NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 14 September 2017

 

LATE AGENDA                                                                                        Page

 

           

  

5        Notices of Motion

5.2     Notice of Motion - Macksville Aquatic Centre..................................................................... 2  

9        General Manager Report

9.11   Review of Section 64 and 94 Developer Contributions - Late Report Responding to Further Submissions.................................................................................................................... 3    


  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                           14 September 2017

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.2      SF2303            140917         Notice of Motion - Macksville Aquatic Centre

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Janine Reed, Councillor         

 

Summary:

 

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council agree to take advantage of the consultant's visit to Macksville tomorrow to have them inspect the Macksville Aquatic Centre in order to develop a concept plan for the enhancement of the area and that such enhancements include consideration to heating the swimming pool, grandstand seating, storage, a development room and any other options which may assist in supporting economic benefits.

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.        


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                           14 September 2017

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.11    DA2016/010      140917         Review of Section 64 and 94 Developer Contributions - Late Report Responding to Further Submissions

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Daniel Walsh, Manager Development and Environment; Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

It is not considered that a summary is necessary.

 

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        That Mr McEvoy be provided with an opportunity to provide whatever information he may possess to support the substantial commencement of the 2005 and 2006 consents applying to his land, following which the Council obtain legal advice as to whether or not the development consents issued in 2005 and 2006 for the subdivision of Mr McEvoy’s land have lapsed for want of substantial commencement.

 

2        Following the receipt of legal advice that the matter be reported back to Council.

 

3        That in reviewing the Section 64 developer contributions as part of the Integrated Water Cycle Management Strategy and related financial plans, consideration be given to abandoning the “grandfathering” arrangement for consents pre 2012 if a reasonable reduction in contributions can be achieved.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are a range of options depending upon the weight Council wishes to attach to a number of considerations.

 

Firstly there is a likelihood that the 2005 and 2006 consents applying to Mr McEvoy’s land had lapsed for want of substantial commencement when he lodged an application in 2016 to rationalise the previous approvals in a single consent for a 45 lot subdivision.  Therefore Council has a reasonable legal position not to consider providing any contribution offsets.  This may mean that the proposed subdivision does not proceed and if so reduces competition in the provision of residential land stock in Macksville which will potentially put upward pressure on prices and slow take up rates.  However if the subdivision does proceed Council will benefit from an additional $648,344.54 in contribution revenue.  It also reduces the risk of other property owners adjoining the Macksville Heights Estate from seeking similar consideration.

 

Secondly the Council could extend the grandfathering arrangements for only Section 64 contributions to Mr McEvoy which would mean a financial “benefit” of $7,171 per lot and foregoing $308,353 in Section 64 contribution revenue.  In support of this option is the fact that Council has not previously entered into any “grandfathering” arrangements for Section 94 contributions.  They have only been agreed for Section 64 developer contributions for water and sewerage for consents pre-dating 2012.  This also assists in managing risk from other property owners adjoining the Macksville Heights Estate from seeking similar consideration.

 

Thirdly the Council can reduce both Section 64 and 94 developer contributions payable by Mr McEvoy so that they are no greater than those payable under previous development consents for the Macksville Heights Estate.  This means a financial “benefit” to Mr McEvoy of $15,077 per lot and Council foregoing Section 64 and Section 94 contribution revenue of $648,344.  This option may be viewed as the “fairest” in terms of the developers’ obligations.  It is also the option most likely to result in the greatest amount of economic development.  Conversely it is the option whereby Council receives the least developer contributions and is exposed to the greatest risk in terms of other adjoining property owners seeking similar consideration.

 

The fourth and recommended option is that Council obtain legal advice as to whether or not the 2005 and 2006 development consents applying to Mr McEvoy’s land have lapsed.  This legal advice should be obtained after Mr McEvoy has been given the opportunity to supply whatever information he has to support substantial commencement of the 2005 and 2006 consents.  Given that the difference in the contested contributions now amount to $648,344 Council would be better placed to determine or negotiate an outcome if it had some assurance of its legal standing.  Following the receipt of legal advice the matter would need to come back to Council as consideration should still be given to the equity, economic and precedent considerations referred to in the other options.

 

There are a number of factors which have contributed to the “equity” issue with developer contributions. 

 

Firstly the grandfathering of Section 64 contributions has resulted in developers of adjoining land facing different contribution regimes.

 

Secondly the Council has issued development consents for significant subdivisions without any time limit which means that contribution regimes can and do change substantially in the decades it takes to complete the subdivisions.

 

The third factor which has brought the issue forward is obviously the current, robust property market which has seen an escalation of interest in subdivision and property development generally.  In terms of economic development the opportunities of a robust property market should be maximised whilst the good conditions prevail.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Item 9.6 of the business paper contains a report outlining a review of the section 64 (water and sewerage) developer contribution charges on an approved 45 lot subdivision (DA2016/010) as requested by the owner Mr Steve McEvoy and by Council at its meeting on 31 August 2017. The report only addressed section 64 contributions due to the specifications of Councils resolution.

 

However, Mr McEvoy has made subsequent representations to Council staff and the Mayor requesting that the section 94 contributions also be reviewed as he believes that there is an inequity in the amount of section 94 contributions which he would need to pay compared to the adjoining Macksville Heights Estate development.

 

This report therefore updates and supersedes the recommendation listed in Item 9.6.

 

As reported previously, Mr McEvoy purchased land that was the subject of three (3) separate development consents issued in 2005 and 2006.  There is a likelihood that these consents had lapsed for want of substantial commencement when he lodged an application in 2016 to rationalise the previous approvals in a single consent for a 45 lot subdivision.

 

The Macksville Heights Estate which is the adjoining subdivision is comprised of nine (9) separate development consents, being five (5) from 2006, two (2) from 2007, one (1) from 2008 and one (1) from 2012.

 

The following is a breakdown of the section 64 and 94 contributions payable per lot as part of DA2016/010 and the existing nine development consents within the Macksville Heights Estate in accordance with Councils 2017/18 fees and charges:

 

Contribution Plan

DA2016/010

Macksville Heights Estate

Community Facilities and Open Space (s94)

$1,747.00 (due to plan being amended in 2008 & 2015)

$2,536.00

Surf Life Saving Equipment (s94)

$116.00

$116.00

Upper Warrell Creek Overbridge (s94)

$562.00

$562.00

South Macksville Roadwork’s (s94)

N/A (plan deleted as superseded by Upper Warrell Creek Rd Plan)

$1,048.00 (Area 2)

Local Roads & Traffic Infrastructure (s94)

$4,034.00

N/A (plan commenced in 2013)

Upper Warrell Creek Road (s94)

$4,836.00 (Area 1)

N/A

Administration Charge (s94)

$1,129.50

$255.72

Water Supply (s64)

$12,974.00

$5,241.00

Sewerage (s64)

$7,292.00

$7,854.00

Total Developer Contributions

 

Section 94 - $12,424.50

Section 64 - $20,266.00

Overall - $32,690.50 per lot

Section 94 - $4,517.72

Section 64 - $13,095.00

Overall - $17,612.72 per lot

 

As can be seen above, Mr McEvoy is required to pay an additional $15,077.78 per lot more than the neighbouring Macksville Heights Estate.

 

Please note that there is an error in the report within item 9.6 as Council will be forgoing $648,344.54 in contribution revenue should it agree to the above recommendation (i.e. 43 lots x $15,077.78).

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Not applicable.

 

Social

 

These are discussed in the report.

 

Economic

 

These are discussed in the report.

 

Risk

 

The risks of the various options are discussed in the report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

At this stage there is no budgetary impact.  The cost of obtaining legal advice can be met from an existing budget provision.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no service level implications.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.