of contamination at the site.

6.   Site inspection to identify potential land contamination matters at a site

a.     A visual site inspection should be undertaken by Council where:

i.  Information provided by a proponent about the presence or absence of contamination is able to be confirmed by a visual inspection.

ii. The site is used for a land use type that may be associated with the application, storage and handling of hazardous substances.

iii.      Unapproved development has taken place, to review whether certain contaminating activities have taken place (eg use of uncertified fill materials, unapproved removal of asbestos structures, releases of hazardous materials on site).

iv.      Pathways exist between contamination on surrounding lands and the site.

v. All other instances where Council suspect contamination may be a factor at a site

b.     Where a site contains observable indicators of contamination or is seen to be used for activities that have the potential cause contamination, then appropriate conditions of consent must be put in the determination requiring further investigation of contamination at the site.

If after carrying out an initial evaluation of a site there is no indications that the site may be contaminated then the planning process is to proceed in the normal way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E: Preliminary Investigation Report Review Procedure

When reviewing a Preliminary Investigation Report Council should follow the below process:

1.     Was the investigation and report undertaken/overseen by an appropriate Contaminated Land Practitioner in accordance with the requirements of the <insert Council name> Policy?

a.     No - Report is to be disregarded.

The proponent may choose to have the investigation and report independently reviewed and verified by a suitably qualified Contaminated Land Practitioner or accredited Site Auditor. Council will accept reports that have been independently reviewed and verified.

b.     Yes - Go to question 2

2.     Review of site history

a.     Does the report include

§ A section on site history

§ Verifiable information that was gained from reliable sources

§ Detailed information on land uses that is clear and comprehensive

i.  No – The report is to be refused. The proponent may request that the contaminated land practitioner make updates in line with Council’s comments.

ii. Yes – Go to question 3

3.     Review of Site characteristics

a.     Does this report include

§ Information on a sites current conditions and settings

§ Geological and hydrological characteristics of the site

§ Assessment of surrounding environment

§ Outline of material sampling results if undertaken

i.    No – The report is to be refused. The proponent may request that the contaminated land practitioner make updates in line with Council’s comments.

ii.   Yes – Go to question 4

4.     Conclusion and recommendations

a.     Does this report include

§ Summary of the findings of the investigation

§ Statement of limitations and uncertainties

§ Clear statement on the conclusion of the investigation

§ Recommendations section stating further works that should be undertaken, if applicable

i.      No – The report is to be refused. The proponent may request that the contaminated land practitioner make updates in line with Council’s comments.

ii.     Yes – Report should be accepted by Council.

Further information on the scope and type of information that should be provided in a preliminary investigation can be found in the EPA Guidelines for Reporting on Contaminated Sites as well as in the SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines.

 

 

 

Appendix F: Detailed Investigation Report Review Procedure

When reviewing a Detailed Investigation Report Council should follow the below process:

1.     Was the investigation and report undertaken/overseen by an appropriate Contaminated Land Practitioner in accordance with the requirements of the <insert Council name> Policy?

a.     No - Report is to be disregarded.

The proponent may choose to have the investigation and report independently reviewed and verified by a suitably qualified Contaminated Land Practitioner or accredited Site Auditor. Council will accept reports that have been independently reviewed and verified.

b.     Yes - Go to question 2

2.     Responds to issues raised in preliminary investigation (if one was undertaken)

a.     No – The report is to be refused. The proponent may request that the contaminated land practitioner make updates in line with Council’s comments.

b.     Yes – Go to question 3

3.     If no preliminary investigation was undertaken does the report include:

a.     Detailed information on the location, conditions and characteristics of the site

b.     Information on the sites history and past land uses including contamination sources and potential types

i.  No – The report is to be refused. The proponent may request that the contaminated land practitioner make updates in line with Council’s comments.

ii. Yes – Go to question 4

4.     Site sampling and analysis processes

a.     Does the report include

§  Sampling, analysis and data quality objectives

§  Rationale behind sampling regime used at the site

§  Detailed description of sample collection methods used by practitioner

i.  No – The report is to be refused. The proponent may request that the contaminated land practitioner make updates in line with Council’s comments.

ii. Yes – Go to question 5

5.     Analysis of contamination and recommendations

a.     Does this report include

§ Review of field and laboratory qualify assurance and qualify control data against set data quality objectives

§ Summary of results outlining the type, extent and level of contamination present

§ Descriptions of risks that the contamination poses to human health and the environment

§ Clear statement on whether a RAP is required

i. No – The report is to be refused. The proponent may request that the contaminated land practitioner make updates in line with Council’s comments.

iii.   Yes – Report should be accepted by Council.

Further information on the scope and type of information that should be provided in a detailed investigation can be found in the EPA Guidelines for Reporting on Contaminated Sites as well as in the SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines.

 

Appendix G: Remedial Action Plan Review Procedure

When reviewing a RAP Council should follow the below process:

1.   Was the RAP prepared by an appropriate Contaminated Land Practitioner in accordance with the requirements of the <insert Council name> Policy?

b.     No - RAP is to be disregarded.

The proponent may choose to have the RAP independently reviewed and verified by a suitably qualified Contaminated Land Practitioner or accredited Site Auditor. Council will accept RAP’s that have been independently reviewed and verified.

c.     Yes - Go to question 2

2.   Does the RAP include the following information:

a.   Remediation goals

b.   Outline of the extent of remediation required

c.    Discussion of possible remedial options and how risk can be reduced

d.   Rationale for the selection of recommended remedial option

e.   Proposed testing to validate the site after remediation

f.    Contingency plan if the selected remedial strategy fails

g.   Interim site management plan (before remediation), including e.g. fencing, erection of warning signs, stormwater diversion

h.   Site management plan (operation phase):

i.    Site stormwater management plan

ii.   Soil management plan

iii.  Noise control plan

iv.   Dust control plan, including wheel wash (where applicable)

v.    Odour control plan

vi.   Occupational health and safety plan

i.    Remediation schedule

j.    Hours of operation

k.    Contingency plans to respond to site incidents, to obviate potential effects on surrounding environment and community

l.    Identification of regulatory compliance requirements such as licences and approvals

m.  Names and phone numbers of appropriate personnel to contact during remediation

n.   Community relations plans, where applicable

o.   Staged progress reporting, where appropriate

p.   Long-term site management plan.

b.     No – The report is to be refused. The proponent may request that the contaminated land practitioner make updates in line with Council’s comments.

c.     Yes – RAP should be accepted by Council.

Further information on the scope and type of information that should be provided in a RAP can be found in the EPA Guidelines for Reporting on Contaminated Sites as well as in the SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines.

 

 

 

Appendix H: Validation Report Review Procedure

When reviewing a Validation Report Council should follow the below process:

1.      Was the Validation assessment and report undertaken/overseen by an appropriate Contaminated Land Practitioner in accordance with the requirements of the <insert Council name> Policy?

b.     No - Report is to be disregarded.

The proponent may choose to have the investigation and report independently reviewed and verified by a suitably qualified Contaminated Land Practitioner or accredited Site Auditor. Council will accept reports that have been independently reviewed and verified.

c.     Yes - Go to question 2

2.      Does the Validation report include the following:

§ An appropriate rationale and justification for the validation strategy

§ Validation sampling and analysis plan

§ Statistical confirmation that the remediated site complies with the clean-up criteria set for the site (if achieved)

§ Where the targets have not been achieved, reasons for such failure must be stated and additional site work should be proposed that will achieve the original objectives (if further remediation is practical)

§ Verification of compliance with regulatory requirements including a copy of all licences, approvals and development consents that apply

§ Provision of a clear statement on the suitability of a site proposed site use

a.     No - Report is to be disregarded.

The proponent may choose to have the investigation and report independently reviewed and verified by a suitably qualified Contaminated Land Practitioner or accredited Site Auditor. Council will accept reports that have been independently reviewed and verified.

b.     Yes – The validation report should be accepted by Council. As required under SEPP 55 a notice of completion should be provided to Council stating that remediation works have been completed.

 

Further information on the scope and type of information that should be provided in a validation report can be found in the EPA Guidelines for Reporting on Contaminated Sites as well as in the SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I: Ongoing Monitoring Report Review Procedure

When reviewing an Ongoing Monitoring Report Council should follow the below process:

1.     Was the Validation assessment and report undertaken/overseen by an appropriate Contaminated Land Practitioner in accordance with the requirements of the <insert Council name> Policy?

d.     No - Report is to be disregarded.

The proponent may choose to have the investigation and report independently reviewed and verified by a suitably qualified Contaminated Land Practitioner or accredited Site Auditor. Council will accept reports that have been independently reviewed and verified.

e.     Yes - Go to question 2

2.     Are Council satisfied that further remediation works are not practical at the site?

a.     No – Council should consider having a Site Auditor or other suitably qualified Contaminated Land Practitioner to review merits of this plan.

b.     Yes - Go to question 3

3.     Does the report include the following information:

§ Monitoring strategy

§ Parameters to be monitored

§ Monitoring locations

§ Frequency of monitoring

§ Reporting requirements

a.     No – Report is to be disregarded

The proponent may choose to have the investigation and report independently reviewed and verified by a suitably qualified Contaminated Land Practitioner or accredited Site Auditor. Council will accept reports that have been independently reviewed and verified.

b.     Yes - Go to question 4

4.     Does Council consider the monitoring program to be adequate?

a.     No – Report is to be disregarded

The proponent may choose to have the investigation and report independently reviewed and verified by a suitably qualified Contaminated Land Practitioner or accredited Site Auditor. Council will accept reports that have been independently reviewed and verified.

c.     Yes – The Ongoing Monitoring Report should be accepted by Council.

Further information on the scope and type of information that should be provided in an ongoing monitoring report can be found in the EPA Guidelines for Reporting on Contaminated Sites as well as in the SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J: Section 149 Planning Certificate Standard Notations

This Appendix provides information that council may add to a Planning Certificates issued under Section 149(2) and 149(5) of the EP&A Act. 

Section 149(2) Planning Certificates

In accordance with the This Policy recommends that wherever relevant the following standard notation should be added to 149(2) Planning Certificates:

1.     Where Council has received a Site Audit Statement that relates to the land

‘Council has received a Site Audit Statement that relates to the land.’

2.     Where the site has not been regulated by the CLM Act

‘The land to which this certificate relates is not presently subject to regulation under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.’

3.     Where the site has been declared significantly contaminated under the CLM Act

‘The land to which this certificate relates is significantly contaminated land under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.’

4.     Where the site is subject to a management order under the CLM Act

‘The land to which this certificate relates is subject to a management order under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.’

5.     Where the land is subject to a voluntary management proposal under the CLM Act

‘The land to which this certificate relates is subject to an approved voluntary management proposal under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.’

6.     Where the land is subject to an ongoing maintenance order under the CLM Act

‘The land to which this certificate relates is subject to an ongoing maintenance order under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.’

7.     Where the land has been, but is no longer declared  significantly contaminated under the CLM Act

‘The land to which this certificate relates was, but is no longer significantly contaminated land under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.’

8.     Where the land has been, but is no longer subject to a  management order under the CLM Act

‘The land to which this certificate relates was, but is no longer subject to a management order under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.’

9.     Where the land has been, but is no longer subject to a voluntary management proposal under the CLM Act

‘The land to which this certificate relates was, but is no longer subject to an approved voluntary management proposal under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.’

10.  Where the land has been, but is no longer subject to an ongoing maintenance order under the CLM Act

‘The land to which this certificate relates was, but is no longer subject to an ongoing maintenance order under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.’

Section 149(5) Planning Certificates

This Policy recommends that wherever relevant the following standard notation should be added to 149(5) Planning Certificates:

‘Council are aware that the lands to which this certificate relates is or has the potential to be affected by land contaminated. Contact Council for further information.’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix K: Standard Conditions of Consent

This Appendix provides a set of standard conditions of consent that council may consider using in development consents

Development Applications for contaminated sites

Request for information:

‘Prior to determination of development application if additional information is required, one or more of the following may be relevant.’

Site History

‘A review of the historical land uses of the site is requested to ensure that any activities that have the potential to cause land contamination are identified. Council requests that this information be forwarded with a statutory declaration by any person furnishing relevant information declaring that the information is true and complete to the best of their knowledge.

Where a potentially contaminating activity is identified, a relevant contaminated site investigation will be required and shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s Contaminated Land Policy, the Managing Land Contamination Planning Guideline (1998), relevant EPA Guidelines and the Assessment of Site Contamination NEPM (1999 as amended 2013). Please note the requirements specified in Council’s policy for consultants reporting and for Site Audits.’

Preliminary investigations

A preliminary contaminated site investigation is required to be submitted prior to further assessment of DA Number/year. The preliminary investigation shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s Contaminated Land Policy, the Managing Land Contamination Planning Guideline (1998), relevant EPA Guidelines and the Assessment of Site Contamination NEPM (1999 as amended 2013). Please note the requirements specified in Council’s policy for consultants reporting and for Site Audits.

Detailed investigations

‘A detailed contaminated site investigation is required to be submitted prior to further assessment of DA Number/year. The detail Investigation shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s Contaminated Land Policy, the Managing Land Contamination Planning Guideline (1998), relevant EPA Guidelines and the Assessment of Site Contamination NEPM (1999 as amended 2013). Please note the requirements specified in Council’s policy for consultants reporting and for Site Audits.’

Recommended Condition where development will destroy evidence of potential contamination in an area of the site:

‘Prior to any works commencing on the site a photographic survey and oral history of the use of the land may be required is to be submitted to Council for its records.&#