Agenda of General Purpose Committee

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

General Purpose Committee - 18 January 2012

AGENDA Page

1 APOLOGIES

2 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

3 Director Environment and Planning Report

9.1 Macksville Cemetery Boundary Fence - Hodge Street Frontage

4 Director Engineering Services Report

10.1 Drainage Design Standards

10.2 Rural Fire Service draft “BID” 2012-2013

10.3 Policy - Asset Protection Zone (APZ) for Privately Developed Land

Time	Description	Where OS/CC	Item No	Page
08.30 - 9.30	Rural Fire Service ‘Bid’ 2012-2013 RFS Budget Presentation	CC	10.2	13
9.30 – 10.00	Policy – Asset Protection Zone	CC	10.3	28
10.00 – 10.15	Morning Tea	CC
10.30 – 11.00	Macksville Cemetery Boundary Fence Hodge Street	O/S	9.1	4
11.30	Storm water intensity definitions (ex Seaview street report) also site visit Nambucca Flood Investigation – Phase 2 Seaview Street, Nambucca Heads Inspect Unauthorised Earthworks at Main Beach Closed report to Council's Meeting 19 January 2012	O/S O/S	10.1	6
12.30 noon	Lunch and Close

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

Name of Meeting:
Meeting Date:
Item/Report Number:
Item/Report Title:

I		declare the following interest:
(name)

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

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

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

For the reason that




Signed			Date

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

Council’s Facsimile Number – (02) 6568 2201

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

Definitions

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

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

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Purpose Committee 18 January 2012

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.1 SF46 180112 macksville cemetery boundary fence - hodge street frontage

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Greg Meyers, Director Environment and Planning

Summary:

Following some vandalism of graves in the Macksville Cemetery in 2011 and subsequent letters to Council, quotations were sought for the erection of a boundary fence along the Hodge Street frontage of the Macksville Cemetery.

A quotation was sought utilising 1.5m high chain wire (green PVC coated) type fence and a second quote to include one strand of barbed wire atop of the chain wire.

Council considered a budget variation at its December 2011 Council meeting when considering the September Budget review. Council resolved to defer the decision until it inspected the site at the January 2012 General Purpose Committee Meeting due to its concern about barbed wire being included.

Recommendation:

That Council determine whether it wishes to include 1 strand of barbed wire above the 1.5m high chain wire (green PVC coated) boundary fence along the Hodge Street frontage.

OPTIONS:

Council could choose to erect the fence with or without the barbed wire.

Council could also choose to erect an alternative type of fence.

DISCUSSION:

Vandalism of graves and headstones in the Macksville Cemetery in 2011 generated formal written representations from family members of the affected graves and headstones.

A quotation was sought utilising 1.5m high chain wire (green PVC coated) type fence and a second quote to include one strand of barbed wire atop of the chain wire.

The installation of a fence will stop the cemetery from being a thoroughfare and restrict access to the Wallace Street frontage which provides for a better form of local visual surveillance.

Council sought to undertake a site inspection prior to deciding whether or not to include barbed wire atop of the chain wire fence as barbed wire is generally avoided in urban areas.

CONSULTATION:

General Manager

Manager Health and Building Services

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

The topography of the site adjacent to Hodge Street would not provide any significant loss of visual amenity.

Social

The erection of the fence will provide a barrier to restrict access however, it is not considered that this would have any social impacts.

Economic

The cost of the fence would be an addition to the budget.

Risk

Whilst there are no guarantees that the erection of the fence will stop vandalism from occurring it is considered that it will reduce the risk.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

The cost of the fence will have a direct impact on General Fund. Future maintenance costs will have to be managed through the annual cemetery operations budget.

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

A supplementary vote is required in General Fund.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

General Purpose Committee 18 January 2012

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.1 SF593 180112 Drainage Design Standards

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Keith Williams, Manager Technical Services

Summary:

At its General Purpose Committee meeting of 14 December 2011 Council deferred the adoption of drainage design standards pending a site inspection of the Seaview Street drainage catchment area at the January GPC meeting to visualise the varying catchment sizes in relation ARI Intensity.

Recommendation:

That Council adopt a drainage design standard in accordance with AUS-SPEC#1 Design Specifications September 2002 for future urban developments as follows:

· Major system in all developments 1 in 100 yr ARI

· Main trunk drainage systems (Minor) 1 in 20 yr ARI

· Commercial/industrial area (Minor) 1 in 20 yr ARI

· Inter-allotment drainage 1 in 20 yr ARI

· Rural residential area (Minor) 1 in 5 yr ARI

· Urban Residential Areas (Minor) 1 in 5 yr ARI

· Parks and recreation area (Minor) 1 in 1 yr ARI

· In addition, where a development is designed in such a way that the major system flows involve surcharge across private property, then the underground system (both pipes and inlets) shall be designed to permit flows into and contain flows having an ARI of 100 years from the upstream catchment which would otherwise flow across the property.’

OPTIONS:

Adopt the drainage design standard in accordance with AUS-SPEC#1 Design Specifications September 2002 for future urban developments.

DISCUSSION:

Council deferred the adoption of drainage design standards pending a site inspection of the Seaview Street drainage catchment area to visualise the varying catchment sizes in relation ARI Intensity The report presented to the General Purpose Committee meeting of 14 December 2011 is attached.

The adoption of the standards is consistent with that of other Local Government Councils on the mid North Coast and consistent with the Australian Rainfall and Runoff guidelines.

CONSULTATION:

Director Engineering Services

Manager Civil Works

GHD Consultants

Planning staff.

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

There are no implications for the environment.

Social

There are no social implications.

Economic

There are economic implications associated with potential increased developer costs for drainage compliance requirements in new developments.

Risk

There is no risk associated with adopting the drainage design standards.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

There is no impact on the current budget.

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

Not applicable

Attachments

Report presented to the December GPC meeting

Attachments:

1 View

32511/2011 - Report to GPC 14/12/11 - Nambucca Flood Investigation – Phase 2 Seaview Street, Nambucca Heads

General Purpose Committee - 18 January 2012

Drainage Design Standards

OPTIONS:

i Accept the definitions

ii Ask for more information

DISCUSSION:

At its General Purpose Committee meeting of 16 November 2011 council were presented with a report Nambucca Flood Investigation – Phase 2 Seaview Street, with a number of recommendations for consideration. All other recommendations were adopted with the exception of:

That Council adopt a drainage design standard in accordance with the Australian Rainfall and Runoff (AR&R) and AUS-SPEC#1 Design Specifications September 2002 for future urban developments as follows:

100 years for the ‘major’ system in all developments

20 or 50 years for intensely developed business, commercial and

industrial areas

10 years for other businesses, commercial and industrial areas and

intensely developed residential areas

5 years for other residential areas and open spaces

In addition, where a development is designed in such a way that the

major system flows involve surcharge across private property, then

the underground system (both pipes and inlets) shall be designed to

permit flows into and contain flows having an ARI of 100 years from

the upstream catchment which would otherwise flow across the

property.

Council sought further clarification of a certain terms and categories used in the original recommendation, and a further report was presented to council 17 November 2011 with definitions of terms used, this report was subsequently deferred.

This report now provides the required definitions of terms and categories used in the recommendation for council’s information.

Background

The main purpose of urban drainage systems is to collect and convey stormwater to receiving waters, with minimal nuisance, danger or damage while limiting pollutants entering the receiving waters.

The road and trunk drainage system is typically used to convey water collected in gully pits along the roads as well as overflows to the receiving waters. It consists of a network of pipes, overland flow paths and natural and constructed channels. The care, control and management of this system is the responsibility of Council so any work performed on it may only be carried out with Council’s knowledge and approval.

Definition Major/minor system

Streets are normally drained by networks of gutters, pits and pipes. Runoff is collected from properties and adjoining streets, as well as road surfaces and discharged to trunk drains and receiving waters.

The major/minor approach to urban drainage design is the adopted standard for councils in Australia as outlined in Australian Rainfall and Runoff.

Minor system

The minor system is defined as the gutter and pipe network capable of carrying runoff and nuisance flows from minor storms of a 1 to 5 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI). The pipelines prevent stormwater damage to properties and also limit the frequency and quantity of surface water to a level that is acceptable to the community.

Major system

A major drainage system caters for the runoff from storms of higher intensity than for which the minor drainage system has been designed. The major drainage system is designed to handle flows resulting from rare storm events up to and including a 100-year ARI. These flows shall follow a designated overland flow path, which shall be:

• A road if the catchment area is small; and/or

• A drainage reserve if it is impractical or unsafe for a road to carry the excess flows.

See attached sketch of the major/minor stormwater drainage system.

Definition Trunk Drainage

Trunk drains are large capacity channel or conduits which carry runoff from local street drainage systems to receiving waters. They are typically natural or artificial channels located in dedicated drainage easements or right of way.

Design Rainfalls

The Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) and the Annual Exceedance Probability(AEP) are both a measure of the rarity of a rainfall event.

Relationship between ARI and AEP

The relationship is defined by the following formula:

AEP = 1 – exp(-1/ARI)

The 1% AEP and the 100 year ARI events are effectively the same magnitude, and can be used interchangeably, however as you get to ARI's below 10 years, the AEP and ARI events start to differ as is shown in the table below:

ARI (years)	AEP (%)
1	63.2%
2	39.3%
5	18.1%
10	9.5%
20	4.9%
50	2%
100	1%

ARI's of greater than 10 years are closely approximated by the reciprocal of the AEP.

Average Recurrence Interval (ARI)

Current Australian practise is to use the design average recurrence interval (ARI) values for street drainage systems.

Average recurrence interval is the likelihood of occurrence, expressed in terms of the long-term average number of years, between flood events as large as or larger than the design flood event. It should be noted that, a rainfall (or flood) ARI of 100 years does not imply the event will only occur every 100 years; it is also feasible that the event will occur five times in five successive years and not occur for another 495 years.

Annual Exeedance Probability (AEP)

The annual exceedance probability is the probability of exceedance of a given event within a period of one year.

The 100-year flood is more accurately referred to as the 1% annual exceedance probability flood, since it is a flood that has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any single year. Similarly, a flood level expected to be equaled or exceeded every 10 years on average is known as a ten-year flood.

Delete - Intensely developed business, commercial and industrial areas and Intensely developed residential areas

Australian Rainfall and Runoff (AR&R) uses the term “Intensely developed” for its adopted average recurrence intervals for underground drainage systems. In the report of presented to the General Purpose Committee 16 November 2011 It was recommended that council adopt the AR&R design ARI standards. However council does not have zones identified as intensely developed.

To prevent any ambiguity of the use of the term it is proposed to delete the wording intensely developed and adopt the standard used throughout NSW Auspec # 1 Design Specifications September 2002 for future urban developments as follows:

· Major system in all developments 1 in 100 yr ARI

· Main trunk drainage systems (Minor) 1 in 20 yr ARI

· Commercial/industrial area (Minor) 1 in 20 yr ARI

· Inter-allotment drainage 1 in 20 yr ARI

· Rural residential area (Minor) 1 in 5 yr ARI

· Urban Residential Areas (Minor) 1 in 5 yr ARI

· Parks and recreation area (Minor) 1 in 1 yr ARI

In addition, where a development is designed in such a way that the major system flows involve surcharge across private property, then the underground system (both pipes and inlets) shall be designed to permit flows into and contain flows having an ARI of 100 years from the upstream catchment which would otherwise flow across the property.’

CONSULTATION:

Council

Director Engineering Services

Manager Civil Works

GHD Consultants

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

The recommendations do not give rise to any environmental issues.

Social

The recommendations do not give rise to any social issues.

Economic

No items identified.

Risk

There is no risk associated with adopting the determination.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

No impact on current or future budgets

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

Not applicable

General Purpose Committee 18 January 2012

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.2 SF84 180112 Rural Fire Service draft “BID” 2012-2013

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Paul Gallagher, Director Engineering Services

Summary:

The Rural Fire Service Acting Area Manager for the Lower North Coast Zone has been invited to address Council at the January General Purpose Committee meeting to present the Rural Fire Service “BID” for 2012/13. The draft BID for 2012/13 is $248,432.27 and is provided in Attachment A and does not include state program charges.

The 2011/12 contribution (including program charges) which was reported to Council in December 2011 is $276,130.13 and is provided in Attachment B.

Recommendation:

1 That Council receive a presentation from the Rural Fire Service Acting Area Manager for the Lower North Coast Zone on the proposed 2012/13 Rural Fire Service “BID”.

2 That Council endorse the Rural Fire Service “BID” for 2012/13 financial year.

3 That Council write to the Commissioner for the Rural Fire Service and advise that the 2012/13 Rural Fire Service “BID” of $248,432.27 has been endorsed by Council as presented by the acting Zone Manager at Council’s January General Purpose Committee meeting held on 18 January 2012 and that Council will not endorse any further increases to the draft bid as presented.

4 That Council write to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and the Deputy Premier, the Hon Andrew Stoner MP, advising that Council has endorsed the Rural Fire Service “BID” for 2012/13 to $248,432.27 and seek their support to ensure that there are no further increases to the enclosed Rural Fire Service “BID” for 2012/13.

OPTIONS:

Consider the presentation and determine whether to accept the proposed RFS budget

DISCUSSION:

A Liaison Committee was held on Tuesday 13 December 2011 to consider the draft 2012/13 BID for Kempsey and Nambucca Shire Councils. The draft “BID” is now being provided to Council for consideration Attachment A. The provision of the proposed 2012/13 budget from the Acting Zone Manager is not in accordance with Clause 8 of the Service Agreement.

The District Service Agreement requires an estimate of probable expenditure for the District for the next financial year (“THE BID”) is prepared by the Zone Manager and supplied to the Committee for consideration and then presented to Council:

CLAUSE 8 FINANCE of the District Service Agreement defines the following;

8.1 The Council will, in consultation with the Commissioner, by no later than 30 September of each year, submit to the Commissioner an estimate of probable expenditure for the District for the next financial year (“THE BID”)

8.2 Following consultation with the Councils, the Commissioner will by no later than the 28th February of each year submit to Councils

a) A probable allocation of expenditure for the District for the next financial year( the probable allocation) and

b) A probable contribution by the Councils to the NSW Rural Fire Fighting Fund (“the Fund”).

However, appropriate changes have now been implemented to ensure that future budgets will be brought back onto the correct timetable and provided to Council for consideration.

Summary of the RFS 2012/13 “BID”

· The draft BID for 2012/13 is $248,432.27 however the Acting Zone Manager advised the Liaison committee that at the time of preparation of the “BID” he had not been provided with an estimate of the program charges from the state. Past history indicates an amount of around $40,000.00

· The transfer of the responsibility for payment of the insurance for the RFS red fleet resulted the removal of the budget item from Councils fleet insurance premium of $19631.37 (incl.GST) however there is an increase within the Insurance line item of the RFS “BID” of $25,264.00 for the red fleet

· The line item within the RFS budget titled “Program Charges is an amount of $1,199.357.00 for the Nambucca Shire Council. Attachment C “Other Support”(TRIM 33136/2011)

· Council is being charged and amount of $61,778.00 for the Government Radio Network (GRN) which is not assessed outside of the Sydney area

· Hazard reduction being the core function is $25,000.00

· The draft “BID” does not include any proposed plant replacement. Whilst plant is aging, the use of the appliances is minimal and in the event that there was an event, plant and equipment would be sought from other regions.

CONSULTATION:

General Manager

Rural Fire Service

Liaison Committee

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

There are no implications for the environment.

Social

There are no social implications.

Economic

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

Risk

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

The draft “BID” does not include any proposed plant replacement. Whilst plant is aging, the use of the appliances is minimal and in the event that there was an event, plant and equipment would be sought from other regions.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

The 2011/12 budget incorporated the RFS contribution based on advice of the RFS Area Acting Manager for the Lower North Coast Zone at the April GPC meeting originally set at $235,282.51, however Council staff anticipated a continuation of the unwarranted increase in contributions and allocated $184,000.00 in the 2011/12 budget.

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

There is no variation anticipated to working funds for this financial year

Attachments:

1 View	35291/2011 - Attachment A - RFS Proposed Budget 2012-2013
2 View	33161/2011 - Attachment B - RFS Budget 2011-12
3 View	33136/2011 - Attachment C - RFS Estimates - Other Support

General Purpose Committee 18 January 2012

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.3 SF1031 180112 Policy - Asset Protection Zone (APZ) for Privately Developed Land

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Paul Gallagher, Director Engineering Services

Summary:

Council resolved to place the draft policy “Bushfire Buffers on Public Lands” on public exhibition for a period of 28 days seeking public comment, with a further report to be provided to Council at the completion of the public exhibition period.

The draft policy was placed on public exhibition in accordance with Council’s resolution with written submissions encouraged up until 4.00 pm on Thursday 22 December 2011. There were no submissions received on the draft policy “Bushfire Buffers on Public Lands” at the close of the public exhibition period.

Council further resolved that a report be provided to Council following the public exhibition period and that the report identify the number of existing developed properties negatively impacted by the Asset Protection Zone (APZ) and the number which will be negatively impacted by this Policy. Further, that the report is to also suggest ways of dealing with the problem.

Recommendation:

That Council adopt the Policy “Bushfire Buffers on Public Land”.

OPTIONS:

· Consider, receive and note the presentation and determine whether to adopt the policy.

DISCUSSION:

Following the resolution of Council, the Draft Policy was amended before it was placed on public exhibition to include:

· Any proposal to allow clearing of bush from public land for the purposes of establishing an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) for private development must be advertised for public comment

· Clear justification must be provided to Council for consideration. for any proposed APZ on public land.

Council further resolved that a report be provided to Council following the public exhibition period and that the report identify the number of existing developed properties negatively impacted by the APZ and the number which will be negatively impacted by this Policy. Further, that the report is to also suggest ways of dealing with the problem.

NEW DEVELOPMENT- land that can be potentially subdivided

The draft policy was initially developed to ensure that the liability of maintaining an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) associated with the private development on land in bush fire prone areas is the responsibility of the developer/or successive owners of the land and not transferred to Council or other authority by allowing the use of public land/reserves as an APZ.

Private developers in an effort to reduce the size of the bushfire buffer on their development site have sought to include adjacent public land in the required buffer. Whilst the applicant/developer may agree to carryout the initial clearing to meet the APZ requirements, there is no guarantee that they or successive owners will continue long term maintenance of the APZ. Council in allowing use of public land as a buffer zone will by default inherit the long term maintenance commitment to mow and keep the buffer satisfactory at a cost to the public. In doing so, Council will also accept the liability for the standard of maintenance and fire hazard mitigation.

In order to indicate the land that can be potentially subdivided, a power point presentation will be provided to Council by the Geographical Information System (GIS) staff at the GPC. Coloured maps are circularised for Councillors in the interim. The maps provided depict potential land that could be subdivided in accordance with the conditions of Council’s LEP and are lands adjacent to Council and Crown reserves, State forest and National parks.

It is difficult to identify the actual number of existing developed properties that would be negatively impacted by an APZ and the number which will be negatively impacted by this policy without physically inspecting each parcel of land. Each development must be dealt with on its own merit and not only depend upon geographic location and site circumstances but also on the nature of the proposed use. The legal framework distinguishes between:

• Residential and rural-residential subdivision

• Special Fire Protection Purposes

• Infill (and other developments).

Parcels of land adjacent to State Forest and National Parks will automatically be required to have an APZ on their own site unless there is a perimeter road or fire trail, therefore Council will be considering development adjacent to Council and Crown reserves.

EXISTING INFILL – vacant land without dwellings

Conversely it is also difficult to identify the number of existing undeveloped properties or vacant land without constructed dwellings that would be negatively impacted by an APZ and the number which will be negatively impacted by this policy without physically inspecting each parcel of land. A power point presentation of Council’s GIS aerial maps will be provided to depict potential vacant land.

The draft policy was orientated at new development to ensure that the liability of maintaining an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) remained with the private developer or land owner after purchase and not transferred to Council in bush fire prone areas.

Each development application must be dealt with on its own merit and with respect to consent conditions. Where a property owner has purchased land adjacent to a vegetated reserve on the premise of building a dwelling, they may find that they will need to comply with the requirements in Planning for Bush fire Protection 2006 Housing development on bush fire prone land will normally require the implementation of a set back distance from a vegetated reserve which is referred to as an asset protection zone. This has a direct impact on the footprint of the building entitlement.

DEALING WITH EXISTING INFILL – vacant land without dwellings

Each development must be dealt with on its own merit at the time of the development application. Where the building footprint is adversely effected attributed to the requirement of an APZ within an existing infill adjacent to a vegetated reserve, there are construction options available with the consideration of the building design, ingress and egress and construction standards.

There are potential options available to council to facilitate consideration under exceptional circumstances

These would comprise of:

· In some circumstances, an APZ may consist of an existing area maintained by Council or other private property owners which minimise the fuel loads, these areas may comprise of a combination of perimeter roads (subdivision) fire trails and managed lands so that a fire path is not created between the hazard and the building.

· By having a covenant created and placed on the land title ensuring the maintenance of the APZ is placed on the property owner. Whilst removing the possible liability of future maintenance from Council, this method is fraught with further risk liabilities to Council by allowing private parties performing work on a Council asset, and the actual enforcement of the clearing of the APZ.

An APZ can not be offset to neighbouring land unless exceptional circumstances apply. The owner of vacant land cannot clear vegetation on a neighbour’s property or on lands administered/owned by National Parks, the Crown or under the management of Council without written consent from the owner. Where the footprint is adversely effected on an infill parcel of land (vacant land without an existing dwelling) and it can be demonstrated that there are exceptional circumstances, Council has the option of allowing land under its care and control to be used as an APZ under the amendment made to the Draft Policy before it was placed on public exhibition as follows:

· Any proposal to allow clearing of bush from public land for the purposes of establishing an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) for private development must be advertised for public comment, and

· Clear justification must be provided to Council for consideration. for any proposed APZ on public land.

CONSULTATION:

Director Environment and Planning

Rural Fire Service.

Manager Technical Services

Town Planner

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

The bush fire risk management planning process involves identifying and analysing assets within the community and establishing their level of risk. An asset is defined as “anything that is valued by the community” In developing an APZ for fire mitigation. “Environmental assets” such as threatened species, vulnerable species and locally important flora and fauna must be taken into account before any work is considered.

Social

There is a social impact emanating from a bush fire event with the loss of physical assets. Potential loss of human life or on areas of Aboriginal or European historical or cultural significance.

Economic

There is an anticipated economic impact on the developers, with having to make allowances in their land parcel sizes being development for the implementation of an APZ and associated cost of fire hazard mitigation should Council adopt the Asset Protection Zone (APZ) Policy for privately developed land.

The bush fire risk management planning process involves identifying and analysing assets within the community and establishing their level of risk. An asset is defined as “anything that is valued by the community”. In developing an APZ for fire mitigation “Economic Assets” such as such as commercial forests, tourist destinations and land used for primary production must be taken into account before any work is considered.

Risk

Council in allowing use of public land as a buffer zone will by default inherit the long term maintenance commitment to mow and keep the buffer satisfactory at a cost to the public. In doing so, Council will also accept the liability for the standard of maintenance and for future fire hazard mitigation.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

Should Council adopt the Asset Protection Zone (APZ) Policy for privately developed land, there will be no impact on current or future budgets with the implementation of the policy.

Should Council elect to allow the use of public land as a buffer zone or APZ there will be an impact on future budgets attributed to the long term maintenance commitment to mow and keep the buffer zone satisfactory.

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

There is no variation to working funds attributed to this report

Attachments:

1 View	- Circularised Documents for Councillors only - Maps
2 View	25165/2007 - POLICY DRAFT - Bushfire Buffers on Public Land

General Purpose Committee - 18 January 2012

Policy - Asset Protection Zone (APZ) for Privately Developed Land

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

DRAFT POLICY

BUSHFIRE BUFFERS ON PUBLIC LAND

Function: ENGINEERING SERVICES

Adopted:

Last reviewed:

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.’

1.0 Policy Objective

To ensure that new development contains an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) or bushfire buffer wholly within the development property and not offset to neighbouring land/reserves under the management and control of council or other State or public authority.

To ensure that the liability of maintaining an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) associated with the private development on land in bush fire prone areas is the responsibility of the developer or successive owners of the land and not transferred to Council or other authority by allowing the use of public land/reserves as an APZ

2.0 Related Legislation and Guidelines

· Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

· Rural Fires Act 1997 Clause 3.3 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006

· Australian Standard: 3959 Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas 2009 (AS3959)

· Building Code of Australia

3.0 Definitions

Asset Protection Zone (APZ) - Development on bush fire prone land will normally require the implementation of a set back distance which is referred to as an Asset Protection Zone. An Asset Protection Zone (APZ) is also known as a fire protection zone and aims to protect human life and infrastructure

4.0 Policy Statement

a New Developments (New Subdivisions)

That Council will not permit the inclusion of public land/reserves into Asset Protection Zones that are required to protect private property and infrastructure. The provision and maintenance of Asset Protection Zones is not the responsibility of an adjoining land management agency or land owner.

Where a bush fire hazard exists on or adjacent to an allotment that is to be developed, an APZ is to be established on the land to be developed between the building requiring protection and the bush fire hazard. This ensures that there is a progressive reduction of bush fire fuels between the hazard and a habitable dwelling.

APZs are to be located within the boundaries of the proposed development. (Note: This requirement for new subdivision developments has been consistently supported by numerous decisions of the Land and Environment Court.)

This requirement can be modified for the most exceptional circumstances which are outlined in Clause 3.3 of Planning for bushfire Protection 2006:

1 Where a development would normally be declined due to inadequate APZs on the land to be developed but where it can be demonstrated that there is a strong likelihood of the adjoining land being developed for future residential or other compatible purposes (eg staged development).

2 Where an existing development was approved prior to August 2002 and the applicant is only proposing alterations and/or additions to existing buildings and the APZ does not comply with current APZ requirements. In this case the alterations or additions should meet the improved construction standards up to BAL 40 of AS 3959-2009 and not significantly increase the density of residents or as required under the Building Code of Australia.

Council may consent to allow the inclusion of some public areas under its control as part of bush fire buffers APZs under the following conditions:

1 The public land is a formed road whereby the existing arrangement is a footpath and road pavement requiring no extra maintenance as a bush fire buffer (APZ).

2 A bush fire buffer (APZ) already exists that is currently maintained by Council and that bush fire buffer (APZ) meets the required NSW Rural Fire Service standards and is recognised in a Plan of Management for the reserve.

3 That clear justification can be demonstrated by the developer that the public land is required to form an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) for bushfire buffer.

4 That the clearing of natural assets on public land for the purposes of establishing an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) for private development shall be advertised for public comment including the justification from the applicant for the proposed APZ on public land.

5 That consent shall only be granted through Council resolution following public exhibition of the proposal.

b Existing Urban Vacant Lots

There is an expectation that vacant existing urban lots can be built upon. Council will permit public land including reserves and roads (under its control) to be included in the Asset Protection Zone under the following conditions:

1 The Bushfire Management Plan recognises a formal bush fire buffer for public reserves.

2 The applicant upgrades the buffer to meet NSW Rural Fire Service standards and undertakes the first hazard reduction program.

3 The maximum setback on the private property is utilised to minimise the use of public land.

c Building Extensions/Redevelopment

Urban lots within bushfire prone areas that adjoin public land with substantial vegetation can only be approved if they comply with the specifications of “Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006”.

The public land is not permitted to be included in the buffer or Asset Protection Zone. Council will also not create a Bushfire Management Plan for the reserve for the specific purpose of allowing a building extension to be permitted.

d Re-subdivision Of Large Urban Lots

A property with an existing house can only subdivide land that will comply with the Rural Fire Service requirements without the use of public land.

5.0 History

Private developers in an effort to reduce the size of the bushfire buffer on the development site have sought to include adjacent public land in the required buffer.

The applicant may agree to carryout the initial clearing to meet requirements but cannot guarantee that they or successive owners will continue long term maintenance. Council in allowing use of public land as a buffer zone will by default inherit the long term maintenance commitment to mow and keep the buffer satisfactory at a cost to the public. In doing so, Council will also accept the liability for the standard of maintenance.

The Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines 2006 produced by the NSW Rural Fire Service generally requires the location of bushfire buffers (APZs) within the boundaries of the development site to ensure that the buffer is not a burden on adjoining land owners (Clause 3.3 of Planning for bushfire Protection 2006).