Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

13 November 2013

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 commencing at 5.30 pm AND a full day meeting commencing at 8.30 am on the Wednesday two weeks and one day before the Thursday meeting. Meetings are held in the Council Chamber at Council's Administration Centre—44 Princess Street, Macksville.

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:

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.

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 - 13 November 2013

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

3 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES —

Ordinary Council Meeting - 31 October 2013....................................................................... 6

5 NOTICES OF MOTION

5.1 Notice of Motion - Notice Of Motion - Request For Site Inspection DA 2013/129 Ocean View Drive Valla Beach (DA2013/129).............................. 15

6 PUBLIC FORUM

7 ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

8 QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

9 General Manager Report

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

9.2 The Planning Bill 2013.............................................................................. 22

9.3 Provision of Link Road - Proposed 346 Lot Residential Subdivision - Alexandra Drive, Bellwood........................................................................ 31

9.4 Master Planning for the Macksville District Hospital (MDH)........................ 42

9.5 Minutes of the Access Committee meeting held 22 October 2013............... 46

9.6 Nambucca Shire Library Storage............................................................... 51

9.7 Developer Contribution Status Report ....................................................... 56

9.8 Environmental Levy - Nambucca Street Tree Planting Program.................. 59

9.9 Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined from 21 October 2013 to 1 November 2013........... 61

9.10 Companion Animals Amendment Bill 2013 - Change to fees payable for registration............................................................................................... 64

9.11 Complying Developments Approved October 2013..................................... 66

9.12 Construction Certificates Approved October 2013...................................... 68

9.13 Council's Ranger's Report October 2013................................................... 70

9.14 Hyland Park Residential Land................................................................... 71

9.15 Proposed Subdivision of Land Adjoining the Macksville Sewerage Treatment Plant........................................................................................................ 83

9.16 Status of Land Sales............................................................................... 100

9.17 Status of Industrial Land......................................................................... 102

9.18 Traffic Impact Assessment - Intersection of Upper Warrell Creek Road and the Pacific Highway, Macksville.............................................................. 106

9.19 Inspection of Valla Quarry....................................................................... 131

9.20 Boultons Crossing (Gumma Reserve)..................................................... 132

9.21 Investment Report to 31 October 2013.................................................... 135

10 Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

10.1 Year End Financial Result & Statements – 30 June 2013.......................... 141

10.2 2013/2014 Loan Program........................................................................ 150

10.3 Report on NSW Heritage Grants Local Government Heritage Management - Funding Offer......................................................................................... 152

10.4 Schedule of Council Public Meetings....................................................... 157

10.5 EJ Biffin Playing Fields Committee of Management AGM - 28 October 2013 - Minutes.................................................................................................. 158

11 Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

11.1 Capital Works Report - 1 July 2013 - 30 September 2013......................... 166

11.2 Disposal of Council Owned Surplus Materials and Small Equipment......... 174

Starts 8.30am

TIME	DESCRIPTION	WHERE
8.35 am	Item 9.19 - Valla Quarry Inspection	Onsite
10.30 am	Item 10.1 - Year End Financial Reports and Statements Presentation by Mr Geoff Allen (Forsyths)	CC
11.00 am	Item 9.4 - Master Planning for the Macksville District Hospital -	CC
12 noon	LUNCH	CC
12.30 pm	Business Paper	CC
2.00 pm	Mid North Coast Health District Board Discussion – Mr Warren Grimshaw AM Chair and Mr Stewart Dowrick (CEO) and Board Members	CC

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

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

I		declare the following interest:
(name)

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

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

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

For the reason that




Signed			Date

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

Council’s Facsimile Number – (02) 6568 2201

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

Definitions

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

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

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

Ordinary Council Meeting

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Council Meeting HELD ON 31 October 2013

HELD AT TAYLORS ARM HALL

The following document is the minutes of the Council meeting held on 31 October 2013. These minutes are subject to confirmation as to their accuracy at the next meeting to be held on 13 November 2013 and therefore subject to change. Please refer to the minutes of 13 November 2013 for confirmation.

The Council meeting commenced at 6.10 pm.

PRESENT

Cr Rhonda Hoban (Mayor)	Cr John Ainsworth
Cr Martin Ballangarry OAM	Cr Kim MacDonald
Cr Paula Flack	Cr Anne Smyth
Cr Bob Morrison	Cr Elaine South

ALSO PRESENT

Michael Coulter (General Manager)	Scott Norman (AGM Corporate Services)
Paul Gallagher (AGM Engineering Services)	Monika Schuhmacher (Minute Secretary)

APOLOGY

Cr Brian Finlayson is approved leave.

PUBLIC FORUM

1 Mr Sid Scott President of Hall Committee

Mr Scott addressed council making the following points:

Thanked Council for the new bridge.
Many generations live and have moved here for the relaxed lifestyle – no need to rush on the roads
Anecdotes from previous “work life”
Advised that the Committee and residents would not have waited beyond 5.45 pm for Council.

Mayor welcomed everyone and apologised for lateness of Council’s arrival.

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Councillor PF Flack declared a non-pecuniary less significant conflict of interest in the Notice of Motion –Exploration Activities of any kind in the Nambucca Valley under the Local Government Act as Cr Flack’s family property at Girralong within the EL8016 exploration area.

Mayor, Councillor R Hoban declared a non-pecuniary significant conflict of interest in Item 8.4 Valla Quarry - Compliance with Conditions of Development Consent under the Local Government Act as Cr Hoban negotiated conditions of consent in the Land and Environment Court prior to becoming a Councillors. Cr Hoban left the meeting for this item.

Deputy Mayor, Councillor JA Ainsworth declared a non-pecuniary significant conflict of interest in Item 8.7 Boulton's Crossing (Gumma Reserve) under the Local Government Act as Cr Ainsworth is a Board member of South Beach National Park. Cr Ainsworth left the meeting for this item.

Councillor K MacDonald declared a pecuniary interest in Item 10.3 Nambucca District Water Supply Steering Committee Meeting - 2 October 2013 under the Local Government Act as Cr MacDonald’s employer has the fuel contract for several of the dam contractors. Cr MacDonald left the meeting for this item.

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Flack

ITEM 4.1 SF1104 311013 Notice of Motion - Exploration Activities of any sort in the Nambucca Valley.

1/13 RESOLVED: (Flack/Smyth)

That Council write to Precious Metals Resources CEO, Mr Michael Leu, advising him of Council’s expectation that Condition Clause 34 of EL 8016 will be adhered to and asking when PMR intends to commence exploration activities of any sort in the Nambucca Valley.

PUBLIC FORUMS

1 Mr John Vassallo addressed Council regarding new swimming pool regulations

· Does not adequately cover rural properties

· In regard to fencing the area, no furniture within proximity of pool….what is definition of “proximity”

· What is done regarding fencing of dams

· Does the river need to be fenced?

The Mayor advised that Mr Paul Guy, Council’s Manager Development and Environment, will contact Mr Vassallo regarding his issues.

2 Mr Stephen Spear asked Council what the progress is with the traffic lights on Taylors Arm Road.

The Assistant General Manager Engineering Services advised that flood damage repair was approved however, core testing and design is required. Then there will be a tender for the repair.

3 Ms Joy Lane pointed out an area where Taylors Arm Road is sinking in proximity to the traffic lights.

The Assistant General Manager Engineering Services advised that Council is aware of this.

4 Mr Stephen Spear

Brought attention to the speed discrepancies/anomalies from around Bowraville and Bellingen Road and then into Macksville and other places in the Shire. This may cause drivers to break speed limits on some roads.

Mr Spear would like to note that he is life member of Nambucca Little Athletics and he asked Council to keep a close eye on the EJ Biffin Playing Fields Committee of Management, not that he was not pleased with the current Committee.

5 Mr Sid Scott

Asked who he could he speak to regarding a fitness class for seniors – he runs Tai Chi classes up at Taylors Arm - is there any assistance that can be given.

The Mayor advised that Council’s Healthy Communities and/or Council’s Grants and Contributions Officer will be asked to contact Mr Scott.

ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

There were no Questions with Notice.

QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

There were no Questions for Closed Meeting where due Notice has been received.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council Meeting 16 October 2013

2/13 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Smyth)

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of 16 October 2013 be confirmed.

General Manager Report

ITEM 8.2 SF959 311013 Outstanding Actions and Reports

3/13 RESOLVED: (Flack/MacDonald)

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

ITEM 8.3 SF42 311013 Comparative Information on NSW Local Government 2011-2012

4/13 RESOLVED: (Smyth/Flack)

That the comparative information on NSW Local Government in 2011- 2012 be received.

ITEM 8.4 SF1431 311013 Valla Quarry - Compliance with Conditions of Development Consent

5/13 RESOLVED: (South/Morrison)

1 That Council note the information on the determination of the accounting year and the options for managing compliance with the production limit on an on-going basis.

2 Council notes the information concerning the cost to Council of buying gravel from another quarry and not using the Valla Quarry for the coming 12 months.

ITEM 8.5 SF25 311013 Proposed War Memorial - River Street, Macksville

6/13 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/MacDonald)

That Council advise the Returned and Services League of Australia – Macksville Sub-Branch that Council will assist the Sub-Branch in the construction of the memorial be providing Council plant and staff at cost (ie applying internal hire rates with no overheads and administrative charges) and secondly in the absence of any Memorandum of Understanding or agreement, by accepting responsibility for the maintenance of the memorial.

ITEM 8.6 SF1496 311013 Minutes of the Nambucca River, Creeks, Estuary and Coastline Management committee meeting held on 20 September 2013

7/13 RESOLVED: (Flack/Ainsworth)

1 That Council note the support from the committee to endorse the Nambucca River Flood Study Deep, Creek Flood Study and Deep Creek Entrance Management Policy with some changes;

2 That Council adopt the Deep Creek Flood Study and Nambucca River Flood Study Reports and that Council utilise the new 100 year ARI 2100 Climate Change peak flood levels for development and infrastructure considerations as appropriate. In some instances Council may need to reference other modelled events in the studies such as the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF).

3 That Council continue to progress the floodplain management program and target available funding to prepare a Flood Risk Management Study/ Plan.

4 That Council adopt the Deep Creek Entrance Management Policy incorporating the following changes and notify the adopted Policy as required by the Local Government Act:

- Identify an option to raise the level of residential yards in Hyland Park where inundation may occur;

- Identify an option to investigate powered craft management on Deep Creek. Particularly during times the entrance is closed.

- Identify options to plan for ‘Coastal Squeeze’ including widening of riparian areas in appropriate locations and revegetation with suitable species.

5 That Council write to the Roads and Maritime Services regarding management of powered craft during on Deep Creek during closed entrance conditions.

6 That Council formally thank to the Office of Environment and Heritage for their contribution to the project.

7 That Council note that the committee supports Council in any initiative to close our rivers to commercial fishing or reduce the impact of commercial fishing on our rivers and encourage Council to become fish friendly Council with the aim of protecting fish habitat and encourage sustainable fishing.

8 That the remaining minutes from the Nambucca River Creeks, estuary and coastline management committee meeting held on Friday 20 September 2013 be endorsed and as necessary the appropriate action be taken.

8/13 Resolved: (Morrison/Ballangarry)

That in respect to item 7 above Council request the Department of Fisheries to write to those people and organisations where it is considered that this motion may have either a positive or negative effect on their business or the Shire if the river was closed and to ask these organisations and people their opinion eg those with fish licences, fish shops and other organisations that provide tourist facilities like caravan park and our local tourist committee and associations.

Meeting adjourned 7.46 pm

Meeting resumed at 7.53 pm

Cr Ainsworth left the meeting for Item 8.7 at 7.46 pm and returned after the conclusion of the Item at 8.17 pm

ITEM 8.7 SF1823 311013 Boulton's Crossing (Gumma Reserve)

Motion: (South/MacDonald)

1 That Council licence the reserve as a primitive camping area in accordance with Section 68 of the Local Government Act, Local Government (Manufactured Homes, Movable Dwellings, Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Regulation 2005) with strict adherence to a maximum number of 60 sites during NSW school holidays and public holiday long weekends and 30 sites at any other times.

2 That Council immediately replace the existing septic effluent management system with a pump out system as described in the report.

3 That Council close the Crown Road Reserve which dissects the site.

4 That Council revert to a site based fee of $20 per day, based on a maximum of 5 persons per site with additional persons paying at the rate of $5 per day.

5 That Council prepare a Bush Fire Management/Emergency Evacuation Plan for the Reserve.

6 That Council contract out the day to day operation of the Reserve as discussed in the report.

7 That Council undertake the work to the access road as described in the attached report, trim document no. 26706/2013.

Amendment: (Flack/Smyth)

1 That Council defer item 1 above pending confirmation that Council staffs’ interpretation of the Act is correct with regard to the number of sites per hectare that are allowed. And further, that Council also receive a report on the maximum number of sites that can be sustained on the Reserve.

2 That Council immediately replace the existing septic effluent management system with a pump out system as described in the report.

3 That Council close the Crown Road Reserve which dissects the site.

4 That Council revert to a site based fee of $20 per day, based on a maximum of 5 persons per site with additional persons paying at the rate of $5 per day.

5 That Council prepare a Bush Fire Management/Emergency Evacuation Plan for the Reserve.

6 That Council contract out the day to day operation of the Reserve as discussed in the report.

7 That Council undertake the work to the access road as described in the attached report, trim document no. 26706/2013.

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

9/13 Resolved: (Flack/Smyth)

1 That Council defer item 1 above pending confirmation that Council staffs’ interpretation of the Act is correct with regard to the number of sites per hectare that are allowed. And further, that council also receive a report on the maximum number of sites that can be sustained on the Reserve.

2 That Council immediately replace the existing septic effluent management system with a pump out system as described in the report.

3 That Council close the Crown Road Reserve which dissects the site.

4 That Council revert to a site based fee of $20 per day, based on a maximum of 5 persons per site with additional persons paying at the rate of $5 per day.

5 That Council prepare a Bush Fire Management/Emergency Evacuation Plan for the Reserve.

6 That Council contract out the day to day operation of the Reserve as discussed in the report.

7 That Council undertake the work to the access road as described in the attached report, trim document no. 26706/2013.

10/13 Resolved: (Flack/Smyth)

That Council prepare a leaflet to be distributed to campers including fees, amenities, proposed improvements, appropriate behaviour, environmental sensitivity, and any other issues.

ITEM 8.8 SF1915 311013 Private Swimming Pools - Inspection Regime

11/13 RESOLVED: (Smyth/South)

That Council note that its statutory obligations have been met with respect to the community consultation and further note the actions of the Development and Environment section in instituting strategic planning for the control of private swimming pool safety.

12/13 Resolved: (MacDonald/Smyth)

That Council investigate what other councils are determining as a timely inspection program for pools and whether this can be done in a shorter time frame by Nambucca Shire Council than the four years.

ITEM 8.9 SF1823 311013 Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined from 7 October 2013 to 18 October 2013

13/13 RESOLVED: (Ballangarry/Ainsworth)

That the applications where submissions have been received be noted and received for information by Council.

ITEM 8.10 SF1823 311013 Applications and Statistical Reports 2012-2013 - September 2013

14/13 RESOLVED: (Flack/Ballangarry)

1 That Council note development application statistics and processing times for 2013 compared with 2012.

2 That Council note the statistical information for Applications and Certificates received and released by Council for 2012-2013.

ITEM 8.11 SF1842 311013 Application For Special Rate Variation 2014 - 2015

15/13 RESOLVED: (Smyth/MacDonald)

1 That Council endorse the three rate variation scenarios of (a) to increase the ordinary rates by 6% in 2014/15, (b) to increase the ordinary rates by 6% in both the 2014/15 and 2015/16 financial years and (c) to increase the 2014/15 rates by the rate peg amount, as appropriate for community engagement and input.

2 That the presentation on the community awareness and engagement program be noted.

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

ITEM 9.1 SF251 311013 Schedule of Council Public Meetings

16/13 RESOLVED: (Flack/South)

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

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.1 SF1031 311013 New Draft Policy - Road Signage on Public Land

17/13 RESOLVED: (Flack/South)

That Council adopt the new policy titled Road Signage on Public Land (Our Ref: 12436/2013) with the associated fees as follows:

a) non-refundable application fee of $150.00 for processing the application

b) a non-refundable licence fee of $250.00 for a 5 year approval period

c) purchase of signage material and installation of the sign at Applicant’s cost.

ITEM 10.2 SF1294 311013 Review of uptake of Rainwater Tank Rebate

18/13 Resolved: (Flack/Ainsworth)

1 That Council receive and note the information on the uptake of rainwater tank rebate.

2 That Council not alter the current budget allocation of $20,000.00.

ITEM 10.3 SF844 311013 Nambucca District Water Supply Steering Committee Meeting – 2 October 2013

19/13 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Morrison)

That the minutes of the discussion held on 2 October 2013 in lieu of the formal Steering Committee Meeting be received and noted by Council.

ITEM 10.4 SF1075 311013 Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Production for the period 1 July 2006 to the 30 June 2013

20/13 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Morrison)

That Council receive and note the report on the energy consumption and greenhouse gas production.

ITEM 10.5 SF882 311013 Award for Excellence in Recycling in Stabilised Pavements in Local Government 2013

21/13 RESOLVED: (MacDonald/Ainsworth)

That Council receive and note the report on the presentation of an award from AustStab for Excellence in Recycling in Stabilised Pavements in Local Government 2013 in recognition of road works undertaken by Council on Valla Road, Valla in 2012.

ITEM 10.6 SF453 311013 Waste Management Quarterly Report July - September 2013

22/13 RESOLVED: (Flack/Smyth)

1 That Council receive and note the information provided in the Waste Management Quarterly Report for the period July – September 2013.

2 That Council write to each charitable organisation informing them of the adoption of the new donations policy and advise them that they will be required to apply for annual funding from 1 July 2014 in accordance with the new policy.

ITEM 10.7 SF1131 311013 Landslips - Riverside drive Nambucca Heads

23/13 RESOLVED: (Morrison/Ballangarry)

1 That Council allocate $32,000 to undertake a geotechnical investigation and detailed design to remediate the potential landslip on Riverside Drive in the vicinity of 3 Foreshore Close Nambucca Heads.

2 That Council allocate $150,000 to undertake geotechnical investigation and detailed design to remediate the potential landslip areas previously identified in a hazard assessment report by GHD along a section of Riverside Drive Nambucca Heads.

3 That the expenditure be reimbursed against the Special Grant of $5M once it is approved.

COUNCIL IN CLOSED MEETING (CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC)

Resolved: (Ainsworth/MacDonald)

1 That Council consider any written representations from the public as to why the Meeting should not be Closed to the public.

2 That Council move into Closed Meeting to discuss the matters for the reason(s) listed below.

Reason reports are in Closed Meeting:

General Manager Report

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 11.1 SF1690 311013 Skate Park - Deed of Settlement

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) (g) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

CLOSED MEETING

The Ordinary Council Meeting's Meeting IN CLOSED MEETING commenced at 9.08 pm.

RESUME IN OPEN MEETING

RECOMMENDATION:

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

FROM COUNCIL IN CLOSED MEETING

General Manager Report

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 11.1 SF1690 311013 Skate Park - Deed of Settlement

24/13 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/MacDonald)

That the information concerning the implementation of the Deed of Settlement be received.

25/13 Resolved: (Flack/Ainsworth)

That Council undertake the cheapest option of providing a cranked fence and that Council not undertake any further activities beyond that which is in the signed agreement.

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

For the Motion were Crs J Ainsworth, M Ballangarry, P Flack, R Hoban, K MacDonald, B Morrison, A Smyth and E South Total (8).

Against the Motion was Nil Total (0).

CLOSURE

There being no further business the Mayor then closed the meeting the time being 9.40 pm.

Confirmed and signed by the Mayor on Wednesday 13 November 2013.

R RHONDA HOBAN

MAYOR

(CHAIRPERSON)

Ordinary Council Meeting 13 November 2013

General Manager

ITEM 9.1 SF959 131113 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.

No		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		Brief to be prepared and new floodplain study to be undertaken during 2011. RTA has now engaged Consultants to prepare a new full and comprehensive flood study which will be provided to Council upon completion. At this time Council will be able to proceed to complete a new Flood Plain Risk Management Plan incorporates a revised matrix. DEP advised meeting arranged with RTA. Draft flood study likely to be presented to Council May/June 2012. Re the delay, Council’s Strategic Planner has followed up the RMS. Staff meeting with Consultants on Wednesday 18/10/12. Part funding for a Flood Risk Management Plan which would consider filling is included in the 2013/14 Environmental Levy program. A grant has been applied for, if unsuccessful will not proceed until next year.
JULY 2011
2	SF1031			21/7/2011	That the policy for Climate Change Adaption be deferred to allow amendments to be made to the draft policy	GM		Policy under revision and to be reported to future meeting. Also the State Government policy has recently changed. Awaiting finalisation of Nambucca River Flood Studies which are presently on exhibition, will report to Committee then Council once adopted then proceed with amending the climate change policy and report to Council. ~~Council staff to report on carbon emissions for Council activities to a meeting in October 2013.~~

OCTOBER 2011

SF1460

17/11/2011

Structure of the Farmland (rate) Category be changed to incorporate the statutory minimum with ad valorem maintaining yield. Council undertake a review of the farmland criteria to better reflect high intensity pursuits.

AGMCS

Change in Rates staff meant that there has not been the opportunity to review the criteria. To be reported in 2013/2014.

Once Finance Structure resolved this matter should progress.

OCTOBER 2012

4	DA2012/069		25/10/2012	Council to seek full external funding for independent traffic study for Pacific Highway Upper Warrell Creek Road Intersection	MBD/ G&CO	Investigations underway Discussed at meeting on 18 March 2013. Agreed that Boral and APS would prepare a traffic study. Study completed & a copy was provided to Council on 31 July. Meeting to be arranged with RMS and Trade & Investment preparatory to APS lodging an application to modify the consent to increase output from 90,000 tonnes p.a. to 200,000 tonnes p.a. Letter has been sent to the RMS requesting concurrence to the installation of an 80kmh speed zone in the vicinity of the Upper Warrell Creek Road intersection.
MARCH 2013
5		RF284	28/3/2013	Council write to the Minister for Transport to expedite the upgrade and replacement of load limited railway bridges (overpasses) on Browns Crossing Road	AGMES	Letter written w/e 5/4/2013 Verbal advice has been provided to Council that a Ministerial request for information was forwarded to the Rail Authority seeking information on the bridges. Further letter sent 31/7/13 Staff investigating whether letters have been sent. No evidence letters were sent. GM sent letter to the Minister, the Hon. Duncan Gay on 10 September 2013. Staff met with ARTC last week to investigate access along the rail corridor. No alternative identified. Council can only access its roads and bridges with plant less than 9 tonnes. Staff are investigating the availability of plant rated under 9 tonne to comply with the bridge load limit to undertake the repairs.
APRIL 2013
6		SF601	10/4/2013	Council request RMS to urgently prepare for On and Off ramps for the Pacific Highway in the vicinity in North Macksville as to facilitate a discussion	GM	Letter sent to RMS on 12 April 2013 Mayor and Ms Janine Reed attended Community Cabinet meeting in Taree on 20 May 2013 in relation to this. Meeting with rms 30 May 2013. Issue discussed. Rms is preparing a concept with indicative costing and will supply to Council. Suggested indicative costing is $10M. Concept plan not received as at 7 August 2013. Follow up letter sent 2 September 2013. Further follow up letter sent 8 November 2013.

JULY 2013
7	SF251	10/7/2013	A delegation comprising the Mayor, interested Councillors, a rep of the three Chambers of Commerce and a victim of crime seek an urgent meeting with the Minister for Police and the Hon. Andrew Stoner MP. Also stat dec forms be distributed and a media release be issued.	GM	Request sent to Andrew Stoner’s office on 12/7/2013. Media release issued on 12/7/2013. Stat. dec. forms circulated. Reminder letter sent 13 September 2013.
8	SF453	10/7/2013	Councillors be notified of the next scheduled meeting of the Coffs Coast Waste Service and Council follow up Bellingen Shire Council.	GM	Waste Management Officer to advise Councillors of next meeting. Follow up letter sent to Bellingen Shire Council on 24/10/2013.
9	RF275	25/7/2013	Council request that RMS consider providing Natural Disaster Funding for the provision of a bicycle/walking/horse riding trail in lieu of reinstating the Bowraville to Bellingen Road.	GM	Letter sent 1 August 2013. Follow up letter sent 8 November 2013
AUGUST 2013
10	SF29	14/08/2013	That Council receive a report on how its resolution about seeking independent legal advice about any future council alliances and then tracking net asset movements will be captured/used in Council’s procurement policy/processes. The report is to also provide information on the Destination 2036 Working Party report on local government alliances.	AGMCS	Report in September 2013. Deferred to November 2013.
11	LF6107	14/08/2013	There be a report to Council on the circumstances relating to the construction of a shed and other improvements on the Alpha Street road reservation.	GM	Report in October 2013. Manager Business Development has spoken with the property owner who acknowledges that a shed and large awning were constructed on the road reservation without any planning or building approval. As there has been no work undertaken on the road, the road is owned by the Crown, not Council. The matter has been referred to the Crown for their action. Depending upon the action, if any, taken by the Crown, Council can issue development approval for the existing structures.
12	~~SF85~~	~~14/08/2013~~	~~Council write to the RFS asking them what their proposed service level for the future will be and from that what their accommodation arrangements are likely to be (at NEOC).~~	~~AGMES~~	~~Letter sent 16 August 2013~~ ~~Response received 5 September 2013, copy provided to Councillors for information.~~ ~~Will be reported in October 2013 following RFS~~ ~~Liaison meeting - 10 October 2013.~~ ~~Liaison Meeting deferred due to NSW fires (a new meeting date has not been set as yet)~~ ~~Meeting between Zone Manger and Councils Manager Assets held Tuesday 22 October 2013~~ ~~Office area required by RFS determined and remaining area will be utilised as part of the EOC (only the immediate office area at entry and rear office now required).~~
13	SF1031	14/08/2013	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.
14	SF1817	29/08/2013	Wilson Road from 200m west of Coronation Road to 400m west of Spaldings Road. Council request the RMS to reconsider the 90kph speed zone. And Further….. Council write to the RMS requesting reinstatement of the 60kph zone on Rodeo Drive travelling east from Bowraville after the Valla Road turnoff where the “s” bends are.	AGMES	Manager Technical Services has requested a further review of these sections of the Drive
15	~~SF84~~	~~29/08/2013~~	Council write to the RFS seeking confirmation that training for volunteers will continue at the same level at NEOC & ask if there is going to be any reduction in training opportunities at brigade sheds. Further, that Council seek advice on what will the RFS’ future requirements be for NEOC.	~~AGMES~~	~~Letter sent 9 September 2013~~ ~~Meeting between Zone Manger and Council’s Manager Assets held Tuesday 22 October 2013~~ ~~Office area required by RFS determined .and remaining area will be utilised as part of the EOC (only the immediate office area at entry and rear office now required)~~ ~~Status Quo shall remain for training with no changes or reduction in training opportunities proposed for brigade training~~
SEPTEMBER 2013
16	SF1620	11/09/2013	That a report come back to Council regarding companion animal management & options to improve animal welfare and housing and possible options to improve Council’s performance including the consideration of initiatives by other councils.	GM	Report in October 2013 Deferred to November 2013
17	SF1755	11/09/2013	That half yearly progress reports be submitted to Council on the Business Services Unit in February and August.	GM	Report February 2014
18	~~SF1823~~	~~11/09/2013~~	~~That in future reports Council receive details of the number and value of the construction certificates issued.~~	GM	~~Report October 2013 onwards~~ ~~There has been work on a standard report. Will occur in either October or November.~~
19	LF6417	11/09/2013	That Council dye test the spring (above 8 Creek Street) which has been identified and inspect the stormwater drainage of those properties identified as possible sources of ground and surface water.	AGMES	Dye test undertaken and no impact on 8 Creek Street identified. Further investigation for other properties is required. No further action taken to date due to staff resourcing.
20	SF1621	11/09/2013	That Council schedule an Adaptive Management Workshop for 2pm on 31 October to review the Adaptive Management Strategy, form and Adaptive Management Committee and clarify the role of that Committee and how it will operate.	AGMES	Workshop rescheduled to 2.00 pm 21 November 2013 due to conflicting Council schedule.
21	SF1431	11/09/2013	That Council inspect the (Valla) quarry & the location of houses in relation to the quarry prior to making any decision. That Council provide the quarry operators with 28 days to lodge an application to modify the development consent; otherwise Council will take legal action.	GM	Rescission motion lodged. Action on hold. Rescission motion lost. Inspection to be arranged in November 2013.
22	SF1690	11/09/2013	Council note the required variation to its budget to be reported with its September quarter budget review (Skate Park)	GM	Report in November 2013.
23	SF1817	26/09/2013	Council write to the NSW Small Business Commissioner and ask her if Council can be included in the forthcoming Pilot Program to encourage Councils to support small business.	GM	The Manager Business Development has contacted the Department of Small Business and registered to be involved in this program. He has also registered Council as a member of the NSW Business Chamber so as to be eligible to participate in this program. Council will be contacted early in 2014 regarding its participation in the program.
24	~~SF1817~~	~~26/09/2013~~	~~Council receive a report on the possibility of conducting a public auction to dispose of surplus material and small equipment from Council’s works depot.~~	~~AGMES~~	~~Report to November 2013 meeting.~~
25	SF844	26/09/2013	Council seek a more detailed report on the cost/benefit of the relaxation of the water extraction licence during the initial filling of the dam.	AGMES	GM has spoken to MWS. A letter is being sent to the Commissioner for Water requesting the relaxation of flow rules for 12 months to assist with the initial filling of the dam.
OCTOBER 2013
26	SF1817	16/10/2013	Council write to Transport NSW and the Hon. Andrew Stoner MP requesting the reinstatement of the Nambucca Heads stop of the 2.41pm Sydney to Brisbane XPT.	GM	Letters sent 18 October 2013
27	SF1104	31/10/2013	Council write to Precious Metals Resources CEO, advising of Council’s expectation that condition/clause 34 of EL 8016 will be adhered to and asking when PMR intends to commence exploration activities of any sort in the Nambucca Valley.	GM	Letter sent 1 November 2013
28	SF1823	31/10/2013	Council defer licencing the Gumma Reserve as a primitive camping ground pending confirmation that Council staff’s interpretation of the Act is correct with regard to the number of sites per hectare that are allowed. Further that Council receive a report on the max. no. of sites that can be sustained on the Reserve.	GM	Report December 2013
29	SF1915	31/10/2013	Council investigate what other councils are determining as a timely inspection program for pools and whether this can be done in a shorter time frame by Nambucca Shire Council than the four years.	GM	Report December 2013

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 13 November 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.2 SF669 131113 The Planning Bill 2013

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Michael Coulter, General Manager

Summary:

The State Government has tabled the much awaited “once in a generation reform” of the NSW planning system. The legislation was introduced into State Parliament on 22 October 2013.

If legislated the Bill will have significant implications for Council in changing its processes and procedures in accordance with the new requirements.

The Bill does provide some scope for local variations and innovation which is supported.

On the other hand the bill also continues the trend of the diminution in the authority of local councils in planning matters as evidenced by the retention of Regional Planning Panels and the proposed establishment of Sub-Regional Planning Boards.

Recommendation:

That the information concerning the Planning Bill 2013 be received.

OPTIONS:

The report is for information.

The Planning Bill 2013 is interesting in providing more scope for local variations than has been the case in recent legislation. It does provide some scope for Council to increase productivity through the code assessment provisions.

However the legislation continues the trend of the diminution in the authority of local councils in planning matters. For example, the creation of Subregional planning boards is likely to reduce the Council’s authority to make equivalent determinations to those which created the Valla Urban Growth Area or the South Macksville Growth Area.

There may be scope for the Mid North Coast Regional Organisation of Councils (MIDROC) to stake a claim for its Councillors and staff to comprise the Regional Planning Panel and Sub-Regional Planning Boards. This would be preferred to local government being “shut out” of a function which, in this region at least, has been capably managed by the individual Councils.

There is still some conjecture as to whether or not it will pass through parliament without further amendment.

DISCUSSION:

The following information on the Planning Bill 2013 recently tabled in the NSW Lower House has been compiled by Council’s solicitors Norton Rose Fulbright. It provides a relatively easy to read synopsis of the legislation and highlights the changes from the original White Paper. The work of Jacinta Studdert and Felicity Rourke from Norton Rose Fulbright in undertaking this work for their clients is acknowledged.

Introduction

On 22 October 2013, more than two years after the NSW Government announced “once-in-a-generation” reforms to the NSW planning system, the Planning Bill 2013 (Planning Bill) and Planning Administration Bill 2013 have been introduced into the NSW Parliament.

This legal update examines the key aspects of the Planning Bill and compares it with the earlier versions of the reforms described in “A New Planning System for NSW - White Paper” (White Paper) and exposure draft legislation (together the White Paper Reforms), which were released for public consultation in April 2013.

Community Participation

The community participation provisions of the Planning Bill are largely consistent with the proposals put forward in the White Paper. The key elements of community participation in the Planning Bill require:

· planning authorities to exercise their planning functions consistently with the Community Participation Charter;

· most planning authorities to prepare a Community Participation Plan (to be publicly exhibited for 28 days), which provides for how they will undertake community participation; and

· the development of a comprehensive online portal to provide access to a number of services.

The clear intention of the Planning Bill is to increase community participation in the plan making process.

The removal of the targets for code assessment development and changes to complying development discussed below should also result in an increase in community participation in the development assessment process, from that contained in the White Paper Reforms.

The Planning Bill provides a right for the community to be informed about planning matters that affect the community. Furthermore, the Planning Bill will establish the Community Participation Advisory Panel, the functions of which include providing advice on the preparation and operation of Community Participation Plans, and making recommendations to the Minister with respect to community participation in planning matters.

Transitional provisions provide for interim community participation plans for councils. Specifically, the Planning Bill states that until a council has a Community Participation Plan, or 30 June 2016 (whichever occurs first), the Community Participation Plan that applies is the model council community participation plan designated by Ministerial planning order.

In some respects the community participation requirements have been expanded from those proposed in the White Paper Reforms, most notably through new obligations for planning authorities to publish reasons for decisions, including how community views have been taken into account in making the decision.

The Planning Bill provides further certainty around mandatory requirements, specifically in relation to minimum 28 day exhibition periods for:

· strategic and other plans including draft community participation plans and draft infrastructure plans (discussed further below);

· development applications and other matters such as:

o Applications for strategic compatibility certificates;

o Applications for EIS assessed development; and

o Applications for development consent for State significant development that is subject to merit assessment.

The Planning Bill provides a right to challenge in the Land and Environment Court whether these requirements have been followed.

Some important details regarding community participation are still unavailable, with information such as the form, content and procedures for making and publishing Community Participation Plans (or any amendment of those plans) to be detailed in regulations.

It has been reported in the media that (SMH 29/10/2013) that neighbours must now be notified of a complying development application 14 days before approval, although they still have no right to object. There is no such notification at present. This will extend the time in which applications must be approved by a council or private certifier, currently 10 days. It is also reported that there will be mandatory notification to neighbours seven days before construction actually starts, up from two days.

Strategic planning

The Planning Bill maintains the strategic planning framework which was proposed in the White Paper, with four levels of plans namely NSW Planning Policies, Regional Growth Plans, Subregional Delivery Plans and Local Plans.

Sitting under the layer of NSW Planning Policies will be Regional Growth Plans and Subregional Delivery Plans. Regional Growth Plans will focus on integrated infrastructure and land use decisions, whilst Subregional Delivery Plans will identify precincts and locations of significance to the State and the subregion.

Local Plans will provide the legal mechanism to deliver the NSW Planning Policies, Regional Growth Plans and Subregional Delivery Plans. The Planning Bill sets out a clear hierarchy for these plans and requires that the lower order plans, such as Local Plans and Subregional Delivery Plans must give effect to the higher order plans such as Regional Growth Plans and NSW Planning Policies.

Subregional planning boards (new creations proposed in the White Paper Reforms) are maintained in the Planning Bill. They will comprise four Ministerial appointees plus a chair, and one member to represent each Council within the subreqion – however the composition of subregions is still to be finalised, by Ministerial order.

The suite of ten strategic planning principles contained in the White Paper Reforms has been removed from the Planning Bill, replaced by broader, “general considerations” for the preparation of proposed strategic plans. Importantly, however, those principles that remain include requirements that:

· Strategic plans need to be evidence based;

· Planning authorities should have regard to the impact of draft provisions on the financial feasibility of future development; and

· The extent and complexity of provisions of local plans should be proportionate to the likely impacts of future development.

The Minister’s powers under the Planning Bill to amend strategic plans without exhibition are now limited.
The process for making local plans has been revised in the Planning Bill, so that only the planning control provisions of the local plan will be subject to the “Gateway process”. It will now be possible for Councils to make Local Plans, where authorised by the relevant Gateway determination to do so. Previously these provisions were made by the Minister or a delegate.

Land use zones

The White Paper stated that Local Plans will contain “fewer, broader and more open” zones and specifically that the existing zones within Standard Instrument would be replaced with 13 “indicative zones” in the Local Plans.

This reform has been abandoned and the Government has since indicated that all zones existing in the Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan will be retained in the new system. This will be viewed by some as regrettable given the acknowledgement in the White Paper Reforms that a move to open zones with fewer prohibitions would “provide for greater flexibility and will minimise the need for spot rezonings - which in turn reduces costs, time delays and uncertainty for businesses and the community.”(White Paper, page 95)

The Planning Bill continues to provide for the standardisation of planning controls through standard land use definitions and standard zones contained in Local Plans. There is no indication whether the other reforms to the standard definitions, such as the removal or simplification of “group term” definitions propounded in the White Paper, will be implemented.

Referrals, concurrences and other approvals

The White Paper proposed a whole-of-government review of the existing system of referrals, concurrences and other planning related approvals, with the objective of achieving a ‘one stop shop’ of additional requirements to be controlled by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

The Planning Bill gives effect to these one stop shop provisions by providing that the Director General is to determine whether approval (by another approval body under another Act) should be given, and the terms on which that approval should be given by the other agency. Any consent then granted by the consent authority must be consistent with the terms of approval given by the Director General, and the other agency must then give the approval under their relevant Act in a manner which is “substantially consistent with” the general terms of approval as determined by the Director General.

In response to submissions raising particular concerns about heritage protection, the Planning Bill now provides that the Heritage Council recommendations must always be followed by the Director General except where there is an unreasonable delay or a conflict with another agency cannot be resolved. Similar provisions apply for referrals to the Rural Fire Service. Concurrence requirements regarding threatened species have also been strengthened when compared to the White Paper position.

Other features of the strategic planning framework

One key feature of the Strategic planning framework in the White Paper Reforms was a proposal to replace the current paper-based map system with approved spatial maps, providing greater clarity on the application of relevant controls based on current and up to date information.

The Planning Bill facilitates a greater focus on e-planning with the requirement that strategic plans be published on the NSW Planning Portal. However, Local Plans will continue to be published on the NSW Legislation Website, as is the case presently with Local Environmental Plans.

Development Assessment Tracks, Appeals and Enforcement

Some of the most significant departures from the reforms as previously formulated relate to development assessment, specifically in relation code assessment development and strategic compatibility certificates.

The White Paper proposed “that 80% of all developments will be complying or code assessment within the next 5 years, with reduced timeframes and documentation”(White Paper page 114). The Government has since confirmed that there will not be any target for code assessment, and instead that code assessable development will only apply in nominated growth areas. Outside those areas, it is expected that councils will be able to determine whether and where code assessment will apply.

Assessment tracks specified in Local Plans

The four categories of development to be included in the assessment tracks identified in the Local Plan are unchanged, namely:

· Exempt development – which will be self-assessed and will continue in a similar manner to the present system;

· Complying development – which will be assessed by an accredited certifier or the relevant Council;

· Code assessment – which will be assessed by Council against performance based criteria as well as “acceptable solutions” for non-compliances with the development guides; and

· Merit assessment – which will be subject to a full assessment carried out by Council.

Previously in the White Paper Reforms, a single development could be the subject of both code assessment and merit assessment. This has been removed with the effect that if a development does not comply with certain aspects of a development code, the entire development will be subject to a full merit assessment.

In addition, there will be an ability for an applicant for a proposed development which contains a minor non-compliance with development guide provisions of the Local Plan to apply to the relevant Council for a “variation certificate” to certify that the non-compliance is a permissible variation. The proposed development can then be approved by an accredited certifier or the relevant Council as complying development.

The proposed “variation certificate” is obviously an area of potential risk for Councils and potential revenue for lawyers. How the regulations define a “minor” non-compliance will be significant.

The White Paper Reforms indicated that an application for a variation certificate would be “taken to be issued” if not determined by Council within a timeframe to be set by the regulations, but this has been removed in the Planning Bill and replaced with provision for the regulations to further limit the standards and requirements for which a variation certificate may be issued.

The Planning Bill also provides for the following further categories of development:

· EIS assessed development – analogous to the existing provisions regarding “designated development”;

· State significant and regional development – the existing classes of state and regional development will remain. The Planning Bill also provides for the Minister to “call in” certain development but only if the Minister has first obtained and made publicly available advice from the Planning Assessment Commission regarding the State or regional significance of the development; and

· Part 5 environmental impact assessment, state infrastructure development and public priority infrastructure.

Part 5 of the Planning Bill remains substantially the same as proposed under the White Paper Reforms. One change that has been introduced where an EIS is required is for the Planning Assessment Commission to “provide advice or hold a public hearing” rather than to undertake a “review”.

Existing and continuing uses

The Planning Bill maintains the current approach for existing and continuing uses.

Amber light approach

In the White Paper Reforms a consent authority had a positive obligation to advise an applicant of what amendments could be made to a proposal which would allow it to satisfy a merit assessment prior to refusing that application.

This concept has been maintained in the Planning Bill, however the language has been softened so that a consent authority now only has a “general obligation” to advise the applicant of any aspects of the development which may lead to a refusal to grant consent, and any such advice (or failure to provide it) will not bind or affect the consent authority when determining the application.

Strategic compatibility certificates

Whilst the concept of strategic compatibility certificates has been retained from the White Paper Reforms, its practical application is likely to be more limited given the heightened notification and consultation requirements which now apply, and narrower timeframes for acting upon a certificate.

A proposed development which is consistent with a regional growth plan or subregional delivery plan but is prohibited by the provisions of a Local Plan which has not yet been amended to reflect the provisions of the higher order plan, can apply to the Director-General for a strategic compatibility certificate to authorise that development. The Planning Bill provides that a certificate can be issued by the regional planning panel or by the Director General (but in the case of the latter, only if there are not more than 25 objectors and the relevant Council has not objected).

Where such a certificate is issued, a development application must be lodged within 12 months, and if consent is refused then the certificate ceases to have effect. Further, any consent granted in reliance on the certificate will lapse within 2 years (rather than the usual 5 years) unless work is physically commenced.

Decision makers

The model of decision making under the Planning Bill is largely the same as in the present system. Decision makers under the new system will be as follows:

· the Minister will maintain a decision making role, however, that role is expected to continue to be delegated to the Planning Assessment Commission.

· Regional Planning Panels will continue to be the decision maker for regional development.

· Councils will maintain the decision making role for development assessment, although the Planning Bill provides that a Local Plan may specify that certain types of development must be determined by an independent hearing and assessment panel.

· the current role of private certifiers to approve complying development will be retained.

Greater connection to e-planning

The Bill proposes that a development consent or complying development certificate will take effect once it is registered on the NSW Planning Portal.

Timeframes

The Planning Bill does not contain many mandatory timeframes with respect to the development assessment process, except for minimum public exhibition and notification requirements. However, there is scope for these to be contained within the regulations. Additionally, the ‘deemed refusal’ period for a development application will be contained in the regulations.

Modifications

The Planning Bill includes a broad modification power for State significant development.

For other merit assessed development, a consent authority will be able to modify a development consent in much the same way as under the present system, either to correct a minor error or misdescription, or if the consent authority is satisfied that the development as modified will be ‘substantially the same’, and the modified development is development for which the consent authority can grant consent.

Other obligations in Part 4 (including public notification, the requirement to grant consent to particular code assessable developments, and in respect of conditions), will apply to the modification of development.

Appeals and reviews

Most of the current features of the planning system have been retained in respect of appeals and reviews, including those introduced in recent years, with a few additions and changes. Some key features to note are:

· applicants will be able to seek reviews of decisions made by consent authorities (including Councils, independent hearing and assessment panels, regional planning panels and the Planning Assessment Commission), in similar circumstances to the current system. However, reviews will not be available for all development tracks. Mandatory costs orders will continue to apply when a development application is amended except when made in the context of section 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.

· the decision of a consent authority under Part 4, in relation to an application for development consent (or a modification) can be the subject of an appeal to the Land and Environment Court within 6 months of the decision, as is presently the case. This also includes an ability to appeal against decisions by a consent authority regarding something that had to be carried out to the consent authority’s satisfaction, as well as compliance with a deferred commencement condition.

· Objectors will have merit appeal rights for EIS assessed development (consistent with current appeal rights for designated development).

· there is no right of appeal in respect of a decision of a consent authority following a public hearing by the Planning Assessment Commission, the determination of (or failure to determine) a complying development certificate, or a decision of a Council to issue, or not to issue, a variation certificate for complying development.

Enforcement and orders

Development control orders will continue to be a feature of the new planning system.

Broadly, there are 3 categories of orders that may be issued by enforcement authorities: general orders, fire safety orders, and brothel closure orders. The functioning of this system is largely unchanged from the present orders system, including a right of appeal.

As under the current system, any person will be able to commence proceedings in order to remedy or restrain a breach of the act.

The Planning Bill excludes certain matters from being the subject of legal proceedings, including in relation to the declaration of public priority infrastructure, and specifies that certain provisions are not mandatory and accordingly cannot be the subject of proceedings.

However, in contrast to the position described in the White Paper Reforms, an increased number of public participation requirements are now identified as mandatory (with the scope for the regulations to identify other requirements as mandatory), and hence a failure by the consent authority to comply with these can be the subject of proceedings. Additionally, proceedings to challenge or review approvals of public priority infrastructure will be very limited.

A new criminal offences and proceedings regime will be introduced, with a 3 tier classification system for offences similar to that which exists under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. The maximum fine for corporations has been increased to $5 million for the top tier of offences, which includes carrying out development without the required planning approval. The Court will also be able to make an expanded range of orders in criminal proceedings.

The Planning Bill provides for aiding or abetting the commission of an offence and this could expand the scope of prosecutions, including for unlawful works.

Provision of Infrastructure

Contributions

The Planning Bill continues to provide that a consent authority will be able to impose, by way of conditions of development consent, any or all of the following contribution types:

· local infrastructure contributions – to fund the provision by council of local infrastructure;

· regional infrastructure contributions – imposed on specified development or a class of development, as a contribution towards the provision of regional infrastructure by the State; and

· biodiversity offset contributions – as a contribution towards biodiversity offsets for the conservation or enhancement of the natural environment of the State.

A key change made to the Planning Bill since the release of the White Paper Reforms is in relation to the use of local infrastructure contributions by councils. The White Paper Reforms proposed that money obtained from local infrastructure contributions was to be applied within 3 years towards the purpose for which the contribution was imposed, with the potential for the Minister to extend that period by a further 3 years in a particular case.

This timeframe has been amended by the Planning Bill such that the funds are to be applied within 5 years, subject to any extension that may be granted by the Minister (with such an extension unlimited in time by the Planning Bill).

Additionally, the principles for infrastructure contributions have been removed from Part 7 as it is proposed that such principles be incorporated within other provisions and a NSW Planning Policy.

Deferral of contribution payments

As foreshadowed in the White Paper Reforms, the Planning Bill contemplates the deferral of contribution payments to closer to the point of sale and allows for councils to secure those contributions by the creation of a statutory charge on land. However there is no detail on the mechanics of such arrangements, which will be provided for under the Regulations.

Planning Agreements

The role, if any, of voluntary planning agreements has been the subject of differing positions by government during the various stages of the planning reform process. The Planning Bill continues to provide for the ability of a developer to enter into a planning agreement with one or more public authorities, despite suggestions in the White Paper that planning agreements would be phased out or significantly modified.

The most notable departure of the planning agreement provisions within the Planning from the current position is that the Planning Bill provides that any contribution under a planning agreement must be applied specifically towards:

· the provision of infrastructure that is identified in a local infrastructure plan or growth infrastructure plan;

· the provision of infrastructure, or any other public purpose, that is identified in a Ministerial planning order made under this section;

· the provision of affordable housing that is identified in a strategic plan;

· the conservation or enhancement of the natural environment of the State.

The effect of these provisions will be to limit the flexibility that developers and public authorities presently have when negotiating the contents of a planning agreement. The Planning Bill also now provides that the procedures to be followed in negotiating a planning agreement may include consideration of the value of the contribution which is offered compared to the value of the contribution that would be required but for the agreement, and for the payment of money into a statutory fund.

Building regulation and certification

Whilst the building regulation and certification requirements of the Planning Bill are largely the same as in the White Paper Reforms, some changes have been introduced by the Planning Bill including:

· the introduction of “completion of work compliance certificates” as an alternative to occupation certificates in certain circumstances ;

· the ability of the NSW Planning Director-General to provide guidance to building certifiers or subdivision certifiers on the exercise of their functions, including the preparation of a building manual;

· clarifications to the appointment of building certifiers and subdivision certifiers; and

· broadening the circumstances in which a certifier can make a direction regarding non-compliance in respect of an aspect of an approved development.

Transitional arrangements

The Planning Bill sets out details of savings and transitional provisions which provide for how existing strategic plans, approved developments or proposed development under assessment will be dealt with under the new planning system. Whilst further detail will be set out in the Regulations, much more detail is now known about transitional provisions than was previously the case.

Specifically:

· existing strategic plans are to be recognised and incorporated into the new planning system, for example the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policies are taken to be planning control provisions of the local plans (except for the provisions which deal with exempt and complying development which are taken to be development code provisions of the Local Plan);

· Existing Local Environmental Plans are deemed to be planning control provisions of the relevant Local Plan;

· All heritage items, heritage conservation areas and archaeological sites in local environment plans will be part of the relevant Local Plan;

· development applications already lodged under the current system will continue to be assessed under the existing Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;

· existing approvals for development under the current legislation will become consents issued under the new legislation and determinations under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 will be taken to have been made under the new legislation;

· Planning agreements will be taken to be planning agreements under the new legislation; and

· reviews or appeals pending on the commencement of the new legislation must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the existing Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

CONSULTATION:

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

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

It is difficult to determine if there are any implications for the environment.

Social

The Bill has been changed to make provision for increased community consultation.

It is difficult to determine the social implications. The Bill lists 12 objectives but does not prioritise them. To some extent the achievement of some objectives could be to the detriment of others. For example promoting the growth of the State’s economy and increased productivity might not always be consistent with sustainable development.

Economic

As discussed for social.

Risk

There are potential risks to Council with the new processes. There are also potential costs to Council in implementing the new requirements.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

The budgetary impact will only be known when the Bill is passed and the regulations and policies required for the Bill’s implementation are known.

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

No impact at this stage.

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

It is too early to say.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 13 November 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.3 DA2012/011 131113 Provision of Link Road - Proposed 346 Lot Residential Subdivision - Alexandra Drive, Bellwood

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Michael Coulter, General Manager

Summary:

Council received a development application for one of the largest residential subdivisions ever proposed in the Shire on 3 February 2012. There were firstly substantial delays in obtaining the necessary information to place the application on public exhibition. However the public exhibition concluded in September 2012 and there have been further delays in reaching agreement as to how the proposed link road between Marshall Way and Alexandra Drive is to be dealt with. The applicant’s position is that the link road is not integral to the subdivision. Council’s consultant who is assessing the application believes it is integral to the subdivision. The Rural Fire Service has also required that the Link Road be constructed as part of their general terms of approval.

The applicant has now proposed that they lodge a development application for the construction of the Link Road on Council’s land. Council needs to provide its owner’s consent to the application. Council will also be the determining authority for the development application.

NOTE: This matter requires a “Planning Decision” referred to in Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requiring the General Manager to record the names of each Councillor supporting and opposing the decision.

A planning decision means a decision made in the exercise of a function of a council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

(a) including a decision relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan under that Act, but

(b) not including the making of an order under Division 2A of Part 6 of that Act.

Recommendation:

Council provide its consent as owner for the lodgement of a development application for the construction of the Link Road on Council’s land and in the event the application is approved, Council authorise the proponent and their contractors to submit for approval detailed design plans and then to enter upon the land to construct the road and ancillary works as required.

OPTIONS:

Notwithstanding the applicant’s appeal rights, based on the refusal of the Rural Fire Service to provide their general terms of approval without the link road, it would seem that the proposed 346 lot residential subdivision is unlikely to proceed without the construction of the link road.

In relation to the assessment of the Link Road, there are two options being Council prepare a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) under Part V of the Act or the applicant submit a development application with Council’s authority as owner under Part IV of the Act. To avoid risk and expense to Council, the preferred action is for the applicant to prepare a development application under Part IV of the Act.

Alternatively Council could refuse to provide its owner’s consent for a development application or refuse to undertake a Part V review of environmental factors. In either case the indication is that the application would likely have to be refused.

The other option is the one previously put to the applicant being that the subdivision application include the link road. The applicant has refused to include the link road in the development application for the reasons discussed in this report.

DISCUSSION:

There was a report to Council’s meeting on 16 October 2013 concerning the status of this development application for a 346 lot residential subdivision. The application which has an estimated value of $18m was lodged on 3 February 2012.

It will be recalled that the assessment of the application has reached something of an impasse wherein the Rural Fire Service has refused to issue their general terms of approval for the subdivision without the incorporation of the “Link Road” being the 200m long section of road on Council owned land to connect the subdivision to Marshall Way.

The applicant did not include the “Link Road” in the development application because, “we (the applicant) do not consider it is an integral part but rather a mutually desirable component in the interests of good planning, the Council and the Rural Fire Service (RFS). We consider that there are alternative bushfire hazard reduction options other than completing the link road that would satisfy the RFS and therefore the completion of the link is not integral. It is however preferable for all parties”.

In the report to Council’s meeting on 16 October it was foreshadowed that there would be a briefing of the Joint Regional Planning Panel on Friday 18 October.

The briefing of the Joint Regional Planning Panel occurred and Council staff then met with the applicant on 22 October 2013 to discuss the observations of the Panel. The Panel inspected the subdivision site and also the Link Road access from Marshall Way. The Panel confirmed that without the RFS general terms of approval they could not do anything except refuse the application.

Notwithstanding the refusal by the RFS to issue their general terms of approval without the “Link Road”, the applicant does not wish to incorporate the Link Road within the original development application as firstly they do not necessarily accept the position of the RFS and do not want to prejudice their legal entitlements and secondly are concerned that to change the development application by the incorporation of the Link Road will necessitate the readvertising and re-notification of the entire DA.

The applicant agrees that the assessment of the Link Road can be dealt with by Council via a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) under Part V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act or subject to a Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) under Part IV of the Act. The applicant has now provided the following offer:

“If Council will provide owner’s consent to lodge a Development Application (DA) for the construction of the link road over their land, we will prepare a SEE for Council to assess and grant consent…

If Council provides owner’s consent for lodgement of a DA we will reformat and resubmit the information we have provided to Council to constitute a SEE within 5 days. This appears to be the most efficient and expedient method to resolve the outstanding concerns”.

As the 346 lot residential subdivision and the Link Road to Marshall Way are inextricably linked, it would make most sense for the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) to simultaneously determine both the development application for the subdivision as well as the Link Road. However this is precluded by Section 23G of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act which is quite specific as to the development applications which can be determined by the JRPP.

This means that Council would be the determining authority for the development application.

Council previously resolved on 12 December 2012 that in the event that the subdivision DA is approved by the JRPP and the construction of the “link” road is undertaken pursuant to a Voluntary Planning Agreement, that Council authorise the proponent and their approved contractors to enter upon the land to construct the road and ancillary works as required.

The situation is now different to that contemplated in December 2012 as, by virtue of the RFS requirement for the Link Road, the JRPP cannot do anything but refuse the development application.

To enable the proposed subdivision to be further considered and to avoid Council incurring any expense in relation to the environmental assessment of the Link Road it is recommended that Council provide its consent as owner for the lodgement of a development application for the construction of the Link Road on Council’s land. Consistent with the previous resolution, in the event the application is approved, Council should authorise the proponent and their contractors to submit for approval detailed design plans and then enter upon the land to construct the road and ancillary works as required.

CONSULTATION:

There has been consultation with the consultant planner assessing the application, Mr Peter Chapman; with the Joint Regional Planning Panel and with the applicant.

The applicant has now submitted the attached letter, containing relevant legal advice to the JRPP.

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

The recommendation concerns council providing authorisation as owner for the lodgement of a development application. This report does not deal with the environmental merits of that application. It would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of that application without considering its merits.

Social

The recommendation concerns council providing authorisation as owner for the lodgement of a development application. This report does not deal with the social merits of that application. It would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of that application without considering its merits.

Economic

The recommendation concerns council providing authorisation as owner for the lodgement of a development application. This report does not deal with the economic merits of that application. It would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of that application without considering its merits.

Risk

The proposal for the development application to be submitted by the applicant has less risk than Council undertaking a Review of Environmental Factors under Part V of the Act.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

There are no budgetary implications.

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 significant resourcing implications.

Attachments:

27978/2013 - Proposed Bellwood Subdivision - legal advice

Ordinary Council Meeting 13 November 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.6 SF1759 131113 Nambucca Shire Library Storage

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Coral Hutchinson, Manager Community and Cultural Services; Tracey Ross, Senior Librarian

Summary:

This report is for Council’s information regarding storage issues for Nambucca Shire Library service, the options which have been investigated and a proposed solution.

Prior to becoming a stand-alone library service, storage of library items/collection was shared amongst the 10 branches of Clarence Regional Library. Nambucca Shire Council is now responsible for providing storage for its entire collection.

Recommendation:

That Council note the proposed action in regard to installation of a storage container at Macksville Library to provide storage for library items.

OPTIONS:

Various options have been discussed in the body of this report.

DISCUSSION:

Now that Nambucca Shire Council has full responsibility for its own library service, there have had to be changes in work practice and the way libraries are managed. This includes management of an entire library collection – currently some 41,000 items. Work on how to manage our own library service commenced when Council made its decision to stand-alone – now some 2 years ago. In terms of storage, there has been consistent and dedicated work on practical solutions over this time and the following options have been considered:

1. Make do with current floor space

Key activities under this option have been:

· Apply for Library Revitalisation grant ($16,000) – successful.

· Thorough clean-out of back room at Nambucca Heads Library.

· A major weeding program to remove unwanted items.

· Internal reconfiguration to maximise use of available floor space.

· Rationalisation and removal of individual furniture items.

Outcome: Even with the work undertaken, Nambucca Shire Library does not meet Library standards for collection, reader space, staff work areas etc. Additional storage is still needed.

2. Ask for permanent access to Small Hall at the Nambucca Entertainment Centre

It is highly valued by the community and in regular, consistent use.

Outcome: To use the Small Hall simply for storage would not be in the community’s best interest.

3. Utilise storage underneath Nambucca Heads Library and Small Hall

Appeared possible but damp issues cannot be resolved. Access solutions are expensive and do not address all workplace safety issues.

Outcome: A more secure, dry and accessible option is still needed.

4. Rent a premises near-by

Would be an expensive solution and too remote from libraries.

Outcome: Not viable.

5. Extend either library

This is not viable at Nambucca Heads due to site constraints. An extension at Macksville is a more feasible option, however even if funding were available in the near future, it doesn’t address the need now.

Outcome: An “extension” using a pre-fabricated solution is feasible, cost-effective and expedient to create an “off-site” library branch.

Note: An off-site “branch” of a library houses items not in daily demand but still needed in the collection. These items are usually accessed weekly after being reserved. It may also be the repository of classics and a suitable place to store good quality donations until brought into circulation eg popular items with high use and need for replacement.

Why storage is needed?

State Library of NSW guidelines recommend that the library collection contains 2.4 items per capita of population, currently the Nambucca Shire Library total collection is notably below this benchmark. (At State Library benchmark the collection should be 46,366 items and we currently hold 41,124 items.)

The Nambucca Shire library collection occupies 471m2 out of our total floor space of 650m2, leaving 179 m2 to be allocated amongst the remaining library functions. When considering the range of other activities performed in the libraries, this remaining space is clearly inadequate to meet guidelines relating the provision of reading areas, public access PCs, photocopiers, service desks and staff work space.

Revitalising Regional Library funding in 2013-2014 has allowed better rationalisation of existing space in both libraries. For example, the recent construction of built-in benches has minimised the floor space occupied by public access computers. Also the purchase of new shelving via the grant has allowed a reconfiguration of the collection to better utilise current space. Distances between shelves in the current layout at both libraries cannot be further reduced without compromising access and workplace safety. Reader spaces are already well below recommended standards.

A major weeding program has been undertaken in both libraries to ensure that the collection inherited from Clarence Regional Library now reflects the needs of our community, and is in accordance with the Nambucca Shire Library’s collection development profile. However, after these measures have been completed storage space remains an issue.

Since Nambucca Shire’s separation from Clarence library items have been stored underneath Nambucca Heads Library and the NEC Small Hall. Whilst this originally was thought to be a suitable solution, it has proven not to be the case. In regard to the room underneath the Library, dampness from drainage issues on the site have led to rapid deterioration of items stored, and poor access and isolation result in workplace safety issues. Over the past 18 months the extent of the drainage and damp issues have become more apparent, such that all attempts at mitigation so far have failed to provide an adequate resolution to the problems. The dampness is a result of inappropriate construction – enclosure of a room in the sub-floor building space was undertaken by well-intentioned volunteers and unfortunately was not built to standards or to withstand moisture penetration.

In short, total remediation is not feasible due to the high cost and the need for a total reconstruction.

Some of the issues relating to workplace safety, such as the movement of materials down to the site, could be overcome but this would involve considerable expense to do so. We could for example install a book elevator, thus avoiding staff having to carry materials up and down a set of steep stairs but this would require an investment of some $30,000 and the issues of isolation will not be solved.

Excess library items have been temporarily located to the store room underneath the Small Hall however that area has some similar issues to the room underneath the library, in that it is isolated, is insufficient storage space, and the public toilets are directly above with their drainage (including effluent passing) in close proximity to any staff working in the area. Council staff have already had to make urgent repairs to protect staff and books following vandalism to the toilets and leaking plumbing. Noise from flushing toilets is also very distracting and off-putting to staff working in this area. In addition, it bears all the access problems of the room opposite. This area also has its own damp issues causing materials to deteriorate. Mould is a public and staff safety issue with regard to individuals who may have allergies etc

Investment underneath Nambucca Heads Library/Small Hall has proved worthwhile to a point as the area is now more secure and can be used for storing shelving and display items; and so will remain of some use to the library. The area is however not feasible for the storage of the library collection.

Preferred Option – Additional Floor Space, Storage Container

There has been thorough consideration of this option and it has been determined that a storage container located adjacent to Macksville Library is a low-cost and practical solution with few, if any, disadvantages.

The cost differential between a permanent extension and using a storage container is huge. We estimate a cost of around $15,000 for the container as compared to a minimum of $150,000 for a modest addition. Should funding become available for a permanent long-term solution, the container can be easily sold and a high proportion of the initial outlay will be recouped.

Installing a container on-site at Macksville Library (eastern side) is highly suitable for the following reasons:

· requires little (if any) site preparation;

· preliminary discussions allude to the proposal meeting all planning and building requirements;

· is highly compatible with the adjoining use – the Caltex Service Station;

· has good natural surveillance;

· will be secure in terms of the site, and within itself;

· will have all-weather and same-level access;

· there will be minimal visual impact as it will be a colour to complement the library buildings and will not be visible from Princess Street (library front); and

· will require only a small outlay for fit-out.

In terms of managing the items stored, location at Macksville is ideal as it is the library service administration centre. Items stored can be actively monitored and accessed easily – although items from the off-site collection will be accessed weekly to best manage staff time. Floor to ceiling shelving can be installed to allow for maximum storage capacity as the area will not be accessible by the public.

Council can source as-new 12-metre containers for $6,500 including delivery. These containers have made a 1-way trip to Australia (Coffs Harbour) carrying high-value items and are therefore in excellent condition inside and out. The container will require a small expenditure for installation and fitting out, including concrete corner footings, internal lighting, a small security fence and pathway to link it to the existing building. Existing shelving will be relocated from Nambucca Heads storage.

A Development Application has been submitted to Council in line with the preferred option.

CONSULTATION:

Senior Librarian

Manager Development and Assessment

Technical Officer – Assets

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

There are no identified environmental issues. The proposed container is compatible with adjoining land use where B-Doubles and trucks carrying containers are frequently parked. It will be placed alongside the eastern library wall (refer to Site Plan below) where there are no windows and therefore wont block natural light, in fact it will provide some additional protection for eastern wall of the Library as the height is approximately that of the existing gutter.

$Description: N:\admin-canon-color-south-scans\20131105121926_00001.jpg$

Installation of Storage Container and Alterations to Macksville Library

SITE PLAN

Social

Nothing identified.

Economic

This is a cost-effective solution to the library storage issue.

Risk

Risk of vandalism will be mitigated by installing security fencing.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

The container option is low-maintenance and will have no noticeable impact on the running cost of the libraries.

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

Funding for the project (estimated to be $15,000) will come from the Restricted Asset created by Council following its separation from Clarence Regional Library.

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

There will be no change to service levels and the storage will minimise staff time required for managing donations and the off-site collection.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 13 November 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.7 SF544 131113 Developer Contribution Status Report

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Colleen Henry, Grants and Contributions Officer

Summary:

The following report identifies key activities and issues associated with Developer Contributions since the last quarterly report in May 2013.

RecommendationS:

1 That the Developer Contributions Status Report be received.

2 That the Surf Life Saving Contribution Plan works schedule be approved, to become effective from the date of Council’s approval and advertised on 21 November 2013.

OPTIONS:

That Council not approve the Surf Life Saving Contribution Plan works schedule.

That Council not approve the expenditure of Section 94A Contributions.

REPORT:

NSW Planning Reform

On 22 October, NSW planning legislation was introduced into Parliament. While it is expected to take many weeks before the new legislation is adopted, there are a number of changes in the new legislation regarding developer contributions. It is worthwhile noting that the term “Section 94” will no longer apply and the term Local Infrastructure Contributions (LIC) will be used instead.

The following have been identified as the likely major changes:

1. Five year limit on holding any LIC funds (unless an extension is approved by the Minister and the requested timeline was contained in the LIP - Local Infrastructure Plan or PGF – Planning Growth Fund).

2. Deferred payment of LICs for up to 12 months after approval or until the property is sold whichever occurs first.

3. The transition period (of many years potentially) requiring two very different Development Contributions administration systems running in parallel.

4. Land acquisition for District Open Space and Stormwater Drainage will be funded and administered by the PGF – Planning Growth Fund in the future.

5. Complete Exclusion of LICs and RICs (Regional Infrastructure Contributions) for Off-Site Public Car Parking needed for developments that under-supply On-Site Car Parking.

Surf Life Saving Infrastructure Contribution Plan 2007 - 2012

The draft works schedule for the Surf Life Saving Contribution Plan was on public exhibition from 9 October to 7 November and no submissions were received during the comment period. The new works schedule will come into effect following Council’s adoption of the schedule at this meeting, and will be advertised on 21 November 2013. A copy of the works schedule is attached.

Following Council’s consideration of the Section 94 Status Report in May 2013, Macksville Scotts Head Surf Life Saving Club wrote to Council to protest against the Grants and Contributions Officer’s proposal to abolish the surf life saving contributions plan and include surf club facilities in the Community Facilities and Public Open Space Plan. Under the new planning legislation, with its focus on essential infrastructure and its intent to limit the cost of development, it is likely that the SLSC Contribution Plan will not be allowed in any case.

Section 94A expenditure

The Section 94A Contributions Plan collects a levy from development in the CBDs and industrial areas of Bowraville, Macksville and Nambucca Heads to be used on streetscape, traffic infrastructure and other improvements to those areas. There is no works schedule associated with the plan. There is approximately $80,000 in the account, which was rolled over from the previous car parking contributions plans.

A proposal was received from the Strategic Planner to use a portion of the Section 94A funds to continue with the program of streetscape enhancement in Nambucca Heads, specifically tree planting and improvements to existing garden beds. The total cost has been estimated at $30,000, half of which may be sourced from the Environmental Levy, given the environmental benefits of planning street trees. This project meets the requirements of the s.94A plan and was supported by the Grants and Contributions Officer.

CONSULTATION:

General Manager

Strategic Planner

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

There are environmental benefits associated with the proposal to plant additional street trees in Nambucca Heads using s.94A funds.

Social

There are positive social impacts associated with the adoption of the works schedule for the Surf Life Saving Contribution Plan as clubs will be able to purchase the equipment outlined in the works schedule.

Economic

Developer contributions represent a significant income stream for Council and provide for upgrading essential infrastructure to meet demands of a growing population.

Risk

There are no risks associated with this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

An amount of $15,000 has been expended from the s.94A fund.

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

Section 94A Contribution Plan.

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

There are no service level changes or resourcing/staff implications as a result of this report.

Attachments:

26567/2013 - SLSC Contribution Plan works schedule updated for 2013-2015 approved by Council 13 November 2013

Ordinary Council Meeting 13 November 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.8 SF1855 131113 Environmental Levy - Nambucca Street Tree Planting Program

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Grant Nelson, Strategic Planner

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to secure funding to continue with street tree planting in Nambucca Heads.

Recommendation:

That Council resolve to allow an additional $15,000 to be allocated from the Environmental Levy to continue the planting of Street Trees in Nambucca Heads CBD.

OPTIONS:

Council may choose not to support the project or reduce the amount of levy funds allocated to the project.

DISCUSSION:

During the 2012/13 year Council budgeted $20,000 of the environmental levy funds to the streetscape improvement plans or works. $10,000 was allocated to Macksville and $10,000 allocated to Nambucca.

In consultation with the Nambucca Heads and Valla Beach Chamber of Commerce, it was decided to move forward with the planting of street trees in the Nambucca CBD. The objective of the project was to:

- Implement outstanding actions in the Nambucca Heads Town Centre Streetscape and Traffic Management Plan (R.H Milne 2003) being the planting of street trees;

- Improve the amenity and soften the largely urbanised main street;

- Provide shade and reduce radiant heat in our urban area;

The trees to be used had to suit the following:

- drought tolerant and suitable for coastal conditions;

- suitable height (not impact on power lines);

- the root systems should be non-invasive and adaptable to constrained environments;

- the tree shape should suit and urban area; and

- provide trees that are preferably native to the local area,

In consultation with the Nambucca Heads and Valla Beach Chamber of Commerce, Tuckeroos Cupaniopsis_anacardioides‎ were selected. Four (4) advanced Tuckeroos were planted at the crossing outside the Golden Sands Hotel on the weekend of the 14^th and 15^th of Sept. The trees have been in place for approximately 9 weeks. During this establishment period the monitoring and maintenance of the trees has been undertaken by Chamber representatives Mr Tony Stokes and Lyndal Barrett (Pelicans Landing Nursery). The trees were planted as a trial and it is noted the trees appear to be healthy after a period of high winds and low rainfall.

The total cost of the installation including, trees, concrete coring, materials and staff time, came to approximately $7500. It is also noted that the works were undertaken on the weekend to minimise disruption to the CBD. Costs of the works were approximately $1890 per tree.

Given positive community feedback and long term environmental and amenity improvements the project will contribute to the street, it is requested that additional funding be allocated to the project. It is proposed to allocate an additional $15,000 from the Environmental Levy with matching $15,000 from the S94a funds (refer to report from Councils Grants and Contributions Officer). An additional $30,000 will allow for the Street Tree Planting program to continue and may also allow for the revitalisation of the some of the existing beds.

This project is timely given the impending highway upgrade (Nambucca to Urunga) and could be considered part of revitalisation works for the town centre.

CONSULTATION:

Grants and Contributions Officer

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

The planting of trees in urban area has a multitude of environmental benefits including improvement to air quality, shade and reduction of radiant heat absorbed and stored by urban surfaces, increase energy efficeincy and decrease stormwater runoff.

Social

Trees in urban areas have been shown to be a critical factor in overall quality of life of urban communities providing a positive contribution to human health and wellbeing. Researchers have also shown that trees can decrease stress, increase healing and contribute to crime reduction.

Economic

Some research has indicated that trees in urban areas can attract businesses and increase property value. They also add to the beautification of an area and can lead to tourism attraction.

Risk

There is no risk associated with the project

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

Environmental Levy and Section 94a funds. There some unallocated funds available in the Environmental Levy that could contribute to the project. An status update on the Environmental Levy projects will be provided in a future Council report.

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

Should additional funding be required the matter will be reported to Council.

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

If the funds are allocated the project will be progressed in as staff resources permit over an estimated 12 month period. The project works will largely be completed during weekends to minimise disruption to the CBD unless staff determine impacts for certain works will be minimal. Contractors will be used as necessary to core pavement.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 13 November 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.9 SF1823 131113 Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined from 21 October 2013 to 1 November 2013

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Emma Shaw, Business Services Officer

Summary:

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

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

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

Recommendation:

That the applications where submissions have been received be noted and received for information by Council.

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

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/
STAFF COMMENTS

2012/011

03/02/2012

Nambucca Gardens Estate 346 Lot Residential Subdivision with Residue, Associated Works – Staged

Lot 2 DP 1119830, Alexandra Drive, Bellwood

Submissions outlined in previous report to Council 27 September 2012 – Item 10.1

Voluntary Planning Agreement supported by Council at its 28 February 2013 meeting.

Meeting with applicant and planning agreed that Council would assess its section of the link road under Part 5 of the EPAA. Concept plan for Link Road currently being prepared for assessment. Will be exhibited with VPA.

Status report to Council meeting 16 October On-site briefing meeting held with JRPP 18 October 2013 – advice to be sought from applicant.

Report in Business Paper of 13 Nov 2013.

Please note that there is one unresolved Development Applications in Excess of 12 months old.

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

DA NO	DATE OF RECEIPT	PROPOSAL	PROPERTY DESCRIPTION	SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/ STAFF COMMENTS
2013/092	29/08/2013	Health Services Facility & Subdivision	Lot 1 DP 1004209 & Lot 22 DP 1161807, Centenary Parade, Nambucca Heads	· Zoned community land and should be left that way. · Should be located closer to other health facilities or other appropriate zonings · Only one entry and exit road (Centenary Parade) therefore increasing traffic to area and can be dangerous with lots of school children. Issues with emergency evacuations · Parking an issue during carnivals etc · Little consultation into the development of this Health Care Centre - request for dialysis services to be included in the new centre · Existing levels and types of crimes already in area maybe exacerbated · Re-zoning costs born by Council not required for alternate sites · Request for further consultation with police, schools, school bus providers and other primary health providers for another site
2013/129	25/09/2013	2 Lot Residential Subdivision	Lot 8 DP 1031509, 125 Ocean View Drive, Valla Beach	· Concerns about the environmental impact of further development · Removal of trees may cause damage to the escarpment area and further land instability. · Coastal erosion concerns · Conflicting issues from the 1995 LEP to the 2010 LEP regarding zoning and restrictions on the lot
2001/096/01	27/09/2013	Quarry – increase annual extraction limit	Lot 100 DP 1118337, 491 Valla Road, Valla	· Heavy traffic and incompatibility with road use, water issues, air quality issues, noise and blasting issues, hazard issues, social, health and economic issues (locals paying for road repairs and reduced value of houses etc)
2013/125 Modification of T1-9-524	12/09/2013	Khanacross or motocross racing – to include lawn mower racing	Lot 1 DP 1144918, Eungai Creek Road, Eungai Creek	· Noise an issue · Need a proper steel gate which can be kept locked · Need to repair any damage caused to fencing · Return cows to if they get out due to the gate being left open
2013/134	08/10/2013	Residential Additions	Lot 1 DP 328486, 21 George Street, Bowraville	· Position of the proposed carport and non-habitable room causing visual issues · Where is the stormwater to be located? · Blind corner new structure would impair drivers vision · Proposed driveway too close to William and George Streets corner possible traffic chaos · Additions not fitting in with the style and character of Bowraville
2013/135	09/10/2013	Increase number of Companion Animals (Cats) outside of Local Approvals Policy	Lot 1 DP 328486, 21 George Street, Bowarville	· Already a large number of both feral and pet cats already roaming around in the area · Cats getting into other properties and causing problems · Smell of urine and faeces. If not cleaned up maggots get into faeces. Possible bacterial infections. Concerns of Toxoplasmosis and Cat Flea Typhus · Pollution from effluent · Policies are set for a reason ·

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 13 November 2013

General Manager

ITEM 9.15 SF600 131113 Proposed Subdivision of Land Adjoining the Macksville Sewerage Treatment Plant

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Michael Coulter, General Manager

Summary:

The report concerns a proposal to establish a grease trap waste processing plant on Council owned land next to the Macksville Sewerage Treatment Plant. The processing plant will allow the separation of water from the grease and will reduce the requirement to truck waste to Newcastle.

Recommendation:

1. Council note the progress with the proposed subdivision of land adjoining the Macksville Sewerage Treatment Plant for the purpose of a proposed grease trap waste processing facility.

2. There be a further report to Council on the estimated cost of the proposed subdivision and the recommended terms of any agreement with Mr Gordon.

OPTIONS:

It is Council’s land and it is a matter for Council as to whether or not it wishes to consider Mr Gordon’s proposal and the terms of any agreement to sell or lease the land.

DISCUSSION:

Approximately 18 months ago, Council received an enquiry from Mr Tony Gordon concerning the establishment of a plant to process grease trap waste.

Currently Mr Gordon has to truck grease trap waste to a processing plant in Newcastle. The large majority of the waste is water and the establishment of a local processing plant will enable most of the water to be separated from the grease, with the water then being discharged to the sewerage treatment plant. This will in turn mean a substantial reduction in the requirement to truck waste to Newcastle and in turn a substantial reduction in cost. Offset against this is the cost of establishing the processing plant.

There has been discussions with Mr Gordon about the potential for the establishment of the plant next to the Macksville Sewerage Treatment Plant. In terms of the locational requirements for the plant, the site has a reasonable buffer distance from the closest dwellings and once the waste is treated to a standard which can received by Council’s sewerage system, it can be discharged directly into the sewerage treatment plant.

The investigations by Mr Gordon have now reached the stage where he is ready to submit a development application for the processing plant.

It has been determined that the land is operational so Council can consider Mr Gordon’s proposal without the necessity of a rezoning process to reclassify it.

To enable consideration of the proposal to proceed the following is required:

1. Mr Gordon needs to obtain development consent for his proposal

2. Council needs to obtain subdivision approval to create a lot for the development

3. The costs of undertaking the subdivision need to be determined once a conditional consent has been issued

4. Council and Mr Gordon need to agree on a price for the land which includes or excludes the cost of undertaking the subdivision.

In April 2013 Council obtained a valuation for the proposed subdivision from Valuers Herron Todd White. A copy of the valuation is attached. The valuation for 2,500m2 was $87,500. Mr Gordon has previously expressed an interest in either leasing or purchasing the land.

In terms of dealing with the land Council needs to know the cost of undertaking the subdivision.

So as to enable the statutory consideration of the proposal, I have endorsed Mr Gordon’s development application as owner as well as Council’s subdivision application as owner.

Notwithstanding the modest land value, because the applications concern Council’s land, it is possible that a disaffected person may argue that Council has a conflict of interest as a land owner or “developer” and as a regulatory authority.

It is considered that the best way to address this potential risk is for the elected Council to determine both the subdivision application and the development application.

It is also recommended that if the proposal proceeds to a contract of sale, then the contract of sale provide that the plant be built before the subdivision certificate to create the lot is issued. This is necessary to comply with Section 4.2C of the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 which provides that land may be subdivided to create a lot of a size that is less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map, if Council is satisfied that the use of the land after the subdivision will be the same use (other than a dwelling house or a dual occupancy) permitted under the existing development consent for the land. There should also be caveat or covenant attached to the title prohibiting the erection of a dwelling on the land.

CONSULTATION:

There has been consultation with Mr Gordon and his consultant Mr David Pensini who is a Health and Building Surveyor in private practice. There has also been consultation with Council’s Water and Sewerage Manager, Manager Business Development, Strategic Planner and Manager Technical Services.

There will need to be further consultation with Mr Gordon prior to any proposal to proceed to sell or lease the land.

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

The proposed processing plant to refine grease trap waste should be a positive for environment in significantly reducing the volume of waste currently trucked to Newcastle.

There is the possibility of some odour but no more so than from the adjacent sewerage treatment plant. The proposed site has reasonable buffers to the nearest dwelling.

Social

There are no significant social issues.

Economic

New investment which should provide Mr Gordon with the opportunity to increase the size of his business is beneficial to the local economy.

Risk

Once Mr Gordon’s proposal has been fully assessed via the DA process and the costs of the subdivision can be established the risks are minimised.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

At this stage the budgetary impact is not known. Council should not deal with the land unless it has some return, so in this respect it should have a positive impact on current or future budgets.

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

At this stage the variance to working funds is unknown.

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

There has been some time committed by Council’s Manager Business Development, the General Manager and other Council staff in progressing Mr Gordon’s enquiry.

Attachments:

27153/2013 - Kelly Close Valuation

Ordinary Council Meeting 13 November 2013

General Manager

ITEM 9.16 SF600 131113 Status of Land Sales

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Michael Coulter, General Manager

Summary:

The report is short. A summary is not required.

Recommendation:

That Council note the reported land sales.

OPTIONS:

There are no options. The land has either been transferred or contracts have been exchanged.

DISCUSSION:

Council has now executed contracts for the sale of a number of lots.

Short Street, Macksville to Nambucca Valley Care

It will be recalled that Council resolved to close and transfer Short Street, Macksville (the short cul-de-sac off Boundary Street) to Nambucca Valley Care for $1.00. There was some delay with this transaction as the purchasers objected to a right of carriageway being placed over the land in favour of Council. The right of carriageway was proposed to allow Council’s garbage contractor to enter the site to collect bins. The garbage contractor will not enter private land. It has now been established that the practice is for Autumn Lodge staff to take wheelie bins to the Boundary Street frontage and Nambucca Valley Care have no requirement that Council’s contractor enter the property. On that basis the requirement for a right of carriageway was removed from the contract. The contract was then signed on 24 October.

Lots 3 & 4 DP 593774, Rodeo Drive to the Nambucca River Jockey Club

Contracts were exchanged for the transfer of the land to the Nambucca River Jockey Club on 28 October. It will be recalled that the price for the land was set at $4,000 with this sum to be donated back to the Jockey Club upon completion of landscaping work.

22 Adam Street, Bowraville to Nambucca Valley Phoenix

At Council’s meeting on 27 September 2012 it was resolved to transfer the old works depot at 22 Adam Street, Bowraville to Nambucca Valley Phoenix for $1, subject to them meeting all of Council’s costs as well as accepting all risks associated with any potential contamination of the site. It will be recalled that Nambucca Valley Phoenix have occupied and used the old works depot for many years. The land was transferred in July 2013.

Short Street, Nambucca Heads

Contracts have now been signed on 34 Short Street, Nambucca Heads, the last of the three residential lots which were subdivided off Coronation Park. The results for the sales of each lot are as follows:

No. 32 Short Street – Lot 1 DP 1157698 – 513m2 – sold October 2012 for $98,000

No. 34 Short Street – Lot 2 DP 1157698 – 580m2 – sold October 2013 for $105,000

No. 36 Short Street – Lot 3 DP 1157698 – 666m2 – sold December 2012 for $115,000

Therefore the total sales were $318,000.

The total development costs were $135,819 of which $72,154 was for the provision of sewer and stormwater. The cost of providing sewer and stormwater was more than originally anticipated as there was inadequate fall to the other side of Short Street and longer lines had to be laid to connection points in Coronation Park.

Therefore the “profit” on the sale of the land was $182,181.

In March 2009 it was resolved that Council provide a written undertaking to the Coronation Park Committee of Management that all proceeds from the sale of the land be expended on agreed improvements to Coronation Park. In December 2008, Council prepared a budget for the replacement of the Coronation Park amenities and kiosk building of $935,677. The budget included an estimate on the proceeds of the sale of the subdivision of $250,000. Therefore the outcome has been $67,819 less than the 2008 estimate. As a consequence there is no surplus of funds to distribute to the Coronation Park Committee of Management with all of the funds (plus some) having been applied to the replacement of the amenities and kiosk.

CONSULTATION:

There has been consultation with the Manager Business Development.

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

There are no significant implications for the environment.

Social

There are no social implications.

Economic

The Council has created an additional 3 residential ratepayers. A complying development certificate has been issued for the construction of a dwelling on No. 32 Short Street. The construction of dwellings on all three lots has some beneficial economic impact.

Risk

The property matters have been or are about to be completed.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

Legal costs for the transfers to Nambucca Valley Care and the Jockey Club are being met by the purchasers. The cost of the transfers for the land in Short Street came from the property development reserve.

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

The balance of the cost of the amenities buildings will have to be met from working funds.

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

There are no significant service level implications.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 13 November 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.18 DA2012/069 131113 Traffic Impact Assessment - Intersection of Upper Warrell Creek Road and the Pacific Highway, Macksville

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Michael Coulter, General Manager

Summary:

The report is short and a summary is not required.

Recommendation:

The information concerning the traffic impact assessment for the intersection of Upper Warrell Creek Road and the Pacific Highway be received.

OPTIONS:

There are no discernible options at this stage. The report is for information.

DISCUSSION:

In September 2012 Council staff met with representatives of Australian Precast Solutions Pty Ltd (APS); representatives of Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) and also a representative of NSW Trade and Investment to discuss a proposal by APS to seek consent to increase their approved production from 90,000 tonnes to 200,000 tonnes of pre-cast concrete product per annum.

At the meeting in September 2012 there was no agreement reached as to what, if any, work was required at the intersection of Upper Warrell Creek Road and the Pacific Highway. The RMS representatives did not consider there was sufficient technical information in relation to the existing and future service levels of the intersection for turning traffic. There was considerable discussion about the physical limitations to upgrading the intersection and the necessity for this when it was generally agreed that the construction of the Pacific Highway by-pass of Macksville would result in the imposition of a traffic speed zone of 80km per hour at the intersection on or before 2016.

It was agreed that a traffic impact assessment be undertaken to properly investigate the intersection’s service level and the impact of the proposed increase in production by APS as well as other related traffic growth arising out of urban subdivision and the new St Patrick’s Primary School. A traffic impact assessment has now been prepared by consulting firm RoadNet and is attached.

The RoadNet report concludes that the existing intersection layout can adequately cater for the existing traffic volumes with a maximum level of service of B. Modelling of the intersection using estimated 2018 traffic volumes indicates no significant changes to the efficiency of the intersection, with only the right turn out of Upper Warrell Creek Road having a level of service C. According to RoadNet the existing intersection layout will adequately cater for the increased 2018 traffic volumes (when the existing Pacific Highway is scheduled to be bypassed).

The RoadNet report notes that the existing intersection layout includes turning lanes which do not meet the minimum acceleration length requirements. The existing layout is also constrained by the adjacent landforms and the proximity of the Bald Hill Road intersection. Any proposed widening of the roadway and provision of adequate turning lane lengths would require extensive roadwork and the closing or relocating of Bald Hill Road.

RoadNet recommend that consideration be given to reducing the speed zone of the adjacent Pacific Highway to 80 kph which would reduce the turning lane length requirement.

It is anticipated that APS will lodge an application to modify their consent to increase their production in the near future. The Council will be the determining authority for the modification application. Whilst the RMS does not have a concurrence role in the determination of the application, it is only the RMS who can impose a 80 kph speed zone on the Pacific Highway. To enable Council to properly consider the traffic implications of the foreshadowed modification application, in the event that the application is recommended for approval, agreement has been sought from the RMS to introduce an 80 kph speed zone on this section of the highway. If the modification application is not supported Council may wish to consider retaining its position given the other development which is occurring in the area.

CONSULTATION:

There has been consultation with the RMS, APS, NSW Trade and Investment, Council’s Manager Business Development, Manager Technical Services and Manager Development & Environment.

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

APS has undertaken substantial noise attenuation work at is factory. Since that work there have been fewer complaints about their operations. The use of the vibrator immediately following the pouring of a beam is a noise source which has attracted complaints. Any modification application will be notified to adjoining and nearby residential property owners.

Social

Increased employment will have positive social implications. There are also significant social implications in relation to the safety of the Pacific Highway. Intersections are a key hazard/risk in relation to Pacific Highway safety.

Economic

The increased production limit will substantially increase employment by APS and other local companies who supply APS, particularly Boral who supply their concrete. By way of example employment by APS has fluctuated between about 60 full time staff and 130 full time staff, the latter being at the peak of production for the Kempsey highway bridge. The employment implications of the increased production will be documented in their modification

Risk

The traffic impact assessment deals with the intersection 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 significant resourcing/staff implications.

Attachments:

27114/2013 - Traffic Impact Assessment

Ordinary Council Meeting 13 November 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.20 SF1823 131113 Boultons Crossing (Gumma Reserve)

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Paul Guy, Manager Development and Environment

Summary:

This report has been compiled to answer questions stemming from the report submitted to council 321/10/2013 with regard to licensing Gumma Reserve as a Primitive Camping Ground in accordance with Section 68 of the Local Government Act and the requirements of the Local Government (Manufactured Homes estates, caravan parks, camping grounds and moveable dwellings - LGMHE, CP, CG & MD) Regulation 2005, i.e, (a) confirmation with respect to the definition of Primitive Camping Ground and (b) the maximum density of the reserve.

Recommendation:

That Council licence the reserve as a primitive camping area in accordance with Section 68 of the Local Government Act, Local Government (Manufactured Homes, Movable Dwellings, Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Regulation 2005) with strict adherence to a maximum density within the reserve in the delineated camp sites of 60 combination camper vehicles/caravans and Tents with a maximum of 30 camper vehicles/caravans at any one time.

OPTIONS:

That Council pursue licencing as a caravan park and camping ground and prepare an objection to requirements in the Regulations (as later reported) for concurrence of the Director General; or

Close the reserve.

DISCUSSION:

With respect to item a) the matter has been further researched and excerpts from a Planning Circular issued at the time of the new legislation PS06/0015 follows

Former approach to camping density

Under the Local Government (Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 1995 (the former Regulation), which was repealed on 1 September 2005, the maximum number of tents, caravans and campervans permitted to use a PCG at any one time was two for each hectare of the camping ground.

New approach to camping density

The new Regulation (see especially clauses 73 and 132) provides two options, and more flexibility, in regulating camping density for PCGs. Under the new Regulation an approval to operate a PCG can either:

􀂃 designate camp sites where tents, caravans and campervans may be located — in which case the maximum number of camp sites is not to exceed an average of two per hectare (that average being calculated over the total area of the PCG )1, or

􀂃 not designate camp sites — in which case the maximum number of tents, caravans and campervans permitted to use the ground at any one time is not to exceed an average of two per hectare (that average being calculated over the total area of the PCG); with a concession that two or more tents occupied by not more than 12 persons camping together as a group are to be counted as only one tent.

Both options increase the opportunity for families and other groups to camp together in a number of tents.

As average density is used to calculate the number of camp sites permitted (where the approval designates camp sites) and the permitted number of tents, caravans and campervans (where the approval does not designate camp sites), camping might be concentrated in some PCGs and more evenly spread in others.

Regulating density where camp sites are designated

The new Regulation does not stipulate a minimum or maximum size for a designated camp site. In Planning Circular PS 05-007 the Department suggested sites should be fairly small to encourage the quiet enjoyment of camping. It is acknowledged, however, that some variety in size and configuration of camp sites may be appropriate so as to accommodate different group sizes, the lie of the land and other factors.

There is no specific limit on the number of tents, campervans or caravans that may be sited in a designated camp site in a PCG. There are, however, requirements that apply to each kind of moveable dwelling in regard to separation [clause 132(2)(c) and (d)]. For example, a tent may not be located closer than three metres to any other tent, and a campervan or caravan not closer than six metres to any other caravan, annexe, campervan or tent. These requirements are for reasons of safety and privacy.

With respect to item b) as previously reported;

Accordingly, utilising the site plan and delineating trees, access, buildings, emergency vehicle area, sensitive areas and 10 metre setbacks from the river over 4 designated camp sites it has been extrapolated that Council could permit 30 caravans/campervans or upwards of 75 tents at any one time. (Note that a tent can be a combination of tents from the one family accommodating no more than 12 people).

A caravan, annexe or campervan must not be allowed to be installed closer than 6 metres to any other caravan, annexe, campervan or tent,

A tent must not be allowed to be installed closer than 6 metres to any caravan, annexe or campervan or closer than 3 metres to any tent

Needless to say that at any one time there will be a combination of both however from local knowledge we are aware that most occupation annually is by caravans and campervans and that tent occupation is prevalent during the September/December/January school holidays, Easter and special weekends.

Therefore council may set a maximum figure of say 60 combination camping vehicles and tents during the holiday periods and a maximum of 30 at all other times.

To answer the question with respect to the maximum density of the reserve and without regard to history useage the prior sentence would better read ‘Council may set a maximum figure of 60 combination camping vehicles and tents with a maximum of 30 camping vehicles/caravans at any one time’

This was assessed with knowledge of the high existing use and an attempt to balance/lessen the impact on the environment. Also the figures derived distinguish and interpolate the different users and required setbacks from each other.

With respect to options - as previously stated DLG concurrence is required to the broad range of objections to requirements for caravan parks that council would have to seek and that concurrence is considered not achievable

Closure of the reserve has had significant discussion

CONSULTATION:

Department of Planning

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

The control of the reserve as a primitive camping site will prevent access or disturbance to sensitive areas and maintain the park in an ecologically sustainable manner.

Social

The recommendations should meet the expectations of people who use the Reserve for camping. The proposed cap on the maximum number of sites may affect attendance at peak holiday times, but the level of service will continue largely unaltered.

Economic

A primitive camping area significantly reduces Council’s expenditure on upgrade and maintenance

Risk

If council seeks to allow the park to remain open to campers then the risks to people and the environment have to be managed.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

As previously reported -

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

See above

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

See above

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

See above

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 13 November 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

ITEM 10.1 SF1761 131113 Year End Financial Result & Statements – 30 June 2013

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Craig Doolan, Manager Financial Services

Summary:

Pursuant to Section 418 and Section 419 of the Act, Council is required to present the audited Financial Statements and Auditor’s Reports to the public.

The Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013, have been completed and the audit reports required by the provisions of Section 417 of the Local Government Act 1993 have been received and copies are circularised.

The circularised Audit Report under Section 417(2) and 417(3) provides an independent and comprehensive explanation of Council’s financial position and Mr Geoff Allen of Forsyths has advised that he will attend the public meeting to report on the Statements.

The financial statements indicate Council’s financial position remaining sound, but as previously reported, when taken in combination with Council’s Operational Plan, Delivery Program and Long Term Financial Plan information future financial sustainability is uncertain.

The Income Statement, Statement of Financial Position, Statement of Changes in Equity and Statement of Cash Flows consolidate the information contained in the notes to the accounts and provide the big picture of Council’s operations and financial position and are circularised for Council’s information. Copies of the Consolidated Financial Statements are available on Council’s website and hard copies can be provided upon request.

Also circularised is a copy of Council’s investments detailing external and internal restrictions for which the investments are held as at 30 June 2013.

Current Liquid Equity (CLE) represents Council’s ‘working funds’ account or Council’s short term uncommitted cash balance. The greater the level of CLE the more ability Council has to manage day to day and short term contingencies. At the 30 June after taking into account non cash operational items such as depreciation and employees leave liability the remaining surplus or deficit either increases or decreases CLE respectively. During a budget year CLE will fluctuate depending on blowouts or savings in expenditure, unplanned inclusions to the budget, and new, greater or less than estimated sources of income. Council’s General and Water Supplies fund levels are solid with Sewerage Services adequate when considering the balance of the fund’s reserves.

A summary of Current Liquid Equity is shown on page 1 of the circularised budget review document. A list of revotes and explanations commence page 2 of the Budget Review document and a review of the estimated results for 2012/13 is discussed below and explanations from responsible officers for items impacting the budget result by 5% and $10,000 are shown from pages 8 to 18. From page 19 actual totals and the variances for each budget review heading are shown.

Council should also note commentary in the report of 26 September 2013 supplied by Manager Civil Works regarding capital works projects and forecast revotes to 2013/14.

Recommendation:

1 That the Financial Statements and the Auditor’s Reports for the year ended the 30 June 2013 be received.

2 That the list of revotes be approved and included as subvotes for 2013/14.

OPTIONS:

Presentation of the audited Financial Statements and Auditor’s Reports is a requirement under the Local Government Act 1993.

DISCUSSION:

WORKING CAPITAL RESULTS

Net Change in Working Capital as at 30 June 2013

General Fund: The original 2012/13 budget forecast a net change in working capital of $600 surplus. Items revoted from 2011/12 amounted to $720,600. The balance of internal loans borrowed from current liquid equity was $541,238.

The estimated 30 June 2013 net change in working capital for the year 2012/13 is a deficit of $99,719, which changes to a deficit of $901,089 after net revotes to 2013/14 of $293,770 and internal loans due of $507,600. Thus, an improvement in working capital of $360,749 and a surplus of $360,149 on the original budget.

Water Supplies: The original 2012/13 budget forecast a net change in working capital of $1,500 surplus. There were no 2011/12 net revotes.

The estimated 30 June 2013 net change in working capital for the year 2012/13 is a surplus of $130,924, which changes to a surplus of $80,924 after net revotes to 2013/14 of $50,000. Thus, an improvement in working capital of $80,924 and a surplus of $79,424 on the original budget.

Sewerage Services: The original 2012/13 budget forecast a net change in working capital of $400 surplus. Items revoted from 2011/12 amounted to $160,000.

The estimated 30 June 2013 net change in working capital for the year 2012/13 is a deficit of $268,456, which remains a deficit of $268,456 after net revotes to 2013/14 of $0. Thus, a decline in working capital of $108,456 and a deficit of $108,856 on the original budget.

General Activities

Current Liquid Equity

At the 30 June 2013, the current liquid equity position for General, net of depreciation and employees leave liability provision is estimated as a surplus of $3,702,400. Allowing for net revotes of $293,770 and internal loans due of $507,600, the adjusted estimated position is $2,901,030 (Surplus).

General’s net current liquid equity position at the 30 June 2012, was a surplus of $2,540,281, therefore the estimated position has improved by $360,749.

Current Liquid Equity is healthy and estimated to be $1,200,000 above the minimum level as per Council’s policies.

Budget Review Result

The 2012/13 General Activities Budget was adopted with a $600 surplus.

At the September 2012 Budget Review the budget result was revised to $109,500 deficit primarily as a result of a reduction in the Financial Assistance Grant of $191,500. Council also received a $45,000 Statewide Property Mutual rebate along with word on reductions to its Public Liability premium ($44,000) and RFS contribution ($39,000).

Apart from $58,000 required as Council’s contribution to two recent flood events, $32,000 for a road network survey, $30,000 for the revaluation of buildings and operational land and $33,000 for a robotic total survey station, at the December 2012 Budget Review, Council’s budget position improved by $57,400 through the forecast increase in unrestricted interest on investments of $231,000.

The March 2013 Budget Review saw the deficit increase to $83,600. This was despite the windfall grant funds of $239,000 with respect to flood damage from a storm event in January 2011. The variances swallowing up the windfall were redundancy payments of $137,000, parking patrol variation of $62,000 plant hire donation to Nambucca River Agricultural Association of $40,000 and reduction in rate income of $33,000.

This 30 June sees a similar turnaround to that experienced at 30 June last year. The result is an improvement in working capital $444,300 to that predicted at the March Budget Review. Again there are numerous items and areas where savings or additional revenues were found. Once again the primary factor has been a significant saving in salaries and related employee costs. Salaries are under budget by $370,000. As with last year the main reason for the reduction is the non-replacement and delays in filling positions within Council’s organisation structure. These variations were not reported earlier due to the uncertainty with regard to the organisation structure review and other (often ad hoc) resourcing decisions made at the section/department level such as overtime and additional hours, casual and temporary staffing and deferred recruitment. Notwithstanding, it is critical that improvement in the timing of this information occurs. Combining this figure with the $355,000 saving at the 30 June 2012, the magnitude of these savings, if had come to light earlier, would provide opportunity to revisit the allocation of resources set at the original budget as well as options to analyse customer service levels, staff work load and other human resource issues such as outstanding leave, employee morale and job satisfaction, and improving work practices.

Returning to the budget result, savings or additional revenue also occurred in Councillor expenses ($24,000); audit fees ($26,000) through the adjournment of the internal audit process; information & technology equipment & maintenance ($32,000); Development Application Fees ($28,000); completion of landfill closure ($50,000); Aquatic Centre contract ($37,000), maintenance ($24,000) and deferral of turnstiles ($40,000); Sporting Grounds Maintenance ($26,000); Headland Reserve Trust contribution ($20,000); Roads & Bridges loans ($175,000) due to lower interest rate and later draw down; and, ($101,000) in unrestricted interest on investments.

There are a number of adverse items that partly offset the above. In particular $59,000 under budget in bulk waste customer gate fees, additional servicing of Public Amenities at weekends and holiday periods ($44,000), February flood damage yet to be approved ($187,000), Bridge & Culvert maintenance ($22,000), Street Lighting ($57,000), no Tourism contribution from Water and Sewerage applicable ($20,000); and, Saleyards fees & charges ($37,000) as a result of lower throughput and transfer to Show committee.

The end result is beneficial to Council’s current or cash financial position (short to medium term), but as Council is aware it is the long term or financial sustainability issue that is questionable. It is once again disappointing that many of the variances were not highlighted earlier. Consequently, efficacy is compromised with planning deterred, not to mention, a similar quantity adverse operating result could have quite easily occurred. Budget management is critical for sound financial planning. The apparent lack of staff resources at the budget management level may well be a factor; nevertheless, Council’s budget management requires a thorough review.

Water Supplies

Current Liquid Equity

The current liquid equity position for Water Supplies, net of depreciation is estimated as a surplus of $2,003,500. Allowing for net revotes of $50,000, the adjusted estimated position remains at $1,953,500 (Surplus).

Water Supplies’ net current liquid equity position at the 30 June 2012, was a surplus of $1,872,576, therefore the estimated position has improved by $80,924.

Current Liquid Equity levels remain strong at approximately $1,200,000 above the minimum level as per Council’s policy.

Budget Review Result

Council adopted a $1,500 surplus net change in working capital in the original budget. A slight deficit of $8,900 was estimated at the September 2012 Budget Review. The budget result improved by $100 at the December review where $64,000 in unrestricted interest on investments offset capital works variances. The Off River Storage Project delay was included in the March Budget Review where the net variation did not affect working funds. A slight improvement to the forecast $300 surplus result came from variances emanating from other capital work projects.

The improvement to the end result is primarily attributable to $136,000 net increase in annual and user charges primarily as a result of a jump in consumption, $46,000 in unrestricted interest on investments and $24,000 from the deferral of the water reticulation analysis. The major item offsetting the above was a $54,000 required for an upgrade of fluoride dosing equipment.

Sewerage Services

Current Liquid Equity

The current liquid equity position for Sewerage Services, net of depreciation is estimated as a surplus of $573,300. Allowing for net revotes of $0, the adjusted estimated position is $573,300 (Surplus).

Sewerage’s net current liquid equity position at the 30 June 2012, was a surplus of $681,756, therefore the estimated position has declined by $108,456.

Current Liquid Equity levels remains deficient being $40,000 below the minimum level as per Council’s policy. The 2013/14 operating budget will need to be closely monitored to ensure the end of year result does not return a further deficit. Notwithstanding, Sewerage Services delivery program indicates a buffer of reserves of $2.6m that can be utilised for major unforeseen capital works.

Budget Review Result

Council adopted a $400 surplus net change in working capital in the original budget. An improvement of $28,700 was estimated at the September 2012 Budget Review primarily as a result of plant replacement savings. Further plant purchase savings forecast in the December Budget Review revised the surplus to $62,600. A slight increase to the surplus result of $3,000 was forecast at the March 2013 Budget Review. Although there were a number of variances relating to the Nambucca Heads Augmentation works and other capital works along with Sewerage Usage charge revenue, they were primarily offset by reserves.

The substantial decline of $235,700 in the result at the 30 June is attributable to the $278,000 transfer from the augmentation revenue reserve shown at the March Budget Review overlooked at year end, a further reduction of $159,000 to sewerage usage charge revenue and an additional $65,000 in workers compensation premium as a result of updated claims history.

The adverse variances above were partly offset by loan repayment savings of $42,000, indefinite postponement of concept plan and report for Scotts Head STP inlet, savings of $137,000 to pump station and mains maintenance and energy costs, $50,000 for the Macksville Treatment Plant Aeration Equipment upgrade, $72,000 for the Bowraville STP Constructed Wetland, unrestricted interest on investments of $191,000.

OPERATING RESULT

The Income Statement shows a consolidated operating surplus for the year of $6,393,000. Council’s operating result before capital grants and contributions is a deficit of $9,897,000. The major factors in the variation to the previous year’s result relate to an increase in capital grants & contributions relating to funding for the Off-Stream Water Storage facility and the write off of a number of assets relating to the Showground, Bowraville Pre-School, Nambucca Headland Caravan Park, an industrial land lot, as well as a number of infrastructure assets.

For Council’s category 1 business activities Water Supplies and Sewerage Service, the continuing operations result for the year after imputation of tax equivalents is a surplus of $16,402,000 and a deficit of $1,382,000 respectively.

The operating results distinguish from the Working Capital Result figures as they do not include capital expenditure and include non cash items of depreciation, fair value adjustments and increase in employees leave entitlement liability. In addition, the results do not recognise the transfers to and from restricted assets, or items revoted to 2013/14.

TOTAL EQUITY

Council’s Total Equity or Net Assets increased to $317,568,000 from the $307,294,000 held as at 30 June 2012. The increase was influenced primarily by an increase in Infrastructure assets reflecting the work on the Off-Stream Water Storage project. The Statement of Financial Position lists the items that make up this equity and the Statement of Changes in Equity shows the increase from 2011/12 to 2012/13.

DEBT SERVICE RATIO

The Debt Service Ratio highlights the amount of annual revenue necessary to service annual debt obligations (loan repayments).

The consolidated ratio as shown in the attached Note 13 of the Financial Statements is 13.04%. An industry benchmark set by Local Government Managers Australia (LGMA) is between 10 - 15%.

The ratio for each of General Activities, Water Supplies and Sewerage Services is:

	2012/2013	2011/2012	2010/2011	2009/2010	2008/2009	2007/2008	2006/2007
General	6.49%	5.67%	5.96%	4.96%	4.18%	4.12%	6.06%
Water	10.15%	7.84%	9.30%	6.99%	2.77%	0.40%	0.74%
Sewerage	48.03%	47.04%	47.08%	8.96%	17.22%	13.55%	12.49%

The ratios reflect a disparity of positions between the funds and the different borrowing situations of each.

It has previously been advised that Council’s intended borrowing program in relation to the Water Storage and Sewerage Augmentation projects would impact significantly on the ratios. With respect to Genreal, Council still has scope for prudent borrowing in relation to dealing with infrastructure backlog and long term financial sustainability. Repayments relating to the 10 year $12.75m interest free loan secured for the Nambucca Sewerage Augmentation is the principal factor in the Sewerage ratio climbing suddenly in 2010/2011 to just under 50%.

ASSET RENEWAL EXPENDITURE

The asset renewal expenditure indicator reflects the extent to which council is maintaining the condition of its building and infrastructure assets.

The measure used is capital expenditure on existing assets over annual depreciation and is the capital renewal capacity of council i.e. the amount of funds spent on renewing building and infrastructure assets (as opposed to maintaining them).

The consolidated ratio as shown in Note 13 of the Financial Statements is: 69%. A 1:1 ratio is the ideal benchmark.

The ratio also needs to be taken into account with Special Schedule 7 which is attached. Special Schedule 7 summarises the condition of Council’s assets.

As mentioned with last year’s report, these indicators continue to demonstrate the criticalness of Council’s asset management situation. The ratio below for General and Water highlights the predicament in servicing infrastructure in these funds to avoid future failure.

	2012/13	2011/12	2010/11	2009/10	2008/09	2007/08	2006/07
General	73%	74%	71%	97%	77%	82%	57%
Water	36%	21%	44%	25%	23%	18%	77%
Sewerage	70%	199%	216%	18%	2%	5%	18%
Consolidated	69%	82%	84%	76%	60%	61%	54%

RE – VOTES OF EXPENDITURE

This indicator is not a requirement for disclosure in the Financial Statements but is considered important for asset management to illustrate how well Council is planning and utilising its resources. Re-votes at year end are the commitments of expenditure that were not carried out during the budget year.

The ratio is intended to highlight the effectiveness of planning and the co-ordination of resources in terms of meeting project objectives in Council’s management plan.

The measure used to indicate this level is the percentage of expenditure re-votes to the total ordinary and capital expenditure of Council for the year. It should be noted that to prevent a distortion of the ratio expenditure relating to the Water Storage and Nambucca Augmentation projects have been excluded.

	Total Expenditure Re-Votes
Year	Ordinary & Capital Expenditure	Ratio

2012/2013	$1,009,400	2.3%
	$43,472,000

2011/2012	$4,285,000	10.2%
	$41,932,000

2010/2011	$3,504,000	8.8%
	$39,955,000

2009/2010	$3,660,100	9.4%
	$38,912,000

2008/2009	$4,338,100	12.2%
	$35,596,000

2007/2008	$3,645,900	12.1%
	$30,203,000

2006/2007	$3,361,500	12.5%
	$26,979,000

It is pleasing to see that in spite of the extensive flood damage works required throughout the year the ratio has dropped to its lowest recorded level. As mentioned last year, the 2011/12 indicator should only reflect a spike and as predicted would return to the trend of heading towards the industry ‘rule of thumb’ of 5%.

As mentioned in past reports, having the capacity to spend on capital works is important for the long term sustainability of Council. It allows Council to plan for the future and to assist in maintaining assets at an acceptable level. The capacity to spend on capital works not only refers to the ability to allocate funds but also the ability to plan and allocate resources to ensure that works are completed satisfactorily and timely.

It should be considered however that due to the magnitude and diversity of Council’s expenditure, revotes cannot be totally avoided as factors such as weather will always impact on annual commitments.

In conclusion, the above financial indicators and the forecast outlook associated with Council’s Operational Plan, Delivery Program and Long Term Financial Plan information, once again confirm the need to apply and adhere to asset management planning. This will in turn set service levels and, coupled with more efficient utilisation of resources, will improve the long term financial sustainability outlook.

CONSULTATION:

Accountant
Budget item responsible officers

Local Government Act 1993

Local Government (General) Regulation 2005

Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting

Local Government Asset Accounting Manual

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Not applicable.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Refer to discussion.

Attachments:

1	- Circularised Document - Audit Report
2	- Circularised Document - Current Liquid Equity

Ordinary Council Meeting 13 November 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

ITEM 10.3 SF1120 131113 Report on NSW Heritage Grants Local Government Heritage Management - Funding Offer

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Colleen Henry, Grants and Contributions Officer

Summary:

This report provides a summary of the NSW Heritage Grants Local Government Heritage Management funding offer.

RecommendationS:

1 That Council accepts the funding offers.

2 That Council writes to the owners of all the local heritage places advising them of the Local Heritage Grants program and inviting them to submit an expression of interest for funding under the Program.

3 That the Mayor and General Manager be provided with delegated authority to approve grants under the Local Heritage Grants Program.

4 That the Mayor and General Manager be provided with delegated authority to appoint a Heritage Advisor.

OPTIONS:

That Council decline the funding offer.

DISCUSSION

Further to the memorandum to Councillors distributed on 31 October 2013, this report provides information on the important points of the Office of Environment and Heritage’s offer of funding under the Local Government Heritage Management program. Please note the memo stated the funding program did not start until June 2014; in fact the program starts immediately upon acceptance of the funding offer and all money would need to be expended by May 2014.

Nambucca Council’s level of need was assessed as part of the application process, and we have been identified as being in the Establishment or Start-up phase of the grant program, eligible for up to $7500 for heritage advisors and dollar for dollar grants up to $8,500 for local heritage funds.

If Council agrees to accept the funding offer, we would be required to:

1 Appoint a heritage advisor through an expression of interest and selection process facilitated by OEH. The heritage advisor will help us prepare and submit a heritage strategy to OEH within two months of the appointment. The advisor will also assist in identifying suitable heritage projects to fund through the small grants program as well as advise on other elements of the heritage strategy. OEH staff believe that the $7500 grant will cover the full costs of the heritage advisor in the current financial year. Council would need to apply for further funding in future years.

2 Identify local heritage projects and work with local building owners to complete local heritage place improvements. Council must match the funding provided by OEH, up to a maximum of $8,500; building owners who seek funding must then match the dollar amount granted to them by Council. OEH will reimburse Council for the OEH part cost of the project once it has been finished, upon presentation of a list of completed projects and a simple final report by 15 May 2014.

A list of all local heritage sites as it appears in the LEP 2010 is attached to give Council an idea of the properties which might benefit from the small grants program.

OEH has acknowledged that the funding timeframe is very tight and that the expenditure of local heritage place grants might be low in this first year of funding. This funding should be considered the first step in a funding program through which Council and the local community would in coming years be able to apply for additional assistance for a range of projects and implement our heritage strategy.

A similar program is run in Bellingen Shire and a former staff member now working at Nambucca Shire has reported that the heritage advisory service has been extremely useful to planning and building processes in that Shire and that the local community and economy have benefited greatly from the availability of funding for small heritage projects.

Comments from General Manager

The expenditure of the Heritage Grants Program has a significant time restriction. If Council supports the Program, in order to meet the April deadline, I suggest that Council write to the owners of heritage properties immediately and provide delegated authority for the determination of grant applications. This has been incorporated in the recommendation. Council’s Grants and Contribution Officer has advised me that Council will be offered the same funding in 2014/15 so any worthwhile but unfunded projects in the first round can be incorporated into a second round.

CONSULTATION:

General Manager

Strategic Planner

Manager, Special Project (Peter Wilson)

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

There is a direct link between sustainability and heritage as it recycles, reuses and seeks to environmental impacts. The built environment will be improved through the assistance provided by the heritage funding.

Social

There are advantages to the community having strong support for heritage preservation opportunities as it adds to the community’s social fabric.

Economic

Funding assistance provided by the State government enables Council to offer services to residents and businesses which it would otherwise not be able to offer. The improvements to heritage buildings will add to the quality of the streetscape in all towns, making them more attractive for businesses.

Risk

There is a risk that no projects would be able to be funded under the small grants program due to the timeline imposed on the program by OEH. All projects need to be completed by 30 April 2014 so a claim can be made to OEH for finished projects. In the time between now and then, a heritage advisor needs to be chosen and appointed, a small grants program needs to be advertised and projects need to be completed. The timeline is very tight, and this has been acknowledged by OEH. This year’s funding will not roll over to next year, however, there will be new funds available next year through another round.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

A maximum amount of $8,500 will need to be available as matching funding for Council’s local heritage places small grants program at the time when the local heritage grant projects have been completed (no later than April 2014). However, it is unlikely the full $8,500 will be used as there may be few or no heritage projects funded this year (See Risk section above).

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

The allocation could come from the Environmental Levy or Section 94A developer contributions (for heritage projects within the town catchment areas as outlined in the s.94A plan).

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

Council will be able to provide a new service for building owners wishing to improve their heritage buildings at a subsidised cost. The staff implications are that the Grants Officer will be required to administer a small grants program and the Strategic Planner will need to assist in the heritage advisory service. These are new projects for both these positions.

Attachments:

27776/2013 - List of Local Heritage Sites - LEP 2010

Ordinary Council Meeting - 13 November 2013

Report on NSW Heritage Grants Local Government Heritage Management - Funding Offer

List of Local Heritage Places

Nambucca Shire Local Environment Plan 2010

Argents Hill	Dwelling	1319 North Arm Road	Lot 3, DP 879153	Local	I1
Argents Hill	Shed	1319 North Arm Road	Lot 3, DP 879153	Local	I2
Bowraville	St James Anglican Church	19 High Street	Lot 6, Section 7, DP 758150	Local	I3
Bowraville	Bowraville Central School	23 High Street	Lots 1–3, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, Section 7, DP 758150, Lots 216 and 217, DP 821623	Local	I4
Bowraville	Police Station and Court House	25 High Street	Lot 10, Section 7, DP 758150	Local	I5
Bowraville	Post Office	27 High Street	Lot 9, Section 7, DP 758150	Local	I6
Bowraville	Former Council Chambers	29 High Street	Lot 151, DP 801984	Local	I7
Bowraville	Sullivans Bowra Hotel	33 High Street	Lots 18 and 19, Section 8, DP 758150	Local	I8
Bowraville	Dwelling	34 High Street	Lot 1, DP 361405	Local	I9
Bowraville	Dwelling	36 High Street	Lot 2, DP 361405	Local	I10
Bowraville	Dwelling	38 High Street	Lot 1, DP 575454	Local	I11
Bowraville	Bananacoast Credit Union	39 High Street	Lot 1, DP 368296	Local	I12
Bowraville	Dwelling	40 High Street	Lot 2, DP 1110903	Local	I13
Bowraville	Dwelling	42 High Street	Lot 1, DP 948816	Local	I14
Bowraville	Shop	45 High Street	Lot 2, DP 219398	Local	115
Bowraville	Shop	45A High Street	Lot 2, DP 219398	Local	I16
Bowraville	Commercial Building	46 High Street	Lot C, DP 5611	Local	117
Bowraville	Shop	47 High Street	Lot 1, DP 406493	Local	I18
Bowraville	Scout Hall	48 High Street	Lot D, DP 5611	Local	I19
Bowraville	Medical Rooms	49 High Street	Lot 1, DP 121639	Local	I20
Bowraville	Dwelling	52 High Street	Lot 31, DP 558328	Local	I21
Bowraville	Fire Station	55 High Street	Lot 2, DP 203400	Local	I22
Bowraville	Garage/Workshop	56 High Street	Lot 4, DP 654671	Local	I23
Bowraville	Bowraville Services Club	57–59 High Street	Lots 2 and 3, DP 354698	Local	I24
Bowraville	Shop/Dwelling	58A High Street	Lot 1, DP 933803	Local	I25
Bowraville	Shop	64 High Street	Lot B, DP 399273	Local	I26
Bowraville	Pioneer Community Centre	70 High Street	Lot 6, DP 666989	Local	I27
Bowraville	State Bank	72 High Street	Lot 1, DP 958894	Local	I28
Bowraville	The Remnant Basket	74 High Street	Lot 1, DP 330860	Local	I29
Bowraville	Shop	80 High Street	Lot B, DP 398302	Local	I30
Bowraville	Grants Hall	82 High Street	Lots 1 and 2, DP 1083368	Local	I31
Bowraville	Royal Hotel	84 High Street	Lot 1, DP 334892	Local	I32
Bowraville	Museum and Former Presbyterian Church	86–88B High Street	Lot 2, DP 921273, Lot 2, DP 1088352	Local	I33
Bowraville	Dwelling	86C High Street	Lot 1, DP 1088352	Local	I34
Bowraville	Eliza and Joseph Newman Folk Museum	86D High Street	Lot 1, DP 1088352	Local	I35
Bowraville	The Bank	88 High Street	Lot 2, DP 921273	Local	I36
Macksville	The Star Hotel	15–17 River Street	Lot 1, DP 710060	Local	I37
Macksville	Nambucca Hotel	2–4 Wallace Street	Lots 5 and 6, Section B, DP 758150	Local	I38
Macksville	Old Court House	50 River Street	Lot B, DP 440818	Local	I39
Macksville	Macksville Railway Station	Station and Tilly Willy Street		State	I40
Nambucca Heads	Horse Trough	Gordon Park Rainforest	Lot 8, DP 831156	Local	I41
Nambucca Heads	Pioneers Well	Gordon Park Rainforest	Lot 8, DP 831156	Local	I42
Nambucca Heads	“Royal Tar” Bed Logs	Inner Harbour		Local	I43
Nambucca Heads	Nambucca Sea Wall	Wellington Drive V Wall		Local	I44

Ordinary Council Meeting 13 November 2013

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.1 SF1676 131113 Capital Works Report - 1 July 2013 - 30 September 2013

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Paul Gallagher, Assistant General Manager - Engineering Services; Noel Chapman, Manager Civil Works; Richard Spain, Manager Water and Sewerage; Keith Williams, Manager Technical Services; Peter Baynes, Manager Assets; Simon Chapman, Waste Management Officer

Summary:

This report provides Council with a quarterly report on the Capital Works Program for the period 1 July 2013 to 30 September 2013.

Recommendation:

1 That the Capital Works Report for the period 1 July 2013 to 30 September 2013 be received and noted.

2 That the proposed variations be endorsed and included in the September 2013 budget review.

OPTIONS:

Receive the report.

DISCUSSION:

The Capital Works report is presented for the period 1 July to 30 September 2013.

Comments from Acting Assistant General Manager Engineering Services:

The spreadsheet reflects the expenditure for capital works for the September Quarterly Budget Review (QBR). As of this current review, the capital works program is substantially in progress with the heavy patching program and reseals program scheduled for completion in Nov/Dec within the second quarter reporting period.

Comments from Manager Civil Works:

There are no significant issues associated with the Civil Works Capital Works program to date.

The majority of works brought forward from the previous financial year have now been completed.

Reseals and urban street rehabilitation are tentatively programmed for November 2013 subject to confirmation by the approved contractor.

Although not Capital Works the heavy patching program is progressing with the Urban Streets program being completed. Some additional work was approved while the contractor was onsite and this has resulted in a proposed variation of $29,434 on work order 1353 Item 40 in the spreadsheet. This equates to approximately 2 days additional work.

The extent of works on item 30 Park Street Bowraville was extended resulting in a proposed variation of $16,585 which is offset by using the allocation in item 35 Minor Works Bowraville.

ITEM	DESCRIPTION	COMMENTS	PROPOSED CARRYOVER	VARIATION
40	Urban Streets Heavy Patching	Additional work approved onsite.		$29,434
30	Park Street Bowraville	Works extended and minor works allocation incorporated.		$16,585
35	Minor Works Bowraville	See comment for item 30 above.		-$15,000

Comments from Manager Assets:

Plant purchases for the financial year have commenced. Plant purchases across all three funds as summarised in the table below:

ITEM	DESCRIPTION	COMMENTS	PROPOSED CARRYOVER	VARIATION
	General Fund plant purchases	Carryover of cost of Relocatable Traffic Barriers which were not delivered til late in the year. Payment was made in 2013/14 FY. One replacement car and new vehicle for the regulatory officer purchased. Other replacement cars due through the year. Specifications for two truck purchases being prepared.	$ NIL	-$6,958
	Water Fund plant purchases	One car to be purchased. Due in Dec 2013..	$ NIL	$ NIL
	Sewer Fund plant purchases	One car to be purchased. Due in Jan 2014.	$ NIL	$ NIL

Comments from Manager Water and Sewerage:

The following table provides a summary of the capital works items in the 2013/14 budget:

ITEM	DESCRIPTION	COMMENTS	PROPOSED CARRY OVER	VARIATION
WATER
W1	Reservoir Improvements	Quotation accepted for upgrade works on Bowraville Balance Tanks.	N/A
W2	Water Mains Replacement (WO1642)	Quotation accepted for initial works to commence in November.	N/A
W3	Water Mains Upgrading	Not commenced.	N/A
W4	Water Supply Pumping Plant (WO1655)	Not commenced.	N/A
W5	Off River Storage Land Matters (WO1810)	Council will instigate compensation negotiations with landowners once construction works are complete.	N/A
W6	Water Supply Telemetry (WO 1918)	To commence once headworks SCADA system is installed.	N/A		$35,000
W7	Off River Storage Project (WO2012)	Progress to date is well behind schedule and there will be groundwater and delay claims to be negotiated.	N/A
W8	Water Tank Removal Waterford Way (WO2145)	Revised scope of works - not commenced	N/A
W9	Seal Bore Casings (WO2149)	Some bore head fittings have been manufactured ready for installation.	N/A
SEWERAGE
S1	South Macksville Pump Station (WO 1675)	Tender currently being advertised – closing 16 January 2014.	N/A
S2	Pump Replacement (WO1676)	Completing carry over works. Pumps ordered for programmed works.	N/A
S3	Sewer Telemetry (WO 1690)	Majority of work postponed.	N/A		- $35,000
S4	Sewer Mains Replacement / Rehabilitation (WO1945)	Carry over works on access chamber relining have been completed.	N/A
S5	Bowraville STP Constructed Wetland (WO1984)	Detailed design delayed waiting Section 60 Approval from Office of Water.	N/A

The following additional comment is made for those items that require or are considered to be at risk of requiring a variation or carry over.

ITEM W6 – Upgrade of water supply SCADA / telemetry was originally proposed to be as a variation in the Off River Storage project. However the service provider is a subcontractor under this contract arrangement and the on costs from the Principal Contractor add a premium to the price.

To save costs, works for integrating water infrastructure other than the headworks and storage was negotiated separately by Council. This was not included in the original budget and a variation to transfer money from the transfer funds allocated for Sewer Telemetry (refer Item S3) is required.

Water supply telemetry Carry over on work order issued for Works to be completed by State Property Authority. Their assistance is likely to be required in the final negotiation of easements and land acquisitions from property owners affected by the work so the order remains open.

ITEM W7 – Construction works on Package A (storage) of the project are well behind schedule however the Package B (collection and transfer) works are all but complete. Public Works are continuing to negotiate a groundwater claim but to date there has been no resolution. There is also very likely to be a claim for delays.

The quantum of the variations is still unknown however the budget will be closely monitored as the works progress. At this stage it is considered that variations to the current budget allocation are unlikely.

ITEM W8 – The proposal to remove the tanks has been revisited and the scope of the work has been revised. Only the buried set of tanks will be removed as they provide a safety risk. The concrete tank will remain as is. Tanks will be taken off line as part of normal operation and the reticulation serving this area will be connected direct to the Scotts Head main. A pressure reduction valve will be used to control pressure in the area.

ITEM S3 – Original budget allowed for integration of some sewerage infrastructure across to the new SCADA / telemetry system. This work has now been postponed and a variation to transfer some of the budget allocation to complete the integration of water supply infrastructure is required.

ITEM S5 – An amended Concept Design Report has been submitted to the Office of Water to address comments provided on the original document. Council is now waiting for the Section 60 approval prior to proceeding with detailed design.

The concept design and approval process has taken much longer than anticipated. The current budget allocation allows for construction works which are now unlikely to proceed in this financial year.

Comments from Waste Management Officer:

There are no Capital Works to report

CONSULTATION:

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services

General Manager

Manager Civil Works

Manager Water and Sewerage

Manager Technical Services

Manager Assets

Waste Management Officer

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

There are no environmental issues associated with this report.

Social

There are no social issues associated with this report.

Economic

There are no economic issues associated with this report.

Risk

There are no risk issues associated with this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

The direct and indirect impact on future budgets is the carryover of uncompleted works.

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

Sources of funds are across a various range of functions.

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

There are no changes to service levels or implications to resourcing or staff.

Attachments:

27648/2013 - Capital Works Report for Council 13 December 2013

Ordinary Council Meeting 13 November 2013

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.2 SF825 131113 Disposal of Council Owned Surplus Materials and Small Equipment

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Peter Baynes, Manager Assets

Summary:

An operation of the scale of Council’s Works Depot will invariably generate some degree of surplus material and small equipment. A public auction is one option for disposing of such items; however a number of alternate means of disposal are already applied depending on the nature of specific items. Typically small equipment and any surplus materials are advertised for sale by tender.

Engineering Services staff will monitor the number and range of surplus items above and beyond those disposed of by current means and will assess the merits of conducting an auction as an alternate to sale by tender.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note this report.

OPTIONS:

None as this report is for information only.

DISCUSSION:

At Council’s meeting on 26 September 2013 it was resolved that Council receive a report on the possibility of conducting a public auction to dispose of surplus material and small equipment at Council’s Works depot.

An operation of the scale of Council’s Works Depot will invariably generate some degree of surplus material and small equipment. A public auction is one option for disposing of such items; however a number of alternate means of disposal are generally applied depending on the nature of specific items.

· When plant items including heavy plant and motor vehicles are replaced the old items are generally disposed of through a tender process, by public auction at an auction house or as a trade-in on the new item.

· Smaller plant items such as mowers, brushcutters and chainsaws are advertised locally for sale by tender or are retained to be stripped to provide spare parts for other plant items.

· Old timbers from bridge demolition are either returned to the depot for re-use as maintenance materials or, more typically, are in poor condition or damaged and burnt at site.

· Scrap metal is collected periodically by a scrap metal merchant under contract to Council.

· Excess furniture is generally damaged, in poor condition or poses a WH&S risk and is disposed of at Council’s waste facility.

· Concrete waste from demolitions is stockpiled and then crushed for reuse as fill material.

In addition to the above, past practice has also included the sale of some items such as surplus bridge timber, pavers and the like at a unit rate. A recent review of this practice by the Assistant General Manager Engineering Services has now seen this method of disposal discontinued.

Generally new materials ordered for projects such as bridge construction, water and sewer projects or stormwater projects are ordered specifically for the job rather than carrying a large quantity of stock. At times some surplus materials may be left at the end of the job, generally these are minimal and they are retained as maintenance spares. Periodically these materials may accumulate to a sufficient level that surplus stock is available for sale. Past practice has been to advertise such material for sale by tender.

Inspection of the depot indicates there is currently a limited number of items which could be disposed of by public auction. In order to warrant an auction a detailed audit of the depot would be required to establish an inventory of surplus items suitable for auction.

An initial check indicates the following are likely items:

· Several brush cutters

· One large compressor

· Surplus guardrail (if not collected by scrap metal merchant)

Council’s previous Safety & Risk Officer investigated the conduct of an onsite auction with the intent of selling off surplus equipment in an attempt to reduce WH&S risks associated with an untidy worksite. At that time not enough saleable equipment was identified to warrant an auction being conducted. A considerable amount of equipment was disposed of as it was in too poor a condition to be sold.

Enquiries with a local auctioneer (GJ Kennedy of Macksville) indicate that they would consider running an auction subject to there being sufficient items to warrant their effort in conducting the auction. GJ Kennedy have indicated their fee would be a commission in the order of 15 – 17.5%.

An alternative would be to engage an online auction service such as GraysOnline. Past discussions with Grays have indicated they could provide auction services, however at the time of those discussions there were insufficient items to warrant the conduct of an online auction.

An auction conducted, perhaps, annually may be an alternate to sale of small items by tender. It could be argued that an auction process may well attract more interest than sale by tender. On the other hand a tender process can offer a higher level of security and can ensure a higher degree of transparency.

Summary

CONSULTATION:

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services

Manager Civil Works

Senior Overseer

Plant Supervisor

Storeman

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

No environmental issues arise from this report.

Social

No social issues arise from this report.

Economic

No economic issues arise from this report.

Risk

There is a risk that the costs of conducting the auction could exceed the revenue generated. This risk could be mitigated by engaging an auction service on a commission only basis, and ensuring a reasonable number of items are offered for sale.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

Potential revenue from auction proceeds - offset cost of conducting auction.

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

General Fund, Water Fund, Sewer Fund

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

Although an auctioneer would review the range of equipment/plant to be offered at auction Council staff would need to be involved in sorting and selecting items to be auctioned and arranging for the items to be collected and stored in a suitable location.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Mrs Shirley Holmes (Chairperson)	Cr E South (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Lee-anne Funnell	Ms Jenny Adams
Mr Peter Shales	Mr Keith Davis
Cr A Smyth	Dr Dorothy Secomb
Mr Les Small	Ms Alba Sky
Ms Kerry Sanders

	Cats	Dogs
COUNCIL’S SEIZURE ACTIVITY
Seized (doesn’t include those animals dumped or surrendered)	4	9
Returned to Owner	0	3
Transferred to - Council's Facility from Seizure Activities	4	6
ANIMALS IN AND ARRIVING AT COUNCIL'S FACILITY
Animals In Council's Facility - (Start of Month)	0	3
Abandoned or Stray	0	4
Surrendered	0	3
Animals transferred from Seizure Activities	4	6
Total Incoming Animals	4	16
ANIMALS LEAVING COUNCIL'S FACILITY
Released to Owners	1	6
Sold	0	1
Released to Organisations for Rehoming	0	0
Died at Council's Facility(other than euthanased)	0	0
Stolen from Council's Facility	0	0
Escaped from Council's Facility	0	0
Other	0	0
EUTHANASED
Restricted Dogs		0
Dangerous Dogs		0
Owner’s Request	0	4
Due to Illness, Disease or Injury	0	0
Feral/infant animal	3	0
Unsuitable for rehoming	0	1
Unable to be rehomed	0	0
Total Euthanased	3	5
Total Outgoing Animals	4	12
TOTAL IN COUNCIL'S FACILITY - (END OF MONTH)	0	4

MEETING	DATE	VENUE	COMMENCING
Water Supply Steering Committee	06/11/2013	Bowraville site Leave Council Chambers at 10.15 am	10.45 AM
Ordinary Council Meeting	13/11/2013	Council Chambers	8.30 AM
Access Committee	26/11/2013	Council Chambers	2.00 PM
Ordinary Council Meeting	28/11/2013	South Arm Hall Leave Council Chambers at 4.30 pm	5.30 PM
Ordinary Council Meeting	11/12/2013	Council Chambers	8.30 AM
2014
Ordinary Council Meeting	16/01/2014	Council Chambers	5.30 PM
Ordinary Council Meeting	30/01/2014	Council Chambers	5.30 PM
Ordinary Council Meeting	13/02/2014	Council Chambers	5.30 PM
Access Committee	25/02/2014	Council Chambers	2.00 PM
Ordinary Council Meeting	27/02/2014	Council Chambers	5.30 PM
Ordinary Council Meeting	13/03/2014	Council Chambers	5.30 PM
Access Committee	25/03/2014	Council Chambers -	2.00 PM
Ordinary Council Meeting	27/03/2014	Argents Hill	5.30 PM
Ordinary Council Meeting	10/04/2014	Council Chambers	5.30 PM
Access Committee	22/04/2014	Council Chambers	2.00 PM
Ordinary Council Meeting	24/04/2014	Utungun Hall	5.30 PM
Ordinary Council Meeting	15/05/2014	Council Chambers	5.30 PM
Access Committee	27/05/2014	Council Chambers	2.00 PM
Ordinary Council Meeting	29/05/2014	Scotts Head	5.30 PM
Ordinary Council Meeting	12/06/2014	Council Chambers	5.30 PM
Access Committee	24/06/2014	Council Chambers	2.00 PM
Ordinary Council Meeting	26/06/2014	Council Chambers	5.30 PM

Trevor Keast	Raymond Keast
Stacey Connell	Tracey Cheers
Erin Bland	Tammy Woods
Michael Coulter

Shane Eadie	Gail Keegan (Bridge Club)
Carmen Hall (Treasurer)	Cr Rhonda Hoban (Mayor)

1	16128/2013 - Master Planning For The Macksville Hospital And Its Potential Redevelopment
2	23425/2013 - Letter from Mid North Coast Local Health District

Ms Coral Hutchinson	Ms Lyndel Bosman (Guide Dogs)
Ms Margaret Hutchinson

1	27284/2013 - Lot 31 Yarrawonga Street - cadastre/aerial PDF
2	27416/2013 - Lot 31 Yarrawonga Street zoning map