Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

11 February 2016

Council has adopted the following Vision and Mission Statements to describe its philosophy and to provide a focus for the principal activities detailed in its Management Plan.

Our Vision

Nambucca Valley ~ Living at its best.

Our Mission Statement

‘The Nambucca Valley will value and protect its natural environment, maintain its assets and infrastructure and develop opportunities for its people.’

Our Values in Delivery

· Effective leadership

· Strategic direction

· Sustainability of infrastructure and assets

· Community involvement and enhancement through partnerships with Council

· Enhancement and protection of the environment

· Maximising business and employment opportunities through promotion of economic development

· Addressing social and cultural needs of the community through partnerships and provision of facilities and services

· Actively pursuing resource sharing opportunities

Council Meetings: Overview and Proceedings

Council meetings are held on the last Thursday of each month AND on the Thursday two weeks before the Thursday meeting. Both meetings commence at 5.30 pm. Meetings are held in the Council Chamber at Council's Administration Centre—44 Princess Street, Macksville (unless otherwise advertised).

How can a Member of the Public Speak at a Council Meeting?

1 Addressing Council with regard to an item on the meeting agenda:

Members of the public are welcome to attend meetings and address the Council. Registration to speak may be made by telephone or in person before 2.00 pm on a meeting day. The relevant agenda item will be brought forward at 5.30 pm in agenda order, and dealt with following preliminary business items on the agenda. Public addresses are limited to five (5) minutes per person with a limit of two people speaking for and two speaking against an item.

2 Public forum address regarding matters not on the meeting agenda:

Nambucca Shire Council believes that the opportunity for any person to address the Council in relation to any matter which concerns them is an important demonstration of local democracy and our values. Accordingly Council allows not more than two (2) members of the public per meeting to address it on matters not listed in the agenda provided the request is received before publication of the agenda and the subject of the address is disclosed and recorded on the agenda.

In relation to regulatory or enforcement matters it needs to be understood that the Council has certain legal obligations which will generally prevent the Council from providing an immediate response to any concerns or grievances which may be raised in the public forum. In particular the Council has to provide procedural fairness and consider all relevant information. Generally this cannot be done with matters which have come direct to Council via the public forum. So the fact that the Council may not immediately agree to the representations and seek a report instead should not be taken to indicate disagreement or disinterest.

In the public forum speakers should address issues and refrain from making personal attacks or derogatory remarks. You must treat others with respect at all times.

Meeting Agenda

These are available Council’s website: www.nambucca.nsw.gov.au

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

Ordinary Council Meeting - 11 February 2016

Acknowledgement of Country (Mayor)

I would like to acknowledge the Gumbaynggirr people who are the Traditional Custodians of this Land. I would also like to pay respect to the elders both past and present and extend that respect to any Aboriginal People present.

AGENDA Page

1 APOLOGIES

2 PRAYER

3 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES —

Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 January 2016................................................................................. 7

5 NOTICES OF MOTION

5.1 Notice of Motion - Climate Change (SF1075).................................................................... 15

5.2 Notice of Motion - Sale of 290m2 of Gordon Park............................................................ 16

6 PUBLIC FORUM/DELEGATIONS

7 ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

8 QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

9 General Manager Report

9.1 Sale of 290m2 of Gordon Park........................................................................................ 31

9.2 Investment Report To 31 January 2016 & Presentation by Andrew Vallner From CPG......... 46

9.3 Outstanding Actions and Reports.................................................................................... 51

9.4 IPART - Draft Report on Review of Reporting and Compliance Burdens on Local Government.... 57

9.5 Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months OR where submissions received - 22 January - 4 February 2016.............................................................................................................................. 65

9.6 2016 January - Received Development Applications Received and Complying Development Applications .................................................................................................................. 68

9.7 2016 January - Approved Construction Certificates and Complying Development Certificates 71

9.8 Boating Now Shelly Beach Nambucca Heads................................................................... 75

9.9 Council Ranger's Report January 2016............................................................................. 77

10 Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

10.1 Capital Works Report - December 2015........................................................................... 80

10.2 Second Report on the Draft NSW Rural Fire Service 2016/17 BID...................................... 90

10.3 Council's Asset Management Journey - February 2016...................................................... 94

10.4 Minutes of NSW Rural Fire Service Liaison Committee meeting 11 November 2015 - Service Level Agreement 2015............................................................................................................. 96

10.5 Emergency Services Annual Assessment Notice............................................................ 108

10.6 Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes - 2 February 2016............................ 110

10.7 Tender T023/2015 for the Design and Construction of a Concrete Bridge over Taylors Arm on Boat Harbour Road Utungun.................................................................................................. 114

10.8 Adoption of Plan of Management for Duffo's Restawhile on Link Road Nambucca Heads 117

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

11.1 Outstanding Water Account

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) (b) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains a discussion in relation to the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer.

11.2 Tender T023/2015 for the Design and Construction of a Concrete Bridge over Taylors Arm on Boat Harbour Road Utungun

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

a Questions raised by Councillors at 8 above

i MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING

ii PUBLIC VERBAL REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL

TO CLOSE

iii CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS

iv DEAL WITH MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING

12 MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

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

TIME

DESCRIPTION

WHERE

4.00 pm

Item 10.3

Council’s Asset Management Journey – February 2016

Council Chambers

5.00 pm

Item 9.2

Investment Report To 31 January 2016 & Presentation by Andrew Vallner From CPG

Council Chambers

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 28 January 2016

The following document is the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held 28 January 2016. These minutes are subject to confirmation as to their accuracy at the next meeting to be held on Thursday 11 February 2016 and therefore subject to change. Please refer to the minutes of 11 February 2016 for confirmation.

PRESENT

Cr Rhonda Hoban (Mayor)	Cr John Ainsworth
Cr Paula Flack	Cr Brian Finlayson
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)	Lorraine Hemsworth (Minute Secretary)

APOLOGY

Cr Kim MacDonald (on approved leave)

PRAYER

Father Shelwin Fernandes, Macksville Catholic Church, offered a prayer on behalf of the Nambucca Minister's Association.

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

There were no Disclosure of Interest Received.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council Meeting 14 January 2016

31/16 Resolved: (Smyth/Flack)

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of 14 January 2016 be confirmed.

PUBLIC FORUM AND DELEGATIONS

RECOMMENDATION:

That the following delegations be heard:

i i Item 12.2 NSW Rural Fire Service Proposed 2016/17 Budget 'Bid'

Mr Lachlann Ison on behalf of Rural Fire Service

ii ii Item 10.1 Public Forum Address by Mr Brendan Goswell - Background Information

Mr Brendan Goswell on behalf of Old Coast Road Overpass in memory of David and Ryan Goswell

ii iii Item 6.1 Mrs Kelli Leckie - Rescission Motion - Item 9.15 from 15 December 2015

6.1 Mrs Kelli Leckie - Rescission Motion - Item 9.15 from 15 December 2015

Notices of Rescission

32/16 Extension of Time: (Ainsworth/Hoban)

That Councillor Morrison be allowed an additional two minutes to speak to his Motion.

ITEM 6.1 SF2183 280116 Rescission Motion - Item 9.15 from 15 December 2015

MOTION: (Morrison/Finlayson)

The resolution of Council concerning item 9.15 from its meeting on 15 December 2015, “that Council does not support the sale of the land but supports a lease, licence or easement of said land for a period sufficient to allow the Leckies to undertake remedial work on their land and that there be no cost (rent) to the Leckies”, be rescinded.

33/16 Resolved: (Smyth/Flack)

That there be a division.

34/16 Resolved: (Morrison/Finlayson)

For the motion: Morrison, Finlayson, Ainsworth, South, Hoban

Against the motion: Flack and Smyth

Motion: (Morrison/Ainsworth)

1 "That Council in accordance with Crown Lands recommendation, resolve to support the sale 290 m² of Gordon Park (as previously defined) to the Leckie's in accordance with Crown Lands recommended procedure as laid down in Crown Land letter dated 14th of January 2014 and for Council to document its reasons for selling the land."

2 That the valuation of the portion of land to be sold be determined by an accredited valuer agreed to by both Council and the Leckies.

AMENDMENT: (Hoban/Smyth)

That the motion be deferred to a meeting where no councillors are on approved leave and further it be accompanied by a report outlining the implications of sale of the land in terms of:

1 The potential for the development of the land

2 Impacts on surrounding properties

3 Valuation considerations

4 Any precedent that the sale may set

5 Council’s cost to date in dealing with this matter.

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

36/16 Resolved: (Hoban/Smyth)

That the motion be deferred to a meeting where no councillors are on approved leave and further it be accompanied by a report outlining the implications of sale of the land in terms of:

1 The potential for the development of the land

2 Impacts on surrounding properties

3 Valuation considerations

4 Any precedent that the sale may set

5 Council’s cost to date in dealing with this matter.

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Morrison

ITEM 5.1 SF2183 280116 Bluett LOCAL GOVERNMENT HANDBOOK (New South Wales) - (SF256)

MOTION: (Morrison/South)

That the latest edition of the handbook entitled "Bluett LOCAL GOVERNMENT HANDBOOK (New South Wales) be purchased for each of the present councillors and for any new councillor being elected to this Council in the future.

Amendment: (Hoban/Ainsworth)

That a copy of the "Bluett LOCAL GOVERNMENT HANDBOOK (New South Wales) be purchased for any councillor who requires a copy of the book.

The amendment was withdrawn

motion: (Ainsworth/Hoban)

That an E copy of the "Bluett LOCAL GOVERNMENT HANDBOOK (New South Wales) be purchased for councillor reference.

37/16 Resolved: (Ainsworth/Hoban)

That an E copy of the "Bluett LOCAL GOVERNMENT HANDBOOK (New South Wales) be purchased for councillor reference.

Notices of Rescission – LATE

ITEM 6.2 SF2183 280116 RESCISSION MOTION - ITEM 9.15 FROM 15 DECEMBER 2015 - Additional Information

Recommendation:

This Item was considered in conjunction with Item 6.1.

Public Forum and Delegations Continued:

2 Mr Lachlann Ison on behalf of Rural Fire Service

ITEM 12.2 SF84 280116 NSW Rural Fire Service Proposed 2016/17 Budget 'Bid'

38/16 RESOLVED: (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

1 That Council receive a presentation from the NSW Rural Fire Service Zone Manager for the Lower North Coast Zone on the proposed 2016/17 NSW Rural Fire Service “BID”, plant replacement and capital works for buildings and amenities.

2 That Council thank Mr Ison for his presentation.

3 That Council receive a further report at the 11 February 2016 Council meeting to formally endorse the 2016/17 NSW Rural Fire Service “BID”.

4 That Council amend the 2015/16 RFS budget to reflect the increase of $41,039.00 in the RFS contribution above that resolved by Council on 12 February 2015 and adopted budget for 2015/16.

5 That Council write to the Commissioner for the NSW Rural Fire Service, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and the Member for Oxley advising of Council’s disgust and dismay with the increase of $41,039.00 for the 2015/16 RFS contribution, when every endeavour has been made by Council to become financially sustainable with the Fit for the Future the Local Government reforms.

Public Forum and Delegations Continued:

3 Mr Brendan Goswell on behalf of Old Coast Road Overpass in memory of David and Ryan Goswell

ITEM 10.1 SF1208 280116 Public Forum Address by Mr Brendan Goswell - Background Information

39/16 Resolved: (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

a That the background information on the public forum address by Mr Brendan Goswell be received.

b That Council write to the RMS asking them to reconsider their policy in relation to the matter to allow the naming of the new Old Coast Road over the new highway overpass as per Mr Goswell’s request consistent with the wishes of the community for some lasting memorial. Council request the RMS advertises the proposal and makes a determination after considering community response.

c That if the RMS is not able to alter its policy whether they have an alternative suggestion to provide a fitting memorial for the Goswell brothers close to the accident site.

7.13 pm – 8.50 pm The meeting adjourned for dinner and Cr Flack did not return to the meeting

ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

There were no questions with notice.

QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

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

General Manager Report

ITEM 10.2 SF959 280116 Outstanding Actions and Reports

40/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

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

ITEM 10.3 SF996 280116 NSW Ombudsman - Updated Enforcement Guidelines and Model Enforcement Policy for Councils

41/16 RESOLVED: (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

That Council review its Compliance, Enforcement and Prosecution Policy based on the NSW Ombudsman 2015 Enforcement Guidelines for Councils.

ITEM 10.4 SF42 280116 Consultation on Phase 1 Amendments to the Local Government Act 1993

42/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

That Council make a submission on the proposed Phase 1 amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 as per the comments in this report subject to any additions, deletions or alterations identified by the Council.

ITEM 10.5 SF2173 280116 Amendment to Housekeeping Planning Proposal

43/16 RESOLVED: (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

Pursuant to the Clause 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council prepare a Planning Proposal to support the following amendment as proposed in this report.

a Amend the Land Use Table for the R5 Large Lot Residential zone by including dual occupancies (detached) as permissible with consent.

For the motion: Crs Hoban, Ainsworth, Finlayson, South, Smyth and Morrison (Total 6)

Against the motion: Nil (0)

ITEM 10.6 SF2173 280116 Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months OR where submissions received - 7 - 21 January 2016

44/16 45/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

That the information be noted by Council.

ITEM 10.7 SF1406 280116 JRPP Nomination

46/16 47/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

That Council re-appoint Kempsey Shire Councils Mayor Liz Campbell and Director Sustainable Environment Robert Pitt as Nambucca Shire Councils members on the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel.

ITEM 10.8 SF1958 280116 Outstanding Item no 27 - Provision of Councils Flood Data to the insurance Council of Australia

48/16 RESOLVED: (Finlayson/Smyth)

Council provide flood data to the Insurance Council of Australia or other interested insurance companies as per our fees and charges requirements and subject to Council standard data agreements.

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

ITEM 11.1 SF1120 280116 Approval of loan to Macksville Ex-Services Junior Cricket Club for purchase of lawn mower

49/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Smyth)

That Council approve a no interest loan of $41,000 to the Macksville Ex-Services Junior Cricket Club for the purchase of a lawn mower if the Club receives a grant from Cricket NSW for the remaining portion of the cost.

ITEM 11.2 SF2116 280116 Investment Report to 30 November 2015

50/16 RESOLVED: (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

That the Accountants’ Report on Investments placed to 31 December 2015 be noted.

ITEM 11.3 SF251 280116 Schedule of Council Public Meetings

51/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

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

ITEM 11.4 SF707 280116 Nambucca Shire Council Contract Register

52/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

That Council receive this report on the Nambucca Shire Council Contract Register for information.

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 12.1 SF453 280116 Waste Management Quarterly Report October - December 2015

53/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

1 That Council approve the proposed trial of the changes to the kerbside bulky goods collection with the introduction of a voucher system from 4 July 2016.

2 That Coffs Coast Waste Services and Council undertake extensive marketing on the change to the bulky goods collection arrangements, including providing information with the rates notices to be mailed out in July 2016.

3 That Council receive and note the information provided in the Waste Management Quarterly Report for the period 1 October – 31 December 2015.

Carried with Mayor using her Casting Vote

ITEM 12.3 SF2071 280116 World Rally maintenance costs

54/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

That Council invoice Rally Australia the amount of $11,755.50 in compensation for damage that has occurred to Council roads and infrastructure as a direct consequence of holding the World Rally event within the Nambucca Shire Area.

That Council write to the Minister for Sport and Recreation and express concern about the apparent lack of Third Party property insurance for rally cars participating in the Australian Round of the World Rally Championship reconnaissance days and the rally itself.

ITEM 12.4 SF444 280116 Roadside Vegetation Management

55/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

That Council receive and note the information and that staff be congratulated for their endeavours to improve the management of roadside vegetation.

COUNCIL IN CLOSED MEETING (CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC)

56/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

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 above.

Reason reports are in Closed Meeting:

General Manager Report - LATE

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM L.1 SF2089 280116 Business Investment Enquiry

CLOSED MEETING

The Ordinary Council Meeting's Meeting IN CLOSED MEETING commenced at 8.47 pm.

RESUME IN OPEN MEETING

57/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/South)

That Ordinary Council Meeting resume in Open Meeting. The Ordinary Council Meeting resumed IN OPEN MEETING at 9.12 pm

FROM COUNCIL IN CLOSED MEETING

General Manager Report - LATE

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM L.1 SF2089 280116 Business Investment Enquiry

58/16 RESOLVED: (Ainsworth/Morrison)

That the information concerning the business investment enquiry for the purchase of Council owned land at Valla be received.

CLOSURE

There being no further business the Mayor then closed the meeting the time being 9.13 pm.

Confirmed and signed by the Mayor on 11 February 2016.

CR RHONDA HOBAN

MAYOR

(CHAIRPERSON)

Ordinary Council Meeting 11 February 2016

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.2 LF4225 110216 Notice of Motion - Sale of 290m2 of Gordon Park

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Bob Morrison, Councillor

Summary:

The following motion was deferred from Council’s meeting on 28 January 2016:

1 "That Council in accordance with Crown Lands recommendation, resolve to sell 290 m² area of land (as previously defined) to the Leckie's in accordance with Crown Lands recommended procedure as laid down in Crown Land letter dated 14th of January 2014 and for Council to document its reasons for selling the land."

2 That the valuation of the portion of land to be sold be determined by an accredited valuer agreed to by both Council and the Leckies.”

The Council resolved that the motion be deferred to a meeting where no councillors are on approved leave and further it be accompanied by a report outlining the implications of sale of the land in terms of:

1 The potential for the development of the land

2 Impacts on surrounding properties

3 Valuation considerations

4 Any precedent that the sale may set

5 Council’s cost to date in dealing with this matter

There is another report in the business paper concerning the items listed 1 – 5.

Recommendation:

1 That Council in accordance with Crown Lands recommendation, resolve to sell 290 m² area of land (as previously defined) to the Leckie's in accordance with Crown Lands recommended procedure as laid down in Crown Land letter dated 14 January 2014 and for Council to document its reasons for selling the land.

2 That the valuation of the portion of land to be sold be determined by an accredited Valuer agreed to by both Council and the Leckies.

DISCUSSION:

Background Information

1 In a decision from Council, it was resolved to send the matter of the "the sale of 290 m² of Crown Land to the Leckie's" up to the Crown Land for recommendation/decision.

2 On the 12/06/2013 the following resolution was passed by Council;

"That Council respond to Crown Lands Division providing a copy of all of the submissions from the Leckie's; their expert advice; submissions from the public; the reports to and resolutions of Council; as well as copies of newspaper reports and request that the Crown Lands Division determine the matter as per councils resolution of 16 January 2013."

Council’s letter to Crown Lands relating to the above was as follows;

"Council considered the matter at its meeting on 12 June 2013 and resolved To provide you with all the expert evidence in support of the disposal of the land; submissions from the public; the reports to and resolutions of Council; as well as copies of newspaper reports to demonstrate transparent public consultation. Please find attached the relevant information.

With this information Council advises that whilst it does not generally support the sale of community land, it does recognise that there is a need to reconstruct the failing retaining wall and Council supports the Crown lands division advertising the application for public comment.

Council would be pleased if Crown lands could now proceed with their statutory processes for the disposal of the land to Mr and Mrs Leckie."

3. Mr Kevin Cameron, Area Manager, Crown Lands, Far North Coast was consulted on this matter in his capacity as the Minister's delegate. Mr Cameron supports Ms Leckie's request for purchase of.the larger area (approximately 290 m²) on the basis of the advice received from de Groot & Benson Pty Ltd that the smaller area may not contain enough of the slope to prevent mass movement of the sloping land; and, that the risk of failure of the slope is quite high with the responsibility for the failure of the slope presently resting with the Crown through the Trust Manager for the reserve.

4. Mr Cameron has suggested that the Trust should proceed with the sale of the affected land to Ms Leckie pursuant to the terms of Section 102 of the Crown Lands Act 1989 (the Act); and, that he would be willing to support a submission to the Executive General Manager for the disbursement of proceeds from the sale of the land for the use of the Nambucca River Foreshore Reserve Trust under Section 106 of the Act. The suggested disposal process will shorten the overall time necessary to bring the disposal to fruition and lessen the number of administrative steps.

5. The above determination and recommendation is clear, concise and without ambiguity. There is no caveat, no bureaucratic obstructionism. What is even more surprising is that Crown Lands agreed to an even larger (290m²) disposal of land to the Leckies. The moment we placed the matter in the Crown Lands Office hands for determination we abrogated our rights to determine this matter. It was put in the hands of Crown Lands Office to make the appropriate recommendations/decisions on this matter.

The Land Situation

Attached is a report from de Groot & Benson Pty Ltd which states:

"After reviewing the contents of Coffey's Geotechnical report dated September 2015 in relation to the landform on the eastern side of No.2 Nelson Street. In addition we have reviewed Council Business Paper Item "ITEM 10.4 LF 4225 – 291015 – Geotechnical Investigation – 2 Nelson Street". Their opinion is stated as follows:

"In my opinion, the report confirms conclusions that we have separately formed, namely that:

· The retaining wall on the eastern boundary of the property has failed and will eventually need replacement with a properly engineered wall or series of retaining walls running basically parallel with the eastern boundary of the property.

· The slope which is on the downhill side of the wall and is on Council controlled land has evidence of past landslides, soil creep and mass movement and is susceptible to ongoing slippage. In our opinion, this slippage potential exists regardless of the presence of the retaining wall.

· The slippage is most likely to occur when the clay layer which sits over a weathered shale substrate becomes saturated during a significant storm event.

· The potential for saturation is exacerbated by uncontrolled runoff from Council controlled land in Nelson Street which flows over the embankment. This is exemplified by a section of the slope immediately to the south of the road reserve (ie at the eastern end of the Nelson Street road formation) which has slumped sometime in the past. The facts are that the steep slope to the end of Nelson Street together with the storm water runoff from Nelson Street have contributed to the mass movement in the southern corner of the Leckie's property this was identified by Douglas and Partners which noted cracking to the South east corner of the house at No.2 Nelson Street and distress to the retaining wall located along its eastern site boundary. Soil creep movement was assessed as the likely cause of the observed displacement and the risk of further soil creep landslide impacting on the property was assessed to be high.

· In addition, Coffey states "Cracks within the concrete footpath and distorted timber sleepers indicate that some mass movement has occurred within the southern corner of the property."

My concern as expressed in this and, previous letters, is to the potential liability that Council may face in the future due to the nature of the slope.

I consider that it is a case of "when" not "if" there will be slippage of the slope in the Council Reserve. Coffey acknowledge this in their report by stating "Any natural hillslope and colluvium is susceptible to ongoing failure". As such Council is likely to have some liability for damage caused when this occurs, particularly when exacerbated by added risk posed by the uncontrolled stormwater runoff from Nelson Street.

One of my consistent recommendations in the past, which is only reinforced by the Coffey report, is that Council should seek to limit its liability when slippage occurs, with its consequent impacts on private property.

Reasons for the Leckie's taking the present action

a. The landslip problem as described above.

b. Collateral Damage - The approval of a 22 lot Serviced Apartments development at the side of the Leckie's property with the following problems as expressed by the Leckie's;

i. "It breached the height limit, depth and setbacks as defined in the DCP". However Council were allowed a discretionary factor which allowed the height limit, depth and setbacks to conform to the DCP (my comment).

ii. Overshadowing problems – which will no doubt affect the Leckie's privacy and in winter it will provide them with even less sunlight in the winter months and according to them will have a definite effect between 9 AM and 3 PM.

iii. Can you imagine living close to a block of 22 serviced apartments at the time of construction of these apartments which could probably take up to a couple of years.

iv. Can you imagine living on the fringe to a block of 22 serviced apartments with people moving in and out with limited parking available. With the people who probably use these apartments and bringing their whole family who no doubt are out for a good time. One should know what that means in holiday times.

It should be noted that I voted in favour of the 22 lot serviced apartments. I had definite concerns and questioned some staff and councillors. Personally, as an accountant I am against advising any persons to purchase serviced apartments as I consider from experience that people who buy these apartments are left in a worse financial situation. I was also concerned about non conformity with the DCP. However I was convinced by one Councillor and staff member that with applying Council's discretion in this matter it would comply with the DCP. I made my decision strictly on a commercial benefit to the Shire/Council, namely that Council would benefit by having additional Council and water rates paid which were needed for Council's running funds and future development. There can be little doubt that the Leckie's were COLLATERAL DAMAGE with this approved development.

c. The area of Crown land adjoining the Leckie's residence is basically a useless piece of land area, overgrown, not maintained, and basically serves no useful purpose – it is an eyesore.

d. The wall at the bottom of the property is collapsing and appears to be one of the causes for the landslip as mentioned above. This wall needs replacement.

e. The ingress of water from the top of the Leckie's block is a council responsibility which contributes to the mass movement of some of the bank in the southern corner of the Leckie's property.

Possible Problems Facing Council

A. The Leckies in their email dated 18 January 2015 have stated as follows "as nothing has been decided by Council I seek forthwith that Council attend to the rectification works at its sole expense. I further put Council on notice that any damage to my property resulting from Council's neglect to attend to rectification will be claimed in damages" and further states;

"please further note that due to councils non-attendance to this matter and poor decision making regarding adjoining development site resulting in my loss of human amenities, I now feel that I have no choice but to approach the Land and Environment Court and media for assistance.

B. The Leckie's complaining to the Ombudsman about the way Council has treated with their application pointing out the deficiencies and lack of due process/natural justice in Council's procedures. Based on my nine pages of comments, which were forwarded to Council concerning Council ignoring due process requirements and ignoring the provision of natural justice to the Leckie's. I regard my nine pages of comments would certainly prove that the Leckie's have been treated unfairly by this Council.

Financial Comparison between "To Sell & Not to Sell

1. If the land is not sold to the Leckie's

Council and Crown lands would be responsible for the following costs;"(Some estimates, some quotes)

a. Rectification or rebuilding of the wall. (Quote 4.5 years ago $29,986) now maybe $35,000

b. Rectification of the ingress water problems at the top of the property $20,000

c. Repairs to the damage of Leckie's property (Quote 4.5 years ago $6,970) Maybe now $15,000

d. Answering the complaint from the Ombudsman in Council staff time and legal advice $15,000

e. If it goes to the Land and Environment Court and with legal advice and staffs time $30,000

f. Ongoing litigation Costs - Who knows

g. It would be councils continued responsibility to maintain Crown lands section of Gordon Park

Worst case scenario it could cost Council around $110,000 (totally rough estimate without basis) plus future maintenance costs.

2. If the land is sold to the Leckie's

a. The Leckie's in their email dated 18 January 2015 have stated "as you are aware my Husband and I were agreeable to purchase the land in front of our property and pay for the necessary measures to rectify the issues.

b. The sale of the land would be at valuation and for this exercise let us say the valuation was $25,000 which would be put to the maintenance and rectification of Gordon Park.

c. The Leckie's as owners of the land would be responsible for the maintenance of the land in question. Also being part of their property I have no doubt that environmentally and aesthetically it should be an improvement to the dilapidated and eyesore condition of the property at present.

d. Then there should be no outstanding issues as regards the Leckie's property and the matter hopefully will be resolved for the present.

Financial Conclusion

Based on the above figures Council would be better off by selling the land by $135,000, details as follows;

i. They would not have to expend money to rectify the issues as listed above ($110,000)

ii. Council would receive the sale money ($25,000)

iii. Future Maintenance would be carried out by the Leckie's.

Opposing Views

The following opposing views have been put forward many times and I would like to comment on them in detail:

1. Crown Land should never be sold

I basically agree with that comment and I was one of the councillors who voted for this to be sent to the Crown Lands Department for decision. The parcel requested in its present state is a useless piece of dirt, of benefit to no one and an eyesore, with the need for a lot of remedial work. I found this a hard decision to make and was happy to send the matter up to Crown lands for recommendation/decision. At that point I felt Council had abrogated their right to make the decision on that land. If it is allowed under the Crown Lands Act/Local Government Act and the proper procedures are followed, I feel it is totally unjust that other Councillors could oppose that recommendation and that the applicant be given "A FAIR GO". Due process had not been accorded to the applicant.

2. It Might Create a Precedent

I find a statement like that stifles change and can leave us in a state of limbo. It can quite obviously be perceived that a statement like that is nothing more than bureaucratic mismanagement tool to put an end to even the most positive of initiatives. Matters such as the present problem should be judged on its merits and that those merits can be defended. Considering that this Council has approved the construction of 22 serviced apartments bordering on the applicants home and considering the Collateral Damage effects that this approved construction will have on the amenity and the living conditions of the applicant, what type of Council have we become when we don't include JUSTIFIED COMPASSION in our decision-making process.

3. I Make this Decision on behalf of the Community

I find this as an arrogant reason. To think one of us can represent and know the feelings of the whole community. The community is made up many types of groups, with varying opinions, political leanings and some just want to be left alone. As an example the community I mix with include members of the RSL, the Lions Club, U3A, Bowling Club where I play regularly, the unemployed and low income persons where I have done their tax for the last 10 years as a volunteer in the Australian Tax Office – Tax Help Program and also where I have previously assisted some small businesses in setting up their financial systems. I don't think you will ever hear me say that I Represent the Community.

My feeling is that the majority of the community have no real interest in Council affairs. Very few turn up to our meetings and even on such important issues of rate rises, very few come to the meetings to make comments. Basically I feel that the residents of this Shire expect Council to provide proper services to the best of their ability and to run the affairs of Council in accordance with the relevant laws. Many residents at the last council elections expressed a negative view of Council and the government making voting compulsory was an inconvenience.

As an elected representative of Council, I take my role seriously in accordance with section 232 (b) of the local government act "to represent the interests of ratepayers and residents" I do not regard myself or act as if "I am Council" I regard myself as a representative of the Shire residents who have voted me into Council as their representative. I am supporting the Leckie's in their application as I regard they have not been fairly treated by Council.

Attachments:

1	2210/2016 - Justification for the following comments - Leckie
2	2212/2016 - De Groot Benson Report 29 October 2015 15 (3)

Ordinary Council Meeting - 11 February 2016

Notice of Motion - Sale of 290m2 of Gordon Park

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS

"I did not regard that there was due process/natural justice accorded to the Leckies in arriving at Council's decision in this matter."

Preamble

I am disappointed that I have again been made to justify my comments as to why I have regarded that Procedural Fairness/Natural Justice has not been fairly applied to the process of an application submitted by the Leckies concerning their property and the sale of a small portion of Crown Land. Councillors may recall that on the 7th February 2014, I forwarded a 3 page summary to all Councillors and the GM stating my reasons why I considered that Procedural Fairness /Natural Justice had not been applied to the Leckies application. I have consistently tried to put forward the same views in Council on this matter. I will again justify my comments in deference to the unreasonable demand placed on me at the last Council meeting, but in this reply I will also provide a detailed analysis based on the information I have available in the hope that my views are fully clarified and that deficiencies in Council procedures are fully addressed.

Background

1. Prior to the present matter there was a proposed development of serviced apartments next door and close to the Leckie's house. As an accountant, I had concerns about serviced apartments as many people who purchase such apartments were left high and dry. There were also problems with permanent residents having to suffer the continual annoyance of new people moving in for short periods and causing disruption to the other residents. It was obvious that the Leckie's property would be a victim of this. I supported this application because I had trust in Council staff in that it ticked all the boxes of our DCP, and I felt any adverse decision could have led us ending up in the land and environment court, where we could possibly lose.

The Leckies were certainly collateral damage and disadvantaged with this new development. Their house being very close to the 22 apartments would restrict their sunlight and some views. In Mrs Leckies email to Council she stated "council has been provided with the correct shadow diagram from our expert and the developers architect has concede he made a mistake. The shadowing is extensive" .....They (the Leckies) "will not receive the minimum right to daylight access of 2 hours." I felt there was a lack of compassion or thought given to these matters at our meeting.

2. There were problems occurring with the Leckie property as follows:

a. There was a land movement problem on their property. A previous report commissioned by Council concluded that the problem of the movement of land was as a result of poor drainage at the top of the property at Nelson Street with water flooding onto the Leckies property. This was a Council responsibility.

b. From the De Groot report, it found that further movement of land was caused by the damaged condition of the retaining wall (a Crown Lands responsibility). This land movement has caused a crack in the house wall. As such it is assumed that any damage caused becomes a trust responsibility.

Justification of Comments

The Leckie's made an application to Council to purchase a small section of Crown Land adjoining their property which encompassed a damaged retaining wall causing land movement on their lot. The Leckie's had agreed that if they could purchase this small area of land, that they would fix the retaining wall and take full responsibility for fixing up the various problems associated with their property which would alleviate any future costs and responsibility of Council and Crown Lands to fix the problems associated with the Leckie's property.

I did have concerns, namely that I did not believe we have a right to sell crown land. As trustees we should protect that land.

A major dilemma appeared in my thoughts. On the one hand to oppose the selling Crown land and on the other hand recommending the purchase a small portion of Crown land that in no way detracted from the area thereby having the Leckie's repairing and restoring the retaining wall and absolving Council of any further problems and liability associated with the problems mentioned.

Legal Liability - Council could end up being legally liable for damage as a result of their inactivity in not fixing the problem and rectifying the damage caused to the Leckie's property in a timely manner. COUNCIL'S LEGAL LIABILITY

This was not a decision I felt happy to make. I was very happy when a motion was passed to send this matter higher up to the Trade and Investments Crown Lands Office so that they could make the decision on our behalf, thereby absolving us from any backlash or further comment. Council and I never in our wildest expectations ever expected that the Crown Lands office would come up with the decision and recommendations they made.

On the 12/06/2013 the following resolution was passed by Council;

The Leckies had sent their reports and information to the Crown Lands office. Council had done the same as confirmed in Council's letter dated 31 July 2015 as follows:

Council would be pleased if Crown lands could now proceed with their statutory processes for the disposal of the land to Mr and Mrs Leckie."

From any of the states Ombudsman's Guidelines on Natural Justice/Procedural Fairness , there is emphasise that any person or body who decides any matter must provide the opportunity for both sides to present their case. This is exactly what has happened and up to this stage the guidelines of Procedural Fairness had been followed.

Council sent this matter up to the referee (Crown Lands Office), yes the referee for their determination and their determination (as listed in Crown Lands Letter dated 16 January 2014 was as follows:

Mr Kevin Cameron, Area Manager, Crown Lands, Far North Coast was consulted on this matter in his capacity as the Minister's delegate. Mr Cameron supports Ms Leekie's request for purchase of.the larger area (approximately 290 m²) on the basis of the advice received from de Groot & Benson Pty Ltd that the smaller area may not contain enough of the slope to prevent mass movement of the sloping land; and, that the risk of failure of the slope is quite high with the responsibility for the failure of the slope presently resting with the Crown through the Trust Manager for the reserve.

Mr Cameron has suggested that the Trust should proceed with the sale of the affected land to Ms Leckie pursuant to the terms of Section 102 of the Crown Lands Act 1989 (the Act); and, that he would be willing to support a submission to the Executive General Manager for the disbursement of proceeds from the sale of the land for the use of the Nambucca River Foreshore Reserve Trust under Section 106 of the Act. The suggested disposal process will shorten the overall time necessary to bring the disposal to fruition and lessen the number of administrative steps. I have included a summary of the disposal process at Annexure "A", and extracts from the Act at Annexure "B" for your information.

The first step in the process is for the Trust to consider an amendment to the resolution made by the Trust on 12^th June 2013 so as to enable disposal of the larger (290m²) area to Ms Leckie. The Trust may also wish to consider at that time whether it would be appropriate for the Trust to support a Crown Lands offer of a Licence to Ms Leckie for the purposes of investigating the construction/re-construction of the retaining walls pursuant to Section 34A of the Act as an intermediate step to the disposal. -

The above determination and recommendation is clear , concise and without ambiguity. There is no caveat, no bureaucratic obstructionism. What is even more surprising is that Crown Lands agreed to an even larger (290m²) disposal of land to the Leckies. The moment we placed the matter in the Crown Lands Office hands for determination we abrogated our rights to determine this matter. It was put in the hands of Crown Lands Office to make the appropriate recommendations/decisions on this matter.

What did this Council do? We rejected the umpires decision and talked about putting a caveat to stop any future development of the land without any consideration of the construction/reconstruction of the retaining walls, the risk of failure of the sloping land causing damage to the Leckie's property and the problems of water inundation from the top of the land onto the Leckie's property causing possible further damage . Also there was no consideration given to the disruptions that approving a 22 flat serviced apartment might cause to the Leckies. I felt our council was acting no better than the "Star Chamber" of old. As a council we had failed in providing procedural fairness in our decisions.

Council then invited members from the Crown Lands Office to address our Council on this matter. A meeting was arranged for 12.30 on the 17 July to meet with council staff then for a council meeting starting at 1.30 pm. Top of the agenda items to be discuss was;

"Proposed purchase of Crown land within Gordon Park (Leckie) involves the elected Council".

To my astonishment the Crown lands representatives at the meeting appeared to have verbally reversed their previous decision. It is my contention that a person or persons prior to the meeting had convinced the Crown lands representatives to change their decision. How is it conceivable that on the one hand the representatives of the Crown Lands Office make a written clear and unambiguous decision spelt out in detail from complete input from both parties and in the next instance in Council change that decision. Whether we use the Pub Test, the Sniff Test or the Reasonable Person Test, it is inconceivable to think that no one had got to these members before the meeting. In my former life as an analyst with the Joint Intelligence Organisation using very basic analytical skills, I would also have come to the same conclusion that someone had got to these representatives prior to the meeting.

Clearly against the guidelines of Natural Justice/Procedural Fairness.

Again I would like to quote from the ombudsman's guidelines:

What are the rules of natural justice?

"Any person who decides any matter without hearing both sides, though that person may have rightly decided, has not done justice. Any person whose rights, interests or legitimate expectations will be affected by a decision or finding is entitled to an adequate opportunity of being heard to properly present their case, the person is entitled to know the grounds on which the decision or finding is to be taken"

The Leckies also attended the meeting where the Crown Lands Office representatives had changed their recommendation. At the Council meeting the Leckies were not invited to comment Nor Allowed Any Input. THIS IS A CLEAR BREACH OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS.

It was suggested during the meeting that the Crown Lands Representatives could discuss this matter with the Leckies after the meeting.

What was totally outrageous was that a motion at the same meeting designed to provide some PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS was defeated. The motion presented was;

"that the matter be deferred until the Leckies have had sufficient time to talk to Crown lands about the matter to enable them (Crown lands) to either support their previous recommendation or otherwise"

CAN YOU BELIEVE IT? - YES THE MOTION WAS DEFEATED. How can we in any way justify that we have accorded the Leckies Due Process and Natural Justice in this matter.

After the meeting, a meeting did again take place between the Crown Lands Representatives and the Leckies and it was explained to me later by the Leckies that the Crown Lands Representative had again changed their decision in supporting the original application. As I understand , the Leckies would be prepared to produce a Statutory Declaration stating the facts and outcomes of that meeting. It is important to know that false statements in a Statutory Declaration can lead to a penalty of up to 4 years incarceration.

The offer of a lease to the Leckies

Concerning a motion proposing an easement or lease, the only documentation that I have seen is as follows , dated 21 November 2012 :

MOTION – "that Council seek advice as to whether the applicants would be prepared to submit the option of a lease, extending say 2m out from the retaining wall with restrictions on the removal of vegetation and restrictions on structures without further approval of Council".

The motion was LOST

On the 29 January 2015, the following is very interesting

General Manager Report

ITEM 9.1 SF959 290115 Outstanding Actions and Reports

Motion: (Morrison/Ainsworth)

That, in relation to Item 11, Council ask the Leckies and Crown Lands if they would participate in a mediation session with the Mayor and General Manager representing Council.

The motion was LOST.

NOTE: Cr Morrison wished his vote to be recorded as against the decision because he believes that natural justice and due process has not occurred.

638/15 Resolved: (MacDonald/Flack)

That, in relation to Item 11, the General Manager and the Assistant General Manager Engineering Services undertake a site inspection and then report to Council on whether advice should be sought from a geotechnical engineer.

639/15 Resolved: (Hoban/Flack)

That Council write to Mr and Mrs Leckie reminding them of Council’s previous resolution to provide a recommendation to Crown Lands that a lease be entered into for the purpose of constructing a retaining wall to protect their property.

Comments on the above

1. A motion proposed to mediate this matter between Crown Lands, The Leckies and Mayor and GM was LOST. A fair motion and democratically beaten. But to me personally, a show of ARROGANCE by Council. A chance to solve the matter and have it go away badly missed.

2. Notice the note to my objection

"NOTE: Cr Morrison wished his vote to be recorded as against the decision because he believes that natural justice and due process has not occurred."

Compare this to the present situation where the reason for my objection to a similar motion will not be included in the minutes unless I can justify those comments which is the subject of this 9 page justification. Before my comments were OK and now they are not

3. It is worthwhile to comment on the following resolution:

I could not find the previous resolution, nor did the Leckies appear to have any knowledge of that resolution as shown by their reply below;

"I am not aware of any resolution to that effect. the last we heard was that
council was awaiting a letter from Crown Lands re: their position.

With due respect we will not enter into a lease of the land and have to
pay for the lease plus pay for rectifying the issues to the land when the
land is not ours. The land is in the management of the council as the
trustees and hence your responsibility to fix.

As previously stated if we owned we would undertake to fix the issues
affecting our land".

We as a Council should have more respect for the applicant. Why would they accede to such a detrimental and disingenuous offer?

Our most recent meeting on the 24th September 2015

The following motion was passed at our most recent meeting ;

"that Council advise the Minister of its determination in relation to the land at Gordon Park and provide him with a copy of Council's resolution"

In accordance from information received from Council , I therefore presumed that the previous determination was as follows;

"that Council advise the Crown Lands Office that it doesn't generally support the sale of community land however Council does recognise there is a need to reconstruct falling retaining wall and Council supports the Crown Land Division advertising the application for public comment"

Did Crs. Flack & Smyth realise that the same motion had been forwarded previously to;

a. Manager Crown Lands Division on the 30 January 2013

b. Mr Hurcum on the 31 July 2013

c. The Minister Kevin Humphries 25 March 2015

d. The Minister, Niall Blair on the 19 May 2015

Now it is proposed to send to send copies of the same motion again to the same Minister.

What total nonsense! Surely our council is better than that.

Prior to this motion did we send copies of the Mayors letter to Minister Kevin Humphries on the 25 March 2015 to the Leckies. Did we also send a copy to Minister Niall on the 19th May 2015 to the Leckies - to my knowledge - NO. Have we sent a letter to the Leckies advising the receipt and copy of Minister Niall's reply letter and also the latest motion passed at Council? Not to my knowledge.

According to the Ombudsman Procedural Fairness (natural justice) applies to decisions that may negatively affect an interest of a person. A critical part of procedural fairness is the hearing rule. Put simply, hearing the other side of the story and that any negative information is disclosed. You are entitled to and be aware of the issues and be given all the information.

Conclusion

If one follows the totality of the actions of Council in this matter, it can well be concluded that Council has not accorded PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS/NATURAL JUSTICE to the Leckies in their decision making in this matter. I regard the fault lies mainly with the councillors as it has been their motions that have gone against the requirements of Procedural Fairness/Natural Justice. To put it bluntly we have as Councillors been TOTALLY INEPT in our decision-making in this matter. We as Councillors seem to have forgotten our roles in accordance to that set down in the Local Government Act 1933, where it defines the role of a councillor in two separate and distinct strains;

First strain as a member of the governing body of the Council. One of the aspects would include:

 To direct and control the affairs of Council. Surely this must also apply to following guidelines set out by the Ombudsman in their requirement to follow and apply Due Process/Natural Justice in decision making processes.

And the second strain as an elected person which one of the aspects does include:

 to represent the interests of the residents and ratepayers.

In this matter we as Councillors appear to have lost our way in our erratic decision making processes, ignoring due process and providing no natural justice to the applicant in this matter.

The decisions and motions by some Councillors may have achieved their political aims but the processes and methods of reaching a final decision has so far been nothing less than A DOG'S BREAKFAST. I cringe at what we have put the applicant through in this process and the strains that this has had on the applicant, their family and their future attitude towards this Council.

I would like this matter to be concluded as soon as possible. It is taken a lot of my time, your time and Council staff time which I regret. My personal opinion is that this matter should have been concluded after we handed the decision to Crown Lands Office with all the documentation from both Council and the Leckies and accepted their decision. Crown Land Office made the decision and set out a framework for the disposal of the land in very clear, concise and unambiguous terms. That should have been the end of the matter and nothing so far has convinced me any differently.

Basically this matter will not be amicably solved unless we as a council admit that our actions, motions and decisions have been less than adequate. That in the last 3 years that appropriate procedural fairness has not been accorded to the applicant (the Leckies). Without this acknowledgement, how can we restore the confidence of the residents of this shire and council staff who so ably and loyally support us in our decisions.

RECOMMENDATION

As both parties have provided the Crown Land Office with all evidence to support their case, that Council now accept their recommendations and follow the process for the disposal of land as set out in the above referenced letter with the Leckies then assuming responsible for rectifying the problems associated with their property.

Options

1. For Council to immediately repair, and reconstruct the retaining wall at the bottom of Leckies property to avoid further slippage on their property, fix up the stabilisation problems, repair the damage and secure the foundations to their house and solve the water problems flowing onto their place.

2. For Council to sit down with the applicant and attempt to amicably come to a satisfactory resolution with the applicant.

3. Continue on as present, ignoring the principle of Procedural Fairness/Natural Justice, ignoring the stress and strain to the applicant and be prepared for possible costly litigation in the future and its effects on Council and Councillors reputation.

Cr. Bob Morrison

30/09/2015

Ordinary Council Meeting 11 February 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.1 LF4225 110216 Sale of 290m2 of Gordon Park

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Michael Coulter, General Manager

Summary:

Council received a request for the purchase of 290m² of Gordon Park in September 2012. It was recommended to Council’s meeting on 25 October 2012, “that Council thank Mrs Kelli Leckie for her enquiry but advise that it does not endorse her request to acquire a small section of Gordon Park adjoining 2 Nelson Street, Nambucca Heads”.

Since then there has been a site inspection and 12 reports to Council concerning the matter.

In summary the original request was to acquire 290m² of land. Council then considered a revised request for 170m² with the proposal then reverting to the original request for 290m², then being withdrawn and then being reinstated.

On 16 January 2013 the Council resolved as follows:

“That Council advise the Crown Lands Office that it doesn’t generally support the sale of community land however Council does recognise there is a need to reconstruct the failing retaining wall and Council supports the Crown Lands Division advertising the application for public comment.”

Then on 15 December 2015 it was resolved:

“That Council does not support the sale of the land but supports a lease, licence or easement of said land for a period sufficient to allow the Leckies to undertake remedial work on their land and that there be no cost (rent) to the Leckies.”

Then on 28 January 2016 the resolution of 15 December 2015 was rescinded with a further resolution being that the motion to support the sale of the land:

“be deferred to a meeting where no councillors are on approved leave and further it be accompanied by a report outlining the implications of sale of the land in terms of:

1 The potential for the development of the land

2 Impacts on surrounding properties

3 Valuation considerations

4 Any precedent that the sale may set

5 Council’s costs to date in dealing with this matter”

If Council wishes to proceed with the process to support the sale of the land and its rezoning then a recommended process is listed as an option. The notice of motion in this business paper is another option.

Recommendation:

That Council thank Mrs Kelli Leckie for her enquiry but advise that it does not endorse her request to acquire a small section of Gordon Park adjoining 2 Nelson Street, Nambucca Heads.

OPTIONS:

If Council wishes to proceed with the process to support a sale of 290m² of Gordon Park to Mr & Mrs Leckie, the recommended steps are as follows:

1. Mr & Mrs Leckie provide Council (the Trust) with $3,000 to fund a valuation of the land (If the valuation costs less than $3,000 then Mr & Mrs Leckie would be refunded the difference).

2. Council (the Trust) considers the valuation and decides whether or not it is satisfied with the valuation. If Council is satisfied with the valuation it may resolve an intention to sell the land and the terms and conditions of the sale as well as the reasons for its decision.

3. Council (the Trust) then advertises for 28 days a notice of intention to sell the land.

4. Concurrent with 3. above Mr & Mrs Leckie should pay the required first stage rezoning application fee of $2,054 so that Council can resolve to change the zoning of the 290m² of Gordon Park from Public Recreation RE1 to B4 Mixed Use (or whatever other zoning is deemed appropriate) and lodge an application for a gateway determination with the Department of Planning and Environment.

5. The Council (the Trust) then considers any submissions which may be lodged during the exhibition period of its notice of intention to sell the land and decides whether or not it wishes to support the proposed sale.

6. After receiving the gateway approval to the zoning change, the Council advertise the draft local environmental plan for comment as required in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and considers any submissions.

7. Only after considering any submissions in relation to the notice of intention to sell the land as well as any submissions pertaining to the draft local environmental plan does the Council (the Trust) decide whether or not it wishes to proceed to finally support the proposed sale and then writes to the Minister seeking consent to the sale.

8. Should the Minister agree to the proposed sale then a development application for subdivision will be required to sever the land from Gordon Park and consolidate it with the land comprising 2 Nelson Street.

It is acknowledged that the above process is “tortuous” but the advice provided by Crown Lands only pertains to the provisions concerning the disposal of land under the Crown Lands Act. It does not deal with the provisions in the Environmental Planning and Assessment which need to be complied with to undertake a rezoning of the 290m² of Gordon Park. In theory the two processes do not need to proceed concurrently but this opens up particular risks to Council and Mr & Mrs Leckie if, for whatever reason, the sale of the land proceeded but the rezoning from Public Recreation RE1 to say B4 Mixed Use did not.

Another option is the notice of motion listed in this business paper.

DISCUSSION:

Council considered the following motion at its meeting on 28 January 2016:

1 That Council in accordance with Crown Lands recommendation, resolve to support the sale of 290m² of Gordon Park (as previously defined) to the Leckie’s in accordance with Crown Lands recommended procedure as laid down in the Crown Lands letter dated 14 January 2014 and for Council to document its reasons for selling the land.

2 That the valuation of the portion of land to be sold be determined by an accredited valuer agreed to by both Council and the Leckies.

In response to this motion being put an amendment was resolved being:

That the motion be deferred to a meeting where no councillors are on approved leave and further it be accompanied by a report outlining the implications of sale of the land in terms of:

1 The potential for the development of the land

2 Impacts on surrounding properties

3 Valuation considerations

4 Any precedent that the sale may set

5 Council’s costs to date in dealing with this matter

The Potential for the Development of the Land

The 290m² of Gordon Park which Mr and Mrs Leckie seek to acquire is zoned Public Recreation RE1. It has a very limited range of permissible uses and is an inappropriate zoning for privately owned land.

The adjoining land which they own, 2 Nelson Street, is zoned B4 Mixed Use and a 14m building height limit applies.

The land uses permissible in the B4 Mixed Use zoning include residential accommodation; hotel or motel accommodation; tourist and visitor accommodation; commercial premises and a wide range of other development including restaurants and cafes. In general terms the B4 Mixed Use zoning is very flexible allowing (with development consent) a large range of uses.

How Mr & Mrs Leckie propose to use the acquired land is not stated in their correspondence. The initial request dated 6 September 2012 proposed that they acquire the land to relieve Council of its obligation of maintaining it and noted that they would bear the risk and cost of the, “identified possible geotechnical issues”. In an email dated 8 October 2013, Mrs Leckie indicated that the acquisition of the land is linked to the DA approval of 4 Fraser Street, namely “due to the DA overshadowing our home significantly causing zero sunlight”. The email further stated, “the acquisition can resolve two issues 1 the overshadowing and 2 the landslip issue”.

Whilst the motion concerns the sale of the land only, it is surmised that Mr & Mrs Leckie would not be satisfied with the existing Public Recreation RE1 zoning and would seek the zoning of the land to be the same as that applying to 2 Nelson Street being the B4 Mixed Use zone with a 14m building height limit. This is also consistent with good zoning practice as it is desirable, particularly for small urban properties, that the same zoning apply to all of the land.

If the proposal to sell the land proceeds, what needs to happen concurrently with this process is for Council to support a gateway application to change the zoning of the 290m² of Gordon Park from Public Recreation RE1 to B4 Mixed Use (or whatever other zoning is deemed appropriate) and lodge a gateway application with the Department of Planning and Environment.

If, for whatever reason, the sale of the land proceeded but the rezoning from Public Recreation RE1 to say B4 Mixed Use did not, it would mean that Mr & Mrs Leckie purchased a section of park they could not use for a range of private purposes. Notwithstanding that Council may support both the sale and rezoning of the land, it does not control the outcome of either process with the Minister for Crown Lands being the final determining authority for the sale and the Minister for Planning and Environment (or their delegate) being the final authority for the rezoning.

It should be noted that there is no private right of access across Gordon Park and should access be required to the land from Gordon Park then a legal access in the form of a dedicated road or right of way would be required. If such access is required it would be preferable for this to be known now rather than at the end of the process.

Impacts on Surrounding Properties

The proposed acquisition of the 290m² of land will not of itself have any impact on surrounding properties.

The impact will only arise from any development which might occur on the land and without any knowledge of what that development may be, any assessment is speculative.

As reported to Council in 2012, the land contains a number of trees which provide a landscaped “backdrop” to Gordon Park and provide effective screening of the development in Nelson Street.

If the land were to be transferred to private ownership, the Council will have no control over the vegetation. Without a tree preservation order the vegetation could be removed without notice, but even with a tree preservation order the vegetation could be removed in conjunction with a development application to extend the building or undertake other work.

In relation to the retention of the vegetation, Coffey Geotechnics has found that:

“Any natural hill slope and colluvium soil (soil derived from mass movement) is susceptible to ongoing failure. It is neither practical nor expected to undertake attempts to achieve a substantial factor of safety against movement in colluvium. Measures can be adopted to help maintain the slope. Critically this will be through control against saturation and erosion of the soil.

Superficial drainage should be directed to prevent ingress into the soil and rock, and reduce potential for overflow on to the slope.

Maintaining vegetation assists, especially by drawing water from the soil. (underlining added for emphasis)

Collapsed debris helps maintain the new equilibrium and it should not be removed. It may, however, benefit from minor action to prevent water ponding.

Here, there is a buffer zone of about 2.5m between the current landslide head scarp and the damaged retaining wall structure. Any design for a replacement retaining structure must recognise the geometry of the slope beyond its toe and also the need to control drainage from the wall location to avoid comprising its foundation.”

Valuation Considerations

The Crown Lands letter dated 14 January 2014 which is attached provides for the following procedure:

“Reserve Trust Sale Process – Annexure A

1. The Trust will be required to make a decision to sell the land and document its reasons for selling the land.

2. To satisfy Section 102(1) of the Crown Lands Act 1989, the Trust will be required to cause a notice of its decision to be published in a newspaper circulating in the district.

3. Section 102(1)(c) of the Crown Lands Act 1989 requires that the Trust wait 14 days from the date of the publication before seeking Ministerial approval to sell the land.

4. At the expiry of the 14 day public notice period, the Trust will be required to write to the Minister seeking consent to the sale.

5. The Minister will consider the submission made by the Trust and, if in agreement, may decide to form an intention to consent to the sale. The intent of the Minister to consent to the sale is required to be advertised for a further 14 day period, this notice of intent is to be published in a newspaper circulating in the district.

6. The Minister cannot make a final decision to sell the land until after the expiry of the second 14 day public notice period.

7. The Minister has the ability under Section 106 of the Crown Lands Act 1989 to allocate the proceeds of the sale.

8. The reservation for Preservation of Native Flora, Public Baths and Public Recreation over the subject land is revoked upon conveyance of the sale pursuant to section 104 of the Crown Lands Act. No advertising, approval or gazette action is required.

It will be noted that the process referred to in Annexure A of the Crown Lands letter refers only to Council making a decision to sell and documenting its reasons. However Annexure B which lists the legislative provisions upon which Annexure A is based states that the Trust must not sell land unless it has decided it is desirable to do so on the terms and conditions specified in the decision (Section 102 of the Act). Terms and conditions would commonly be regarded as including the sale price of the land.

Therefore notwithstanding the direction provided by Crown Lands in Annexure A, the concern with the motion which has been deferred from Council’s meeting on 28 January is that it may not be legally sound in that it seeks a resolution to support the sale of the land before any valuation (sale price) is obtained.

Mr and Mrs Leckie have supplied to Council a valuation they obtained for the land in 2012 which is attached. The valuation report states that the market value of the land as a single, separate 290m² lot is $10,000 and if attached to their land (Lot 2 SP 22364), as a boundary adjustment the value would be $70,000. However under the heading “Remarks” the Valuer seems to place considerable weight on an assertion that the consolidated land with an area of 759m² would still be too small for a Torrens title subdivision without at all considering the potential for a Strata title development. In any case he indicates his remarks would need to be confirmed by detailed town planning advice.

The Valuer also makes some remarks about the stability of the land and its effects on building costs but there is no indication as to the weight he placed on this presuming he has no special expertise as a geotechnical or structural engineer. The only special value he attaches to a consolidation is that inherent in being able to prevent damage to the property at 2 Nelson Street.

It is not recommended that Council utilise the valuation provided by Mr and Mrs Leckie to determine the price of the land for the reasons indicated.

Part 2 of the motion proposes that the valuation of the 290m² of Gordon Park which is proposed to be sold be determined by an accredited valuer agreed to by both Council and the Leckies. Involving a purchaser in the selection of a valuer to determine the price of the land they wish to acquire has an inherent conflict of interest and is not supported. Equally Mr & Mrs Leckie did not seek the input of Council into the valuer they selected.

Besides the process of selecting the valuer, the Council will have to provide the valuer with instructions as to the future zoning of the land, the applicable height limit and other matters considered relevant. If the motion were to proceed, it is recommended that the instruction to the valuer be for the “highest and best use” of the land based on its B4 zoning which allows a building height of 14m.

It is not recommended that any “discount” on the valuation be provided in relation to the alleged adverse impacts on the amenity of 2 Nelson Street caused by the approval of 22 serviced apartments on the adjoining 4 Fraser Street (DA 2012/108) as there is no legal relationship between the two.

Finally, it is anticipated that the cost of the valuation will be in the order of $3,000. It is recommended that if the motion were to proceed that Mr and Mrs Leckie pay this cost up front.

Any Precedent that the Sale may set

Precedent can become an issue in Government when support is provided to an individual or minority group when it is agreed that for reasons of public policy the same support should be denied to the majority.

A lot turns on the circumstances of the support provided to the individual or minority group and whether or not it can be satisfactorily distinguished from the majority. The test of whether or not a decision can be satisfactorily distinguished should be based on the average perception of the majority rather than a narrow legal interpretation which may not be generally accepted or understood.

There are a number of key attributes of any decision to sell the land which need to be known to assess the potential for any undesirable precedent. A determination of the value of the land is obviously critical. If the value of the land is significantly discounted below its “highest and best use” value then it might be expected that the private sector would be generally interested in acquiring RE1 land for private purposes. Much of it is located in commanding locations in Nambucca Heads.

Another important factor is the ultimate use of the land. If there are few constraints on the ultimate use of acquired “public land” this would also favour interest from the private sector.

The nature of open space is such that Council is either the owner or trustee of a substantial amount of land which is used for the purposes of public open space and recreation. In relation to Nambucca Heads, most of this land is not used for active sport such as playing fields but rather provides for the retention of native vegetation and natural landscape features in and around the town. The extent of the RE1 Public Recreation zoning is shown by the bright green colour on the attached map.

Council’s costs to date in dealing with this matter

With the exception of the geotechnical report which was prepared by Coffey Geotechnics at a cost of $6,270 (including GST), the Council’s costs have related to the commitment of staff time to the matter.

The major commitment of staff time has come from the General Manager and a check of Council’s files indicates that the General Manager has authored 60 emails, 16 letters and 12 reports to Council concerning the matter since first recommending to Council at its meeting on 25 October 2012, “that Council thank Mrs Kelli Leckie for her enquiry but advise that it does not endorse her request to acquire a small section of Gordon Park adjoining 2 Nelson Street, Nambucca Heads”. Checking through Council’s files there was at least an equivalent amount of incoming correspondence (emails and letters) which had to be read by the General Manager. There are no records of telephone calls made or received in relation to the matter.

The General Manager does not cost his time in blocks so the total labour cost to Council of this correspondence and communication (both inbound and outbound) cannot be calculated. Suffice to say the volume of correspondence and reports is such that the cost is substantial. Besides the General Manager, Council’s Engineering Designer was involved in instructing Coffey Geotechnics. The Council itself has also allocated a significant amount of time to inspecting the land, considering the reports and following matters up by email and telephone.

CONSULTATION:

There has been consultation with Council’s Senior Town Planner in relation to the process of rezoning the land from RE1 Public Recreation.

Efforts were made to contact Crown Lands to seek clarification about the apparent conflict between the process referred to in Annexure A and the legislative provisions in Annexure B. Several telephone calls were made and a message was left but as at the publishing deadline for this business paper, no response had been received.

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

The immediate implications for the environment are that the land contains a number of trees which provide a landscaped “backdrop” to Gordon Park and provide effective screening of the development in Nelson Street. The advice of the geotechnical engineer employed by Council is that maintaining the vegetation assists in stabilising the slope, especially by drawing water from the soil.

Social

At this stage, the public consultation process required by the Crown Lands Act and also by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act has not been undertaken so the broader community view to the proposed sale and likely rezoning of the land is unknown.

Economic

There are no significant economic implications.

Risk

Coffey Geotechnics have reported to Council that any natural hill slope and colluvium soil (soil derived from mass movement) is susceptible to ongoing failure. It is neither practical nor expected to undertake attempts to achieve a substantial factor of safety against movement in colluvium. Measures can be adopted to help maintain the slope. Critically this will be through control against saturation and erosion of the soil. Coffey’s found that the primary reasons for the failure of the existing retaining wall are as follows:

· The wall was inadequately designed to support the retained fill materials due to the lateral earth pressure behind it especially on a perhaps with the sloping surface above, against bearing capacity of the foundation beneath the footing; and potentially also water pressure.

· The unreinforced retaining wall has inadequate strength to support the pressures applied from the fill materials located behind the wall.

Notwithstanding the advice of Coffey Geotechnics, Mr & Mrs Leckie believe that Council as trustee of Gordon Park has a potential legal liability if it does not maintain the stability of the land.

Besides the on-going debate about liability for the stability of the slope there are other obvious, mainly reputational risks to Council in dealing with the matter being:

· Public concern about the sale of land zoned for public recreation

· In the absence of any auction or tender process for the sale of the land there may be public concern that the valuation for the land does not reflect its “highest and best use”

· A significant waste of staff resources and Mr & Mrs Leckie’s time and money if ultimately the sale and rezoning of the land is refused by either or both the Minister for Crown Lands and the Minister for Planning and Environment.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

The budgetary impact of the matter to date is discussed in the report.

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

The impact on working funds has been limited to the cost of the geotechnical report being $6,270.

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

The resourcing/staff implications of the matter are discussed in the report.

Attachments:

1	1357/2014 - Crown Lands Advice to Trust Manager
2	28163/2012 - Land Valuation
3	3281/2016 - RE1 Public Recreation in Nambucca Heads

Ordinary Council Meeting 11 February 2016

General Manager

ITEM 9.3 SF959 110216 Outstanding Actions and Reports

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Michael Coulter, General Manager

The following table is a report on all outstanding resolutions and questions from Councillors (except development consents, development control plans & local environmental plans). Matters which are simply noted or received, together with resolutions adopting rates, fees and charges are not listed as outstanding actions. Where matters have been actioned they are indicated with ~~strikethrough~~ and then removed from the report to the following meeting. Please note that the status comments have been made one week before the Council meeting.

Recommendation:

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

	FILE NO	COUNCIL MEETING	SUMMARY OF MATTER		ACTION BY			STATUS
MARCH 2011
1	DA2010/234	17/3/11	Council develop a policy as to the cumulative impacts of locating fill on the floodplain at Macksville and also review the matrix in the Floodplain Risk Management Plan		GM			A timeline has now been provided by WMA water as follows: Mid Jan - draft study & plan to OEH and council for comment Early Feb - WMA water revise draft Mid Feb – draft study & plan provided to Council Mid/Late Feb – study & draft plan considered by Estuary Committee. Presentation by WMA water March – report to Council to seek resolution to place on exhibition March/April – exhibition of study and draft plan Late April – consider feedback from exhibition May – distribute feedback & any recommended changes May – report to Council for adoption.
JULY 2011
2	SF1031	21/7/11	That the policy for Climate Change Adaption be deferred to allow amendments to be made to the draft policy		GM			Update as at 16 April - the project is awaiting the completion of the floodplain risk management matrix which will formally consider the acceptance or otherwise of a forecast climate change induced sea level rise of 900mm by 2100.
AUGUST 2013
3	SF1031	14/08/13	That the tree policy be again presented after Councillors have had sufficient time to comment on the amendments presented by Councillors and in view of the previous motion of Council, namely “Tree Removal” (SF629) containing the 6D principles.		AGMES			Report in September 2013. Deferred to October 2013. At the request of Cr Morrison this item has been deferred to the first meeting in November 2013. Cr Morrison has provided information to the Manager Civil Works who will draft a report to the December Council meeting. Staff on leave during December – deferred until February 2014. Deferred until April – Staff dealing with landslips. Deferred until May 2014 Deferred until June 2014 Deferred until September 2014 and a report will be prepared on the outcome of the meeting. Policy has been redrafted and a new operations procedures manual developed. A memo with the updated policy and procedures will be provided to Councillors for comment at the end of December Deferred with staff on leave - Guidelines and tree assessment form developed and now being trialled for tree assessment with the Policy and guideline review to be presented to Council for comment after trial – anticipate April. Deferred until September after the budget, restructure and staffing levels settle. Provided to Councillors on 29 October for comment. Not provided to Councillors on 29 October - now propose to provide to Councillors mid December 2015 for comment.
DECEMBER 2013
4	SF1842	11/12/13		That if Council and IPART support a rate increase above rate pegging, Council provide a quarterly report either through a media release or its rates newsletter to confirm to ratepayers that the additional funds are being spent on roads and bridges as indicated in our community consultation.		GM	The first quarterly report would be the rates newsletter to be distributed with the 2014/2015 rates notice. Report produced. Media release issued before 13 November Council meeting. Second media release issued 20 May 2015. Third media release issued 30 November 2015.
AUGUST 2014
5	SF595	28/08/14		That Council develop a plan of management for the ongoing maintenance of Hughes Creek.		GM	March 2015 Strategic planner seeking funding to engage a consultant to look at the entire system as part of the estuaries committee because of the nature of the creek system and its integration to the river PoM deferred pending funding. OEH Estuary Grant application submitted in March 2015 (project value $20,000). If successful a plan of management will be developed for Dawkins Lake to the Nambucca River via Hughes Creek. A funding announcement is expected in 2015/16.
SEPTEMBER 2014
6	SF399	26/09/14		Pending the outcome of the Fit for the Future reform process Council consider reducing the no. of Councillors from 9 to 7 via a referendum.		GM	Deferred to late 2015 (next LG general election scheduled for September 2016). Further deferred pending announcements from NSW Government as to proposed structural reforms (amalgamations) of Councils and the creation of JO’s and likely transitional arrangements which will apply.
DECEMBER 2014
7	SF929	11/12/14		Council seek expressions of interest from BSC and CHCC on an alliance to operate a regional focussed Visitor Information Centre (VIC) from the proposed highway service centre.		GM	Letters sent 18/12/2014 Response received from Bellingen Shire Council on 2 March 2015. As at 31/3/15 no response from CHCC. To be reported in June 2015. A tender for the Highway Service Centre has been accepted. The Manager Business Development has made an enquiry in relation to securing 100m2 of floor space for a Visitor Information Centre and associated retail. Awaiting advice as to potential cost and will then be reported to Council. DA for highway service centre currently on exhibition. The plans show a “Council Area” of about 70m2. The matter is being brought to the attention of Nambucca Valley Tourism as a final decision needs to be made on what, if any, tourism marketing will be conducted at the Centre.
MARCH 2015
8	SF841	12/03/15		Council make representations to the Member for Oxley, both pre and post 28 March 2015, for their support for the proposition that the bridges and major culvert structures which are located on the existing Pacific Highway through the Nambucca Valley should remain State assets and not be handed over to Council.		GM	Letter written w/e 20/3/2015. As at June 2015 arrangements are being made for a consultant to assist Council staff in investigating the liability associated with the proposed handover of the existing Pacific Highway to Council. Data provided by the RMS needs to be reviewed as well as a physical inspection of the road and bridge assets. Mayor and GM met with the Member for Oxley on 18 September 2015. Details of Council’s previous submissions forwarded to the Member for Oxley with a request that she make representations on behalf of Council. The early estimates of annual depreciation for the Pacific Hwy assets proposed to be transferred is approx. $1million per annum.
APRIL 2015
9	SF959	30/04/15		That Council write to our Local Member and respectfully ask her if she could intervene to obtain answers to Council’s questions regarding fishing matters in the Nambucca River as listed in Council’s letter on 19 February.		GM	Letter sent 6/05/2015. Follow up letter sent 30 June 2015. Following the letter from the Minister for Primary Industries the GM has telephoned Fisheries staff in Coffs Harbour seeking their attendance at a Council meeting. The Fisheries staff member requested that they be provided with a list of the questions to be asked. The GM has now written to the Fisheries office with a list of questions. Letter sent 3 September 2015.
JUNE 2015
10	SF2049	25/06/15		Council make a submission to the Dept. of Primary Industry in relation to the proposed changes to the Fisheries Management Act 1994.		GM	Submission sent to Dept. on 26/6/15
AUGUST 2015
11	PRF72	13/08/15		Council investigate opportunities to assist in the management of the (Kingsworth Lake) reserve and the matter be reported back to Council in 6 months.		GM	Report in February 2016
12	SF674	13/08/15		Council write to the appropriate Minister drawing attention to the history of the matter (negotiations to extend Council’s Waste Depot) and particularly Council’s investment in studies made in good faith as well as the importance of the facility to the growth and security of our local community.		AGMES	Letter to be drafted to appropriate Minister. Letter sent week ending 30 September 2015. Nil response from the Minister to date, another letter sent 3 December 2015. Response received from Minister and report to a meeting in February 2016.
SEPTEMBER 2015
13	SF2116	10/09/15		That there be a report regarding options to maximise returns on Council’s Invested Funds from Corporate Services and if Council requires a change in the investment portfolio to invite its financial advisers to address Council.		AGMCS	Report in November 2015. Report when CPG available to attend Council. CPG will be in attendance this Council meeting and will be a delegation.
14	Q17/2015	24/09/15		That Council receive a further report and briefing from Greg Powter Consulting once an independent assessment has been completed (re the Pacific Highway Assets Handover)		AGMES	Council briefing planned for February 2016 Consultants engaged. RMS reviewing data supply.
OCTOBER 2014
15	SF95	15/10/15		Following the 6 month trial period of nose-to-kerb parking arrangements in River Street adjacent to the river bank, that Council receive a further report on the outcome of the trial period.		AGMES	Report late 2016
16	SF1031	29/10/15		That Council take action regarding the unapproved shipping container at 21 George Street, Bowraville.		GM	Notice of Intention to Serve an Order has been issued (was issued prior to the Council meeting on 29/1015).
17	SF1031	29/10/15		That the General Manager follow up the question of the appropriate number of companion animals at 21 George Street, Bowraville, and the requirement for a DA for the shipping container.		GM	Inspection being arranged. Report to Council in late November/early December. Proposed to report to second meeting in January 2016.
NOVEMBER 2015
18	PRF30	12/11/15		That Council approach the Minister for Primary Industry, Land & Water advising him of the present situation (with the Rotary Lookout) and that Council is willing to providing matching funding to the funding provided by Rotary and requesting the Minister reconsider their allocation of funds…		GM	Letter sent 17/11/2015
19	SF1963	12/11/15		Council make representations to the Minister for Social Housing in relation to its concerns about the transfer of public housing to various non-government organisations and the substantial loss of rate income which will flow from such transfers….		GM	Letter sent 17/11/201531 Response received from LGNSW supporting Council’s representations and indicating they will also lobby in relation to the issue.
20	SF2068	12/11/15		Council receive a future report on the preferred treatment options & procurement process to gain the most economical outcome for the recycled water scheme at the Bowraville STP.		AGMES	Report in 2016
21	SF1855	26/11/15		That Council receive a report regarding any options for traffic lights at River Street and Cooper Street following the completion of the Macksville by-pass.		GM	Report late 2017
DECEMBER 2015
22		15/12/15		That Council provide in principle support to Royal Far West projects within the Shire and receive a report on what further level of support Council may be able to provide.		GM	Report January 2016 Report to February 2016 meeting
JANUARY 2016
23	LF13	14/1/16		Council note the presentation by Mr Scott Kennedy & Ms Belinda White and that a further report be provided to Council in relation to the matter, and particularly concerning the number of dogs which should be allowed to be kept at the property.		GM	Report either 28 January 2016 or the first Council meeting in February. An inspection is being organised prior to Council’s meeting on 25 February 2016.
24	SF102	14/1/16		That the Engineering staff consider and report on an overall plan for the parking of bicycles.		AGMES	Report to meeting in April 2016 Report to be presented to the March 2016 Council meeting.
25	~~SF2183~~	~~28/1/16~~		That the motion (sale of 290m2 of Gordon Park) be deferred to a meeting where no Councillors are on approved leave and further it be accompanied by a report outlining the implications of sale of the land in terms of: ~~1 The potential for the development of the land~~ ~~2 Impacts on surrounding properties~~ ~~3 Valuation considerations~~ ~~4 Any precedent that the sale may set~~ ~~5 Council’s costs to date in dealing with this matter~~		GM	~~Report February 2016~~
26	SF996	28/1/16		Council review its Compliance, Enforcement and Prosecution Policy based on the NSW Ombudsman 2015 Enforcement Guidelines for Councils		GM	Report March 2016

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 11 February 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.4 SF578 110216 IPART - Draft Report on Review of Reporting and Compliance Burdens on Local Government

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Michael Coulter, General Manager

Summary:

The NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) released a draft report on its review of reporting and compliance burdens on local government.

Whilst the recommendations cover a range of council functions, the recommendations in relation to the operation of local water utilities are flagged as amongst the most important and are the focus of this report.

IPART’s recommendation no. 10 is that the Department of Primary Industries Water (DPI Water) undertake central water planning for Local Water Utilities (LWU’s) to ensure that water supply and demand options are considered in the context of catchments, replacing the water planning LWU’s currently undertake individually through Integrated Water Cycle Management Strategies

In response to IPART’s recommendation no. 10, Nambucca Shire Council needs to vigorously contest IPARTs findings which are erroneous generalisations and lacking the necessary rigour to demonstrate firstly that a problem exists and secondly that their proposed solution can be implemented.

The Council should be under no illusion as to the significance of IPART’s recommendation. The removal of Council’s powers to undertake planning for the provision of water and sewerage services in favour of the Department of Primary Industries Water will be a large step towards the outcome recommended by Armstrong and Gellatly and the other cited reports. About a third of the Council’s overheads rely on the continuation of its water and sewerage businesses and their loss will be fatal to this Council’s sustainability.

Recommendation:

1 That Council submit a strongly worded submission to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) in response to their recommendation no. 10 and in particular rejecting their generalised assertions as being applicable to Nambucca Shire Council and expressing strong opposition to recommendation no. 10 for the reasons discussed in this report.

2 That Council provide a copy of its submission to Local Government NSW.

OPTIONS:

Council has complete discretion as to whether or not it provides feedback on IPART’s draft report and the nature of that feedback.

DISCUSSION:

The NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) released a draft report on its review of reporting and compliance burdens on local government. It will be recalled that the review is part of the NSW Government’s broader local government reform program and arose from the work of the Independent Local Government Review Panel. In its final report, the Panel recommended that the Government commission IPART to undertake a whole of government review of the regulatory, compliance and reporting burdens on councils.

Because of the importance of some of the recommendations to the future of the Council and its day to day operations it is recommended that Councillors have a look at the report which can be found on IPART’s website www.ipart.nsw.gov.au

IPART have provided a period closing 19 February 2016 for stakeholders to make comment on the draft report.

Approximately 67 Acts administered by 27 separate State agencies impose obligations on councils to prepare plans, provide information or comply with other requirements in implementing these Acts.

It is noted that whilst many regulatory obligations are necessary, all come at a cost. IPART identifies their goal as being to identify those that are inefficient, unnecessary or excessive, and recommend ways to remove or reduce their burdens on councils.

The report contains 49 draft recommendations, which cover seven functional areas as well as systemic issues that apply across a range of council

3 That the NSW Government remove restrictions on fees for statutory approvals and inspections to allow for the recovery of efficient costs, subject to monitoring and benchmarking.

4 Where fees continue to be set by statute, that the relevant NSW Government agency reviews the level of fees every 3-5 years and amends the relevant legislation to allow these fees to increase annually in line with the CPI or an index of fee related costs.

5 That if statutory fees are capped below cost recovery to ensure affordability or for other policy reasons, then the NSW Government should reimburse councils for the shortfall in efficient costs.

IPART recommends that restrictions on fees for statutory approvals and inspections be removed, subject to monitoring and benchmarking, to allow councils to recover the cost of delivery of these services. They note that many services currently subject to regulated fees are delivered in a competitive market, such as in competition with private certifiers. However, total deregulation of fees may not be appropriate, particularly where the council is a monopoly provider, for example, of development approvals. In these cases, they recommend continuing to set the fee by regulation with more frequent review (every three to five years), and allowing them to increase annually in line with the CPI or an index of fee related costs. Where the NSW Government’s policy of consistency and affordability in council fees requires particular fees to be set below cost recovery, IPART recommend that the State reimburse councils for the shortfall in efficient costs.

IPART’s recommendations are supported.

10 That the Department of Primary Industries Water (DPI Water) undertake central water planning for Local Water Utilities (LWU’s) to ensure that water supply and demand options are considered in the context of catchments, replacing the water planning LWU’s currently undertake individually through Integrated Water Cycle Management Strategies

In regional NSW, councils provide water supply and sewerage services to urban communities. There are over 100 council owned and operated LWU’s providing these services to over 1.8 million people.

By way of background, the IPART report notes the many State and Commonwealth Government commissioned reports which, for various reasons, have sought the amalgamation of these water utilities into regional or larger groupings.

In 2008 a report commissioned by the NSW Government and prepared by Ian Armstrong and Col Gellatly recommended the then 104 LWU’s in NSW be amalgamated into 32 regional groups. In 2010 Infrastructure Australia commissioned a report which recommended a preferred model to transfer local government water utility functions to government owned regional water corporations. In 2011 the National Water Commission recommended reforms to ensure, “that there is sufficient organisational, financial, technical and managerial capacity to meet service delivery requirements and protect public health and the environment, particularly in NSW and Queensland”. And in 2011 the Productivity Commission also made a recommendation for NSW and Queensland to consider the merits of aggregation of regional water utilities, case by case, based on a range of factors. Where the expected benefits of horizontal aggregation do not outweigh the costs, the PC recommended that these governments consider the case for establishing regional alliances.

IPART references stakeholder comments in relation to water resource planning by LWU’s through Integrated Water Cycle Management Strategies (IWCM’s), that:

· LWU’s do not have the in-house expertise to undertake this planning. Rather, most (and possibly all) LWUs engage consultants to prepare their IWCM Strategies at significant cost, and

· Many LWU’s consider preparation of an IWCM Strategy as burdensome and, in some cases, not relevant to their operations.

IPART assert (without listing any evidence) that smaller LWU’s typically have less capacity to undertake water resource planning and therefore feel these burdens more greatly than larger LWUs.

IPART then convey their position as follows:

“We consider that the current approach to water planning, within the boundaries of a LWU’s operations has significant limitations because these boundaries do not align with water catchment areas. Water planning could be more efficiently and effectively undertaken on a regional or catchment basis. A Regional Water Strategy approach could consider catchments holistically and determine the best way to balance supply and demand.

In some cases, regional infrastructure may be a more efficient way of securing water supply than localised infrastructure for each LWU. Efficiency gains might also be achieved by delivery efficiencies (eg, replacing high evaporative creek distribution systems with pipelines). This sort of holistic planning should be done by DPI Water …

Central water resource planning can present some challenges as it interacts with infrastructure delivery. Nevertheless, we consider that holistic planning is more efficient and preferable to the current LWU based planning.

A Regional Water Planning Strategy approach would also allow an evaluation and rebalancing of LSW water entitlements. LWUs have water entitlements that were assigned by DPI Water under 10 year water sharing plans….

A Regional Water Planning Strategy could identify those LWU’s with too much water and those with not enough and rectify the balance. This would represent the most efficient way of securing and delivering water supply across a catchment…

We consider that LWU’s who are assessed to have sufficient capacity could be regulated under the Water Industry Competition Act 2006. LWUs regulated under the WIC Act would be exempt from approval requirements under section 60 of the Local Government Act and most aspects of the Best Practice Management Framework. Therefore, they would be regulated primarily by IPART, rather than DPI Water.”

The first and most obvious error from IPART’s generalisation is that LWU boundaries do not align with water catchment areas. Of course, the catchment for the Nambucca Valley does align with the LWU (Council) boundary.

Secondly, as Council is aware the preparation of its Integrated Water Cycle Management Strategy and the associated Strategic Business Plan effectively represents its 30 year capital works program for water and sewerage. There is nothing more important than these two documents to the operation of our water supply and sewerage undertakings. This Council has placed great weight on the preparation and implementation of these strategic plans and has spent in excess of $76m over the past 8 years in constructing an off river water storage and in upgrading the Nambucca Heads sewerage treatment system.

In tandem with these capital works Council has implemented its Strategic Business Plans for its water and sewerage services and has made the fiscally responsible but politically difficult decisions to substantially increase its developer charges and volumetric pricing. For IPART to state that many LWUs, “consider preparation of an IWCM Strategy as burdensome and, in some cases, not relevant to their operations”, beggars belief. Rather than slur all smaller LWUs with this assertion it would be better to name those it applies to.

Thirdly to suggest that because LWU’s engage consultants to prepare IWCM’s at significant cost is in some way indicative of a lack of capacity is plainly infantile. Indeed many of the initiatives for reform in State Government come from consultant reports and not from the work of their public servants. Currently the State Government is relying on work undertaken by consultants KPMG to justify proposals for Council mergers. This does not mean that the Office of Local Government has no in-house expertise in local government reform or otherwise lacks capacity to manage the sector.

IPART do allude to an implementation problem with their preferred model with the euphemistic statement that, “central water resource planning can present some challenges as it interacts with infrastructure delivery. Nevertheless, we consider that holistic planning is more efficient and preferable to the current LWU-based planning”. This remark is a serious understatement of the problem of separating responsibility for planning from that of delivery. Imagine for a moment that DPI Water or some Regional Water Planning Authority insists that for reasons of future growth and regional planning that the Bowraville Off River Water Storage has to be 8,000ML and not the 5,000ML deemed adequate by Council and directs Council to construct a dam of this size and then directs Council to increase its developer charges and volume pricing to cover the additional expenditure. This is the reality of separating planning from delivery.

Having many years’ experience working as a Town Planner in Western Sydney I’m also acutely aware that the removal of a Council’s authority to undertake the planning for the provision of water and sewerage services will have a negative impact on the Council’s ability to initiate economic development. Currently Nambucca Shire Council, as the responsible water and sewer authority, can prioritise the provision of infrastructure as it sees fit, with one consideration being the opportunity for economic development. With the removal of Council’s authority to undertake planning for the provision of water and sewerage infrastructure, local economic development opportunities will not attract the same weighting in the considerations which will apply at a State or regional level.

Another practical problem with IPART’s proposal is whether or not Councils will retain the authority to take a dividend from any surplus in their water and sewerage operations. Following the issue of the audited statements for Council’s operations in 2014/2015, under the Best Practice Guidelines the Council is entitled to and is seeking $180,000 in dividend from the surplus in its water fund. If there were to be a Planning Authority, the issue of dividends will be a source of potential conflict as the interests of the Planning Authority and local council are unlikely to coincide. The Planning Authority will only be concerned with financing future water and sewerage infrastructure whilst the council has broader considerations in relation to funding all of its operations within a revenue framework acceptable to its ratepayers.

Finally there is no discussion in the IPART draft report as to whether or not LWU’s will be expected to continue to fund water planning if it was to be undertaken by DPI Water. In the case of Nambucca Shire Council which is a LWU based on the boundaries of a catchment, there is no evidence to suggest that DPI Water will be able to undertake this valley’s water planning any cheaper or better than Council.

By way of summary, the Council should be under no illusion as to the significance of IPART’s recommendation. The removal of Council’s powers to undertake planning for the provision of water and sewerage services in favour of the Department of Primary Industries Water will be a large step towards the outcome recommended by Armstrong and Gellatly and the other cited reports. About a third of the Council’s overheads rely on the continuation of its water and sewerage businesses and their loss will be fatal to this Council’s sustainability.

11 That the NSW Government enable LWUs with sufficient capacity to be regulated under the Water Industry Competition Act 2006 as an alternative to their current regulation under the Best Practice Management of Water Supply and Sewerage Framework and section 60 of the Local Government Act 1993.

IPART have reported that many LWUs now have the capacity to manage themselves without the level of prescriptive regulation under the Best Practice (BPM) framework and section 60 of the Local Government Act. IPART then state as follows:

“We consider that LWUs who are assessed to have sufficient capacity could be regulated under the Water Industry Competition Act 2006 (WIC Act). LWUs regulated under the WIC Act would be exempt from approval requirements under section 60 of the LGA and most aspects of the BPM Framework. Therefore, they would be primarily regulated by IPART, rather than DPI Water.

DPI Water may still need to regulate aspects of these LWUs operations that are covered by the BPM Framework but not the WIC Act such as:

· Liquid trade waste regulation.

· Performance benchmarking.

In contrast with the current prescriptive regulation of LWUs under the BPM Framework and section 60 of the LGA, regulation under the WIC Act is characterised by:

· An outcomes-based approach, and

· A risk-based compliance regime, including exception-based compliance reporting and risk-based auditing.

The regulation of LWUs under the WIC Act can be tailored to provide the appropriate level of regulatory oversight for each LWU’s capacity.”

In relation to this recommendation, the critical component is its application to LWUs, “who are assessed to have sufficient capacity.” Given the recent process for the “Fit for the Future” reforms the Council should be wary of any stated criterion requiring, “sufficient capacity”. The term is nebulous and seems to be relied upon to vindicate a position without having to state criteria against which it can be measured and justified.

19 That the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) manage referrals to State agencies through a “one-stop shop” in relation to:

· planning proposals (LEPs)

· development applications (Das), and

· integrated development assessments (IDAs)

In relation to this recommendation IPART note that in the Planning White Paper, the NSW Government proposed establishing a one-stop shop for referrals, concurrence and other planning related approvals within DPE to coordinate, manage and facilitate State agencies’ input for speedier assessments. However the Planning Bill which sought to implement this reform did not proceed through Parliament. It is agreed with IPART that the implementation of a one stop shop for agency referrals, concurrence and approvals in relation to planning proposals, DAs and IDAs should reduce the costly delays experienced by councils and applicants. At the very least it would make the State Government more accountable for the dilatory approach of some State agencies in responding to referrals and requests for concurrence.

38 That the NSW Government transfer Crown reserves with local interests to councils, as recommended by the NSW Crown Lands Management Review and piloted through the Local Land Program Pilot.

IPART noted that through their consultation process, they received substantial comment on burdens associated with council management of Crown reserves and possible solutions to address these burdens. Whilst the Department of Primary Industries identified that potential savings could be achieved by adopting a more risk-based and aggregated reporting model for Crown reserve trusts based on councils’ internal reporting systems, many councils argued for more substantial reforms, including:

· transferring Crown reserves to councils (or, alternatively, handing them back to the State), and

· having one regulatory regime (the LG Act) apply to all land managed by councils.

The IPART recommendation is supported and is consistent with representations this Council has previously made in relation to a review of Crown Lands as well as to IPART in relation to their draft report.

40 That the NSW Government streamline the statutory process for closing Crown roads, including arrangements for advertising road closure applications.

41 That the NSW Government reduce the backlog of Crown road closure applications to eliminate the current waiting period for applications to be processed.

IPART noted the process relating to Crown road closures and citing that as at September 2015, DPI Lands had approximately 7,000 road closure applications waiting to be processed and no specific resources available to expedite council applications. Meanwhile councils identified burdens associated with their involvement in the Crown road closure process relating to the excessive requirements of the process and the costs to councils in managing it.

IPARTs recommendations are certainly supported.

45 That the Office of Local Government’s redesign and modernisation of the central Register of Companion Animals includes the following functionality:

· online registration, accessible via mobile devices anywhere

· a one-step registration process, undertaken at the time of microchipping and identifying an animal

· the ability for owners to update change of ownership, change of address and other personal details online

· unique identification information in relation to the pet owner (ie owner’s date of birth, driver licence number or Medicare number)

· the ability to search by owner details

· the ability for data to be analysed by Local Government Area (not just by regions)

· the ability for data to be directly uploaded from pound systems, and

· centralised collection of registration fees so funding can be directly allocated to councils.

The inadequacies of the existing system for registering and monitoring companion animals are obvious to all who work in the sector.

IPART note that in February 2014, the NSW Government committed to undertake a comprehensive review and redesign of the Register and registration system. IPART note that this redesign is currently being undertaken by the OLG and that the redesigned Register and registration system would implement one-step online registration.

In March 2015, the Premier repeated the announcement that the current registration system will be replaced with an easy, one-step online registration system. According to the Premier, having “an on-line registration system that links animals to breeders at the time of micro-chipping will centralise these details, and assist animal welfare authorities to crack down on illegal animal breeding practices, such as puppy farms. The Premier also noted that it is hoped that the new system will make it easier for families to transfer registration at the time of purchase, update contact details and search for lost pets.

The Government’s announcement largely overcomes the concern of councils with the current two-step registration process and accordingly IPART felt no need to recommend an already announced initiative.

However two years have now passed since the NSW Government committed to overhauling the registration system and there is no indication in the IPART report as to when the “easy, one-step online registration system” will be delivered.

CONSULTATION:

The major concerns identified in this report have been brought to the attention of the General Managers of Bellingen and Kempsey Shire Councils.

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

At this stage there are no implications for the environment.

Social

At this stage there are no social implications.

Economic

Whilst many of the recommendations have the potential to save substantial costs for councils and the community in the way they do business, these benefits require the recommendations to be implemented.

Risk

The report discusses the substantial risk to Council in relation to recommendation no. 10 that the Department of Primary Industries Water (DPI Water) undertake central water planning for Local Water Utilities (LWU’s).

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

At this stage there is no budgetary impact.

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

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

Attachments:

2684/2016 - Fact Sheet - Reporting and Compliance Burdens

Ordinary Council Meeting 11 February 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.5 SF2173 110216 Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months OR where submissions received - 22 January - 4 February 2016

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

Summary:

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

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

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

Recommendation:

That the information be noted by Council.

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

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

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

DA NO		DATE OF RECEIPT		PROPOSAL	PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2015/099		2 July 2015		132 Lot Residential Subdivision	Lot 1 DP 1119830, Marshall Way, Nambucca Heads
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED Two public submissions have been received – they oppose the development: · The increase in expected traffic raises major concerns re safety (particularly for the elderly and the young), congestion, parking within the Plaza and speeding. · Concerned that there isn’t enough local infrastructure and services to support new residents eg doctors. · A community forum should be held to gauge dissatisfaction with the proposal · Spring Street isn’t wide enough to cope with the increased traffic · Stormwater in Spring Street and surrounding areas is already a problem · Concerned about the safety of turning out of Spring Street, when Marshall Way is a through road
STATUS: Awaiting applicant’s response to Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH), Rural Fire Service (RFS) and Council’s outstanding issues concerning flora & fauna and asset protection zones. There are also on-going discussions with the applicant concerning the applicable contribution plans which will apply to this subdivision and also the previously approved subdivision involving the Link Road.
DA NO		DATE OF RECEIPT		PROPOSAL	PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2015/144		15/09/2015		73 Lot Subdivision	Lot 176 DP 1190467, Seaforth Drive, Valla Beach
Ten submissions have been received by Council – all oppose aspects of the proposal · There should be parks, public open space as part of the development – children already play on Seaforth Drive as there is nowhere else for them to play · Road in and out of the estate should be higher quality and suitable for evacuation in the case of bushfire – two exits instead of just one would be preferable · Fauna in the wetland reserve (to the south of the proposal) will suffer if it is approved · Overall, the scale of the development is too large · There should be footpath provided to link the development to the shops, bus stop and preschool · Visual and noise pollution will result because bush to be cleared provides a buffer for the noise of the railway and the highway · There is an endangered ecological community (Coastal Salt Marsh) within the proposed area · Acid sulphate soils could be disturbed and leach into Deep Creek · An earlier, preliminary flora and fauna report referred to a 65 lot subdivision – this would be more appropriate · 4.1 hectares of native vegetation should be retained and an SIS required · Loss of habitat will negatively impact on macropods · Hollow bearing trees shouldn’t be removed · Wildlife corridors be maintained · Hydrological studies be carried out in relation to disturbance of Acid Sulfate Soils\ · Section 94 contributions should be levied · What research has been done in relation to climate change and sea level rise impacts? · APZs should all be on private land · A perimeter road should be included as it would provide a good buffer between the residential lots and the wetland · Can Council guarantee that the block between this proposal and the pre-school won’t be developed and no further connecting road will be built to Valla Beach Road?
STATUS: Awaiting applicant’s response to OEH and Council issues relating to open space, flora & fauna, stormwater and buffer issues.
DA NO		DATE OF RECEIPT		PROPOSAL	PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2015/188		16/11/2015		Dwelling Additions	Lots 218 & 494 DP 755550, 3 Quarry Street, Nambucca Heads
One submission has been received by Council – it opposes the proposal · The proposed development will result in loss of views and amenity
STATUS: Opportunity to make comment from adjoining owner notification closed on 4/12/2015. Concern about loss of views to be assessed. Otherwise no other issues. As at the date of preparing this report an approval was being prepared under delegated authority.
DA NO	DATE OF RECEIPT		PROPOSAL		PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2015/195	26/11/2015		NBN Fixed Wireless Telecommunications Facility		Lot 2 DP 1039123, 401 Gumma Road, Gumma
One submission from eight property owners and seven other submissions have been received by Council – they oppose the proposal · Reduce property values · Environmental impacts · Exact site unclear · Additional infrastructure will be required · EIS inadequate · Cultural assessment inadequate · Developments in the area should be low density · May lead to further similar developments · Destroys visual amenity
STATUS: Called in by Council. At this stage it is proposed that the application will be listed for determination by Council at its meeting on 25 February 2016.
DA NO	DATE OF RECEIPT		PROPOSAL		PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2015/197	26/11/2015		Piggery		Lot 22 DP 828660, 652 Boat Harbour Road, Yarranbella
Two submissions have been received by Council – they oppose the proposal · Not enough information in application · Concerned about run-off, odours, contamination, fencing and noise from the development · Untidy huts and pigs are already located on the property
STATUS: Awaiting additional information from applicant - due by 15 February 2016
DA NO	DATE OF RECEIPT		PROPOSAL		PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2014/198/01	04/12/2015		26 Lot Subdivision		Lot 42 DP 711098, Old Coast Road, North Macksville
Twenty-two submissions have been received by Council – they oppose the modification · Connecting Florence Wilmont Drive and Old Coast Road will bring too much traffic and noise into the community. · Lumsdens Lane should be used instead · Florence Wilmont Drive is already in poor condition in some spots – this would make it worse · All residents of Kingsworth Estate should have been notified, not just properties fronting Florence Wilmont Drive · Linking Florence Wilmont Drive to Old Coast Road will provide many short-cut opportunities · Detrimental to koala habitat and to other native fauna · Benefits new developer at expense of current residents of Kingsworth Estate · Old Coast Road still won’t be fully sealed
STATUS: Notification till 15 February 2016
DA NO	DATE OF RECEIPT		PROPOSAL		PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2015/214	14/12/2015		Demolish existing dual occupancy and erect new dual occupancy		Lot 11 Section D DP 17707, 22 Waratah Street, Scotts Head
Four submissions have been received by Council – they oppose the proposal · Excessive site coverage could lead to runoff problems for properties below the development · 8.5m height limit is exceeded – overshadowing impacts. Ground level has been artificially raised · Notification period should be extended – difficult to obtain professional advice about the proposal over the Christmas/New Year period · Not enough information on Council’s website · Floor area calculations include external open areas which would be easy to enclose at a later date · View loss for adjoining property · Unclear as to whether deep soil zone, setback and excavation requirements in DCP will be complied with · Current building contains asbestos – removal needs to be done according to requirements · Safety concerns with access to the site · Proposed design out of character with Scotts Head village · Too many variations to Council’s DCP · Three storey, not two storey dwelling · Setback inadequate · Southern setback deficient · Deep soil zone deficient · Total footprint is misleading · Proposed excavations too great
STATUS: Applicant advised to reappraise design based on submissions
DA NO		DATE OF RECEIPT		PROPOSAL	PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2015/215		15/12/2015		Dwelling-House	Lot 342 DP 1186161, 19a Bent Street, Nambucca Heads
One submission has been received – it opposes the proposal · View loss · Privacy/overshadowing · Stormwater runoff
STATUS: Awaiting additional information to address concerns raised, including privacy.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 11 February 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.9 SF1148 110216 Council Ranger's Report January 2016

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Teresa Boorer, Business Services Officer

Summary:

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

Recommendation:

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

	Cats	Dogs
COUNCIL’S SEIZURE ACTIVITY
Seized (doesn’t include those animals dumped or surrendered)	0	0
Returned to Owner	0	0
Transferred to - Council's Facility from Seizure Activities	0	0
ANIMALS IN AND ARRIVING AT COUNCIL'S FACILITY
Animals In Council's Facility - (Start of Month)	0	2
Abandoned or Stray	1	9
Surrendered	0	8
Animals transferred from Seizure Activities	0	0
Total Incoming Animals	1	19
ANIMALS LEAVING COUNCIL'S FACILITY
Released to Owners	0	3
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	1
Escaped from Council's Facility	0	0
Other	0	0
EUTHANASED
Restricted Dogs		0
Dangerous Dogs		0
Owner’s Request	0	2
Due to Illness, Disease or Injury	0	0
Feral/infant animal	1	3
Unsuitable for rehoming	0	0
Unable to be rehomed	0	3
Total Euthanased	1	8
Total Outgoing Animals	1	13
TOTAL IN COUNCIL'S FACILITY - (END OF MONTH)	0	6

January 2016		PARKING
REGO NO.	PN NUMBER	INFRINGEMENT DETAILS	PENALTY $	DATE ISSUED
BU-24-RZ	3120607903	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
BX-46-DD	3120607912	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
AW-34-QU	3120607921	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
132-SKT	3120607930	No Parking	106.00	14/01/2016
1EQ-7TH	3120607940	Not park in direction of travel	177.00	14/01/2016
XLV-063	3120607959	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
841-JTL	3120607968	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
YBH-662	3120607903	No Parking	106.00	14/01/2016
437-JYD	3120607986	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
CYI-57Z	3120607995	Not park in direction of travel	177.00	14/01/2016
COT-14M	3120698002	Not park in direction of travel	177.00	14/01/2016
BIB-84P	3120698011	Not park in direction of travel	177.00	14/01/2016
AZW-66J	3120698020	Not park in direction of travel	177.00	14/01/2016
CA-47-PN	3120698030	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
CTH-93T	3120698049	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
CB-12-CT	3120698058	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
BH-15-PA	3120698067	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
AKI-12U	3120698076	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
BF-31-XD	3120698085	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
BE-92-MY	3120698094	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
BM-2115	3120698103	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
N-BB-01H	3120698112	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
BC-68-ZA	3120698121	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
CF-99-BB	3120698130	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
BL-40-JE	3120698140	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
DBP-50R	3120698168	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
MG-68-AL	3120698177	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
732-HAO	3120698186	No Parking	106.00	14/01/2016
CRL-79R	3120698195	Not park in direction of travel	177.00	14/01/2016

January 2016 (cont.)		PARKING
REGO NO.	PN NUMBER	INFRINGEMENT DETAILS	PENALTY $	DATE ISSUED
CEJ-79B	3120698204	Not park in direction of travel	177.00	14/01/2016
CSF-49S	3120698213	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
BM-17-CT	3120698222	No Parking	106.00	14/01/2016
1DDR-402	3120698231	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	14/01/2016
AEU-34T	3120698240	Not park in direction of travel	177.00	14/01/2016
AQH-43B	3120698269	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	25/01/2016
AE-34-MG	3120698278	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	25/01/2016
JWC-088	3120698287	Loading Zone	177.00	25/01/2016
ANU-87S	3120698332	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	25/01/2016
AN-56-WM	3120698341	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	25/01/2016
AV-69-DF	3120698350	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	25/01/2016
LXK-48S	3120698360	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	25/01/2016
BG-59-TG	3120698379	No angle park as on parking control sign	106.00	25/01/2016
		TOTAL:	$5091.00

January 2016		COMPANION ANIMALS & OTHER
CHIP NO.	PN NUMBER	INFRINGEMENT DETAILS	PENALTY $	DATE ISSUED
9430943202052370	3120698159	Not under control P/place	$220.00	14/01/2016
N/A	3120698296	Not under control P/place	$220.00	25/01/2016
N/A	3120698305	In Charge of dog in prohibited Place	$330.00	25/01/2016
N/A	3120698323	Not under control P/place	$220.00	25/01/2016
N/A	3120698314	In Charge of dog in prohibited Place	$330.00	25/01/2016
943094320330341	3120698406	Not under control P/place	$220.00	25/01/2016
N/A	3120698397	In Charge of dog in prohibited Place	$330.00	25/01/2016
N/A	3120698250	Fail to comply with Notice in a Public Place	$110.00	14/01/2016
N/A	3120698388	Fail to comply with Notice in a Public Place	$110.00	25/01/2016
		TOTAL:	$2090.00

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 11 February 2016

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.1 SF1676 110216 Capital Works Report - December 2015

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

Summary:

This report provides Council with a quarterly report on the Capital Works Program for the second quarter of the 2015/2016 financial year with expenditure YTD week ending 29 January 2016.

Recommendation:

1 That the Capital Works Report for the second quarter of the 2015/16 financial ending 31 December 2015 be received and noted.

2 That Council provide an additional $200.000.00 to the budget for Bakers Creek Bridge from working funds and or the pending water and sewerage dividend to construct a concrete bridge structure instead of a conventional timber bridge structure.

3 That Council provide an allocation of $50,000.00 as seed funding for geotechnical investigation and design of concrete bridges over the next two financial years.

4 That Council endorse the proposed variations within the report.

OPTIONS:

Receive the report.

DISCUSSION:

Comments from Assistant General Manager Engineering Services:

Bridge construction - For some time now, Council has been longing to construct concrete bridge structures instead of traditional timber bridges. These structures in the past have been cost prohibitive against budget constraints and there was some resistance from staff prior to the organisation restructure with the need to up skill and retool plant and equipment.

Seed funding for geotechnical investigation and design of concrete bridges - The work in investigating the prefabricated concrete bridge for Lovedays, Bradley’s and Bakers Creek bridges has shown that a four to six month lead time is required to undertake geotechnical investigation, obtain the design from the supplier and procurement of the prefabricated components.

At present there is no forward funding available to have the designs in advance of the program and potentially losing the first half of the year with the prelude of investigation and design leaving only a six month timeframe for the delivery of the program.

Consideration is being sought from Council to provide $50,000.00 seed funding this financial year from working funds in advance of the 2016/17 and 2017/18 bridge program to undertake geotechnical investigation associated with the bridge replacement program to effectively have the plans ready at the beginning of a financial year.

Lovedays Bridge - In the September QBR, Council were advised that staff were investigating the use of prefabricated concrete bridge components, and this has now advanced to the point where Lovedays Bridge on Upper Warrell Creek will be constructed as a concrete bridge within the budget allocation that is available. It is proposed not to construct a side track, by closing the road for a period of two weeks and use the funds for the side track to supplement the cost of the concrete components. The road closure will be advertised and message boards placed either side of the bridge in advance of the closure notifying the public of the dates the road will be closed.

Bakers Creek Bridge - A budget variation of $200,000.00 is being sought for the construction of Bakers Creek Bridge in order to construct a prefabricated concrete bridge structure. This bridge is some 13m above water and the additional cost is associated with purchase and installation of the substructure. Council are waiting the approval to receive a dividend from the water and sewerage operations. The dividend is approximately $180.000.00 and can be used to fund road or bridge works, and in this case the additional cost required for a concrete structure which will extend the asset life of the bridge from 50 to 100 years

Bradleys Bridge- Bradleys Bridge is subject to Natural Disaster funding and will also be replaced with a concrete prefabricated bridge structure once the approval is granted from the RMS to proceed.

Boat Harbour Bridge - The tender for the design and construction of a concrete structure for Boat Harbour Bridge has been called and is subject to a report to this Council meeting. Assuming the tender is endorsed by Council and contracts are awarded on 12 February 2016 following the Council meeting, the project construction period under the contact is 20 weeks, which see the construction of the bridge completed on or by 30 June. It is foreshadowed to Council that the funding will not be fully expended by 30 June and require a revote of funds in the vicinity of up $400,000.00 for the completion of road approaches as well as final contract payments, Staff will report the progress through the March and June Capital works QBR.

Disposal of Council owned surplus materials - Council staff have been instructed that surplus material will not be sold directly to the general public, as the disposal of any surplus equipment or materials must be sold in a safe condition and must comply with Work Health and Safety requirements and Workcover Code of Practice.

An auction sale is being organised for the end of March 2016 for the disposal of surplus material. Council presently sells any surplus steel through the Midwaste steel collection contract.

Disposal of vehicles – The Manager Assets will elaborate on the disposal of vehicles within his section.

Timber materials – Suitable reclaimed bridge materials are being stored for reuse in Council parks and reserves. Were feasible consideration is being given to the reuse of materials rather than waste,

The Capital Works report is presented for the period ending 31 December 2015.

2014/15 revotes:

Civil Works – The revotes for civil works at 30 June 2014 was endorsed by Council and carried forward into 2015/16 financial year as a revote.

At the time of this report, the majority of revotes have not been expended as they coincide with bitumen sealing works scheduled for February/March. The road works that were undertaken in Nambucca and Macksville Streets are still to receive the final pavement treatment via asphalt and or bitumen seal (February for the bitumen sealing and March for the asphalt) These works are still being monitored as there have been some sections that experienced subgrade failures requiring further attention by our contractor prior to the final wearing course being completed

The footpath and drainage works associated with grants and the Adin Street footpath have been subject to change and only recently been endorsed by the community. These works will be undertaken by contract and scheduled for March.

Plant - Council resolved to place the unexpended funding of $438,000 for 2014/15 plant replacement emanating from the Infrastructure Services restructure report back into the plant reserve to be re-voted to complete the purchases within the 2015/16 financial year and the Manager Assets will elaborate further on the purchase and disposal of vehicles within his section.

RFS - Council resolved to place the unexpended 2014/15 RFS funding into a reserve for consideration of allocating the unspent funds toward capital plant and capital work upgrades on buildings. The RFS Zone Manager presented his 2016/17 draft BID to Council on 28 January 2016. The budget handed down from the state Government resulted in a further increase of $40,000.00 above that budgeted by Council and is reported separately to this meeting

Water and Sewerage - Outside of the civil works there was a revote in funds associated with the Bowraville Off River Storage project to finalise outstanding construction and commissioning costs as well as the funding for the two outstanding compensation payments

Flood Damage Program - All Flood damage works stemming back to 2009 have now been completed and final acquittal with the RMS completed

Second quarter review of the 2015/2016 financial year:

This current review reflects the second quarter of the 2015/2016 financial year with expenditure reported to 29 January 2016.

The majority of work undertaken in this second quarter has been orientated on maintenance works with particular emphasis on maintenance grading using the new techniques with the roller, water cart and the gravelling of pavement sections.

The 2015/2016 capital works program is in progress with Gumma Road under construction. Geotechnical investigation and design is in progress for the remaining road capital works program which are scheduled to commence in the second quarter through to the end of the financial year.

The rural and urban heavy patching program has commenced and preparation is underway for the annual rural roads reseal program scheduled for February/March 2016.

April 2015 flood event

Council’s natural disaster funding for the flood event that occurred in April 2015 has been partially assessed by the Public Works on behalf of the RMS and approval granted to undertake preliminary geotechnical investigation and a structural investigation on Bradleys Bridge. With the change to funding arrangements, it is anticipated that the majority of work may have to be undertaken via the use of contractors which will prolong the repair to infrastructure. The value of the claim submitted is $2,261,000.

Macksville Park “Fun & Fitness” Project

All work on this project has now been completed as per the grant conditions. An official opening of the complex was undertaken in November which coincided with River festival. The project entailed:

· Fitness Trails and landscaping

· Skate Park

· Community Recreation Room.

· Lighting of the oval

Riverside Drive Project

All stabilising and pavement works on this project has now been completed as per the grant conditions and the road reopened to the public. It was proposed to acquit the grant in February 2016, however approval has been granted to use the unexpended funds to extend the project works as outlined hereunder and the grant acquittal extended to 30 June 2016/ The following funds for the revegetation of the EEC along Riverside Drive have been placed into a restricted reserve for use over the next five years.

Riverside Drive EEC Revegetation Funding Plan
Item	Frequency	Number	Rate	Cost
Audit of Littoral Rainforest	Annual	5	$ 3,450.00	$ 17,250.00
Vegetation management plan	Once	1	$ 3,960.00	$ 3,960.00
Weed Spray	Annually for 3 Years	3	$ 3,600.00	$ 10,800.00
Plant trees 1000 Plus 10% replacement of failures	Once	1100	$ 20.00	$ 22,000.00
Maintenance	Annually for 2 years	2	$ 8,800.00	$ 17,600.00
Total				$ 71,610.00

The funding authority has provided approval to use the unexpended funds of $251,000 from savings with the contracts and scope of works for additional works located at Section 2, Riverside Drive between Piggott and Nelson Streets.

A contractor has been engaged to construct a retaining wall and dish drain east of Piggott Street toward Nelson Street, and pavement reconstruction and asphalting at the adjacent intersection with Piggott Street is programmed in March/April.

These works will complete the necessary work along Riverside Drive. The cost estimates are as follows:

Road Pavement 1325 m2 $ 80,000

Asphalt 1225 m2 $ 38,000

Dish Drain 100 LM $ 10,000

Drainage Pits x 2 $ 3,000

Graviti Block Retaining Wall 80LM $120,000

TOTAL $251,000

Comments from Manager Infrastructure Services:

This report reflects the second quarter of the 2015/2016 financial year with a very favourable outlook on the completion of the annual program.

Council’s bridge program

The bridge program is well progressed at the time of preparing this report and the AGMES has elaborated on the progress earlier in this report. The updated costs to date are as follows;

Adin Street Detention Basin

Work on the basin was scheduled to commence in the first quarter, however there have been a number of changes to the design emanating form the community group and the latest design ready for construction has seen basin enlarged in area but the walls of the berm lowered which lessens the visual impact of an engineered constructed basin. Work will commence after the holiday period

Adin Street footpath

Work on the footpath was scheduled to commence in the first quarter, another design change emanating from discussion with the community group has resulted in a compromise and the footpath relocated from the top of the embankment adjacent to the road to the toe of the embankment which will be much cheaper option to construct and safer proposition for pedestrians. Work will commence after the holiday period

Council’s road program

Unsealed Road Maintenance

The gravel re-sheeting program is continuing in the Eungai area and work is programmed with contractors. Patch gravelling works are being undertaken with Councils maintenance grading crew in addition to the program as needed. The crew are currently working in the South Arm area and will be heading to Taylors Arm in the near future followed by North Arm. Staff are currently trialling a number of gravel mix options with a view to securing an appropriate source of gravel at a specification that provides long term performance on our road network.

Road Rehabilitation Program

Last year’s rehabilitation program is due to be completed in the coming month with works to be programmed in with the commencement of this year’s program as outlined earlier by the AGMES comments.

The current program includes rehabilitation works to Scotts Head Road, Valla Road, Mann Street, Gumma Road, Rodeo Drive, and Bellingen Road.

Scotts Head Road upgrades will be undertaken by Council staff and commencing in approximately mid-February with Valla Road works to follow towards the end of financial year. The other projects will be undertaken by contractors.

Miscellaneous works

Planned upgrades to the Thompson Street car park at Valla Beach, drainage upgrades to Lions Park, Valla Beach South, Stuart Island parking and landscaping upgrades, and Main Beach Nambucca Heads access improvements are in the planning stage and will be commenced in the third quarter and finished by the end of financial year.

Comments from Manager Assets:

Public toilet amenities upgrade

The Bellwood Park public toilet block has been completed and is now open to the public. An amended design is currently with the structural engineer for a tilt slab construction amenities block for Gordon Park and Shelly Beach. These two environments have a high corrosive element and the roof structure has been amended from roof timbers and sheeting to a concrete slab. Advice from the builder is that this will save approximately two weeks in construction from the ease of tilt construction methods and provide a smooth and robust finish that is suitable for a high use amenities facility. A tender will be called for the construction of the two amenities blocks with the works to be completed by 30 June.

Councils Coordinator Strategic Planning and Natural Resource will provide a separate report to this meeting on bringing forward Section 94 funds to go to the “Boating Now” grant to enhance completed the works at Shelly Beach toilet amenities and other associate works approved under the grant.

Quotes are currently being sourced for the cement rendering and internal upgrade to Lions Park reserve toilet at Valla Beach and South Valla Beach toilet block which were funded through the savings in wages through the town service restructure.

Miscellaneous works

Replacement of fence along Ridge Street, Nambucca Heads

An allocation of $27,000.00 is sought from working funds to replace a fence along Ridge Street Nambucca Heads. The fence was not identified in a forward capital works program and is galvanised square and rectangular sectional steel approximately 160 metres in length. The majority of the fence is in fair condition with a substantial amount deemed unserviceable condition with a risk rating of 1 (immediate repairs) and a maintenance priority ranking of 1.

It would be reasonable to assume that the rusted out bottom rail sections (80x50mm) will need to be replaced in 2-3 metre sections to ensure the removal of all the rusted out sections as well as rust patches in some the verticals 25x25mm posts. It is anticipated that that it will requires substantial more work to try and repair the fence and the most economical solution is to remove and replace the entire fence and salvage materials for other minor maintenance projects.

The estimated cost of the replacement is $27,000.00 and as the fence is required because of the substantial difference in height between the footpath and rainforest ground surface.

Vegetation works Nambucca Heads

An allocation of $11,000.00 is sought from working funds to undertake unplanned works on garden vegetation to the Nambucca Heads southern intersection adjacent to the Plaza and works on Alexander Drive as described in the table below.

Depot

There was failure with the security system at the Depot that required a replacement of some cables. This has incurred an additional cost of $4,000 over and above what has been allocated in the current budget.

ITEM	DESCRIPTION	COMMENTS	VARIATION	CARRYOVER
	Replacement of fence along Ridge Street, Nambucca Heads	As per description by MA more economical to replace the fence than repair via maintenance	$27,000.00	N/A
	Removal of plantings on the highway adjacent to the Nambucca Heads southern intersection adjacent to the Plaza to be replanted with suitable low ground cover native species	The current planting are in appropriate for the site and were planted by the RMS, they require continued maintenance to reduce their height as they imping on sight distance with a number of near misses with pedestrian vehicle conflict. Could also be considered for a project for the Work for the Dole Team	$8,000.00
	Removal of plantings on the roundabout and islands on Alexander Drive to be replanted with suitable low ground cover native species	ITEMISED as a project for the Work for the Dole Team and purchase of materials only required. Work on Alexander Drive has been has been requested by the residents as the current plantings are causing sight distance issues and also unsightly and not appropriate	$3,000.00
	Replacement of cables at the Depot for security system	There was failure with the security system at the Depot that required a replacement of some cables. This has incurred an additional cost of $4,000 over and above what has been allocated in the current budget.	$4,000

Plant replacement

A number of light vehicles are scheduled to be transferred back to Toyota as their respective lease expires in December and January and a replacement vehicle will be purchased in accordance with the budget allocation.

The Assistant General Manager Corporate Services has been allocated the vehicle that former Water and Sewerage Supervisors used (which was a Hyundai IX35) and his vehicle subsequently sold. A replacement 4x4 utility has been allocated (currently on order and due for delivery January 2016) for the Water and Sewer Coordinators position. With this change, all the coordinator positions will be in a similar type of vehicle.

New vehicles have been sourced for:

· Manager Community and Cultural Services (replacing a Toyota leased vehicle)

· Design Engineer, (replacing a Council owned vehicle)

· Health and Building Surveyor (replacing a Council owned vehicle)

· Senior Health & Building Surveyor (replacing a Council owned vehicle)

· Maintenance Grader vehicle (a Council owned vehicle),replacing the vehicle written-off in a motor vehicle accident on 19/08/2014

These vehicles arrived in December 2015 and disposal of the Council owned vehicles will be through auction in early February.

New vehicles are now being sourced with delivery in the third quarter for:

· The Manager Water & Sewer

· Surveyor

· Technical Assistant – Assets vehicles

As previously reported at the December QBR the Electrician’s van has now been placed on a 5 year replacement program, which is in alignment with other commercial vehicles in Council’s fleet.

The following plant and equipment will be purchased in the last quarter before the end of the financial year:

· Concrete Truck and Medium Tipper the specifications are currently being reviewed in preparation for the purchase

· A review of operations of plant is currently underway within the Green Space Services, and may affect the type of plant purchased, taking into consideration newer types of mowers that are now on the market. Once this review is completed, replacement of the two (2) Tractors and two (2) Zero Turn Mowers shown in the budget will be undertaken.

Comments from Manager Water and Sewerage:

Council’s commitments on the capital works for the Off River Storage Project (WO 2012) are almost complete. The existing budget will more than cover commitments and there is likely to be a variation in Councils favour reported at the next review. There is only one remaining landowner where negotiations for compensation are yet to be finalised. The Off River Storage Land Matters (WO 1810) should provide enough funding to finalise these works.

Council has resolved to proceed with works to augment the Bowraville STP treatment process to polish the wastewater for compliance with current recycled water guidelines. This will enable Council to obtain Section 60 approval for the recycled water system.

Public Works have also been engaged to Project manage the upgrade. The protracted process of getting to this stage of the project means that expenditure on the project is behind schedule and this years allocation will not be fully spent. A deduction variation has been requested for this year and money for the construction work will be provided in the 2016/17 budget.

It is requested that $32K of this saving be reallocated to biosolids removal. The opportunity was taken to remove a large quantity of stockpiled biosolids from Council’s Sewage Treatment Plants. The amount of biosolids exceeded that allowed for in the original budget allocation.

Council has also resolved to proceed with the construction of a pressure sewerage system for South Nambucca Heads. A Federal Government grant has been secured for this work and the funding deed is currently being finalised. However no money was allocated in the current budget and it is considered that $20K will be required for works to be undertaken up to tender stage. Construction is proposed to be undertaken next financial year.

The purchase of a pontoon and mixer for the sludge lagoons at Macksville STP has come in $15K under budget. This saving can be utilised to provide a cover over the UV disinfection platform to provide shelter for workers against sun and rain. A variation is requested to reallocate the savings to a new job number to be created for the shelter.

Initial quotes for works to repair sewer mains in Sturdee Street proved to be very costly. A decision was made not to proceed with the original scope of work but rather to investigate alternative means of repairing the mains. This investigation is ongoing and additional funding may be required to complete the work or a decision may be made to postpone the work to next financial year.

A new plant item was purchased that had not been included in the 2015/2016 budget. The Sewerage Vacuum pump and trailer cost in the vicinity of $80,000 and was purchased through the Sewerage Reserve Fund.

ITEM	DESCRIPTION	COMMENTS	VARIATION	CARRYOVER
W1	Off River Storage (W2012)	Capital works will be finalised and there is likely to be a minor variation in Councils favour. To be reported next period	TBA
W2	Storage Land Matters (W1810)	Only one compensation payment outstanding and existing budget is expected to be sufficient.	TBA
S1	Bowraville STP Recycled Water System Upgrade (W2352)	Changes to project scope have delayed expenditure.	-$300,000 ($32K to be reallocated to biosolids processing – W1681 & $20K to South Nambucca Sewerage)
S2	Macksville STP sludge mixer & pontoon (W2395)	Purchased under budget	-$15,000
S3	Macksville STP – UV shelter (new job)	No budget allocation	+$15,000
S4	South Nambucca Heads Sewerage (new job)	No budget allocation	+$20,000
S5	Sewerage Vacuum pump and trailer	No budget allocation	+ $80,000 approx

Comments from Civic Services Coordinator:

There are no capital works to report in this period.

CONSULTATION:

General Manager

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services

Manager Water and Sewerage

Manager Technical Services

Manager Assets

Civic Services Coordinator

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 is no risk issues associated with this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

There is direct impact on the budget with the over expenditure on Touts Bridge which will be met through savings within the bridge replacement program and working funds.

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:

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 11 February 2016

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.2 SF84 110216 Second Report on the Draft NSW Rural Fire Service 2016/17 BID

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

Summary:

The NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) Zone Manager for the Lower North Coast Zone presented the draft 2016/17 RFS “BID to Council at the meeting held 28 January 2016 containing plant acquisition and infrastructure improvements to buildings.

Council resolved that a further report be presented at the 11 February 2016 Council meeting to formally endorse the 2016/17 NSW RFS “BID”.

The 2016/17 “BID” presented to Council by the RFS Zone Manager - Lower North Coast Zone has sought a further increase to the 2015/16 RFS budget of $29,044.61 reflecting a 12.2% increase. The report presented to the meeting on 28 January 2016 advised that Council’s financial position and stance with respect to the RFS was not considered by the State Government in their correspondence received on 25 November 2015 advising that the 2015/16 RFS budget contribution for Council is $261,259.00 (TRIM 38221/2015) an increase of $41,039.00 or 18.6% to that resolved by Council on 12 February 2015.

The 2015/16 increase coupled together the proposed 2016/17 “BID” increase to RFS budget equates to $70,083.61. Past history and performance of the RFS indicates that there is a significant risk to Council of further increases on top of the draft “BID” once it leaves the Regional Office and forwarded to the State and Council will not be formally advised of the actual budget until December 2016, six months after adopting the 2016/17 financial year budget.

The increase in the RFS budget may be at the detriment or the deferral of Council infrastructure projects or Council plant replacement to enable a balanced budget.

Recommendation:

1 That Council endorse an allocation outside the realms of rate pegging levy imposed by the State Government for the Rural Fire Service (RFS) “BID” for 2016/17 financial year being an amount of $274,322.00, a total increase to the 2015/16 budget of $13.063.00, or a net increase of 5.0% based on the revised budget handed down by the State Government in December 2015 which encompassed an increase of $41,039.00 or 18.6% to that resolved by Council on 12 February 2015.

2 That Council write to the Commissioner for the NSW Rural Fire Service, the Minister for Emergency Services and the Member for Oxley, advising that:

a) Council considered the 2016/17 RFS “BID” presented by the RFS Zone Manager - Lower North Coast Zone at Council’s meeting held on 28 January 2015 and advise that Council were unable to fund the proposed 12.2% increase to the contribution as it was in excess of the realms of the rate pegging levy imposed by the State Government.

b) Council are prepared to accept a nominal increase of 5.0% to the RFS 2016/17 “BID” being an increase to the 2015/16 budget of $13.063.00 or a contribution amount of $274,322.00 only by Council and further that Council will not endorse any additional increases to the draft bid as presented.

c) Trust that the Commissioner for the Rural Fire Service and State Government will adhere to the same parameters of the rate pegging levy imposed onto Local Government and contain the expenditure to no more than a 5.0% increase.

OPTIONS:

1 Advise the NSW RFS Zone Manger that Council is only prepared to accept the draft BID indexed as per the rate pegging levy of approximately 2.4% only and seek a revised “BID”.

2 Council determine a compromise on the “BID” above the rate pegging levy of approximately 2.4% within the affordability of Council and seek a revised “BID” based on a 5% increase and the NSW RFS Zone Manger provide Council with a revised budget option.

DISCUSSION:

The NSW RFS budget comprises of two sections:

· PART A The regional operational costs for the Lower North Coast Zone for Nambucca Shire

· PART B The operational state costs for the NSW RFS

Council is required to contribute 11.7% of the total budget

YEAR ALLOCATION	PART A	PART B	TOTAL	11.7% Council Contribution of TOTAL A & B
2009/10	$ 529,558.00	$ 830,754.00	$ 1,368,312.00	$ 160,092.50
2010/11	$ 927,303.00	$ 1,004,482.00	$ 1,931,085.00	$ 225,936.95
2011/12	$ 1,071,139.00	$ 1,164,555.26	$ 2,235,946.10	$ 261,605.69
2012/13	$ 940,674.00	$ 1,199,357.00	$ 2,140,034.00	$ 250,840.00
2013/14	$ 963,274.00	$ 1,029,250.00	$ 1,992,524.00	$ 233,125.30
2014/15	$ 889,485.00	$ 911,348.00	$ 1,800,833.00	$ 210,697.46
2015/16 adopted bid by Council (resolution 679/15)				$ 220,200.00
2015/16 - BUDGET figures supplied by RFS Commissioner 25 November 2015 an increase of $41,039.00 or 18.6%	$ 1 282,024.00	$ 1,180.830.00	$ 2,233 854.00	$ 261,259.00
DRAFT BID 2016/17 being present for Council consideration	$1,288,704.00	$1,216,255.00	$2,504,959.00	$ 293,080.00
COUNCIL proposed increase to the BID based on 5% increase				$ 274,322.00 Total increase to budget of $ 13.063.00

Note:

1 Council at its meeting on 12 February 2015 resolved to: “endorse Option 4 being an allocation outside the realms of rate pegging levy imposed by the State Government for the Rural Fire Service “BID” for 2015/16 financial year being an amount of $220,220.00 - a net increase of 4.5% from the 2014/15 budget”.

2 The 2015/16 “BID” had an emphasis on upgrading aging equipment which has been removed from previous budgets due to Council’s inability to fund any increase in the NSW RFS contribution which is offset against the reduction of Council services to Nambucca Valley communities to compensate for the increase.

CONSULTATION:

General Manager

NSW Rural Fire Service

NSW Rural Fire Service Liaison Committee

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

There are no implications for the environment.

Social

There are no social implications.

Economic

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

Risk

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

The 2016/17 budget incorporated the NSW RFS contribution based on advice of the NSW RFS Area Zone Manager for the Lower North Coast Zone and Council in February 2015 endorsed Option 4 being an allocation outside the realms of rate pegging levy imposed by the State Government for the Rural Fire Service “BID” for 2015/16 financial year being an amount of $220,220.00 - a net increase of 4.5% from the 2014/15 budget”.

Council noted that the draft “BID”, once it leaves the Regional Office and is forwarded to the State, may increase, as has consistently occurred in previous years.

There is now a direct impact on the 2015/16 budget with an increase of $41,039.00 on the draft “BID” as a result of this process.

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

A variation of $41,039.00 to working funds for this financial year was endorsed by Council at the meeting 28 February 2016.

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

An increase in the NSW RFS contribution will have an effect on the budget and other Council infrastructure when determining the budget.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 11 February 2016

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.4 SF85 110216 Minutes of NSW Rural Fire Service Liaison Committee meeting 11 November 2015 - Service Level Agreement 2015

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

Summary:

The NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS), Lower North Coast Zone, Liaison Committee met on 11 November 2015. This report provides Council with an overview of the activities of the RFS for the second quarter of operations.

Recommendation:

That Council receive, note the report and endorse the minutes for the RFS Liaison Committee

Meeting Service Level Agreement – 2015 held on 11 November 2015.

OPTIONS:

Receive and note the report.

DISCUSSION:

The NSW Rural Fire Service Zone Manager provided an advanced proposed budget “BID” for consideration for the building and plant replacement capital program in advance of the operations budget which was presented to Council’s most recent meeting on 28 January 2016.

The Liaison Committee considered the following agenda items:

1 The SLA 2014/2015 Q2 Quarterly Business Plan, Operational and Financial Reports

2 2016/2017 Budgets

2 Capital Works Plan

The minutes of the meeting held 11 November 2015 are included within the report for Council’s information and the SLA quarterly business plan, financial and performance reports have been provided under separate cover due to their size.

SLA Business Plan/Quarterly Performance Report (Our Ref:3364/2016)

The RFS Zone Manager presented the second quarterly performance report and advised the committee that they generally are on target with the agreed outcomes as shown on the report (hatched orange indicating not being achieved).

Financial Report

The Zone Manager, RFS Lower North Coast Zone presented the expenditure for the Service for the period ending October 2015 being the second quarter for the Nambucca Shire Council. The low expenditure on the budget is attributed to low fire activity and wet weather conditions across the Shire.

The Committee had requested the Zone Manager to provide a draft capital building and plant program for consideration of the committee at this meeting in advance of the operations budget.

Proposed 2016/17 Capital Works program for buildings and plant replacement

Draft 2016/17 Budgets

Report attached

Proposed increases:

• Additional station costs associated with WHS audits

• Introduction of 24/7 fire permit notification system

• Increased local media

• New Personal Protective Clothing (PPC)

• New FDR signs

Kempsey

• Extensions to Aldavilla station

• Replacement of Gladstone 1 (1997)

• Replacement of "Support Charlie"

Nambucca

• Extensions to Eungai station

• Replacement of Valla 1 via Talarm 1 (1995)

• Replacement of North Arm 9 (1995)

The Zone Manager, RFS Lower North Coast Zone was advised that the increase in budget must be in line with the rate pegging levy placed on Councils.

Operations Report - Nambucca

Lead Agency	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Total	2014/15 Q2
Rural Fire Service	56	28			84	104
Fire & Rescue**	30	8			38	25
National Parks	3	-			3	2
Forest Corp	2	3			5	5
Police	6	8			14	10
Ambulance	-	-			-	2
SES	-	-			-	-
*Total*	97	47			*144*	*148*

Operations Report - Kempsey

Lead Agency	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Total	2014/15 Q2
Rural Fire Service	81	47			128	216
Fire & Rescue**	61	36			97	149
National Parks	6	-			6	6
Forest Corp	3	-			3	3
Police	6	5			11	15
Ambulance	-	-			-	2
SES	-	-			-	-
*Total*	*157*	88			*245*	*391*

Operations Report - Lower North Coast (Total)

Lead Agency	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Total	2014/15 Q2
Rural Fire Service	137	75			212	320
Fire & Rescue**	91	44			135	174
National Parks	9	-			9	8
Forest Corp	5	3			8	8
Police	12	13			25	25
Ambulance	-	-			-	4
SES	-	-			-	-
*Total*	*254*	*135*			*389*	*539*

* Figures obtained from ICON

** Not all F&R incidents are attended by RFS

2015/16 Operational Summary – Incidents by Type (RFS) - Nambucca

Incident Type	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Total	2014/15 Q2
Forest Fire	6	5			11	38
Grass Fire	17	7			24	36
Scrub Fire	3	2			5	2
Pile Burn	2	1			3	2
Structure Fire	2	2			4	2
Vehicle Fire	4	2			6	2
MVA	6	4			10	7
Oil Spill	2	1			3	1
AFA – No Fire	3	1			4	2
Smoke in Vicinity	5	1			6	4
Other	6	2			8	8
*Total*	56	28			84	*104*

2015/16 Operational Summary – Incidents by Type (RFS) - Kempsey

Incident Type	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Total	2014/15 Q2
Forest Fire	20	7			27	61
Grass Fire	33	15			48	77
Scrub Fire	1	3			4	6
Pile Burn	1	1			2	4
Structure Fire	2	2			4	9
Vehicle Fire	8	7			15	10
MVA	4	-			4	7
Oil Spill	-	1			1	2
AFA – No Fire	-	4			4	3
Smoke in Vicinity	3	2			5	10
Other	9	5			14	27
*Total*	81	47			*128*	*216*

2015/16 Operational Summary – Incidents by Type (RFS) Lower North Coast (Total)

Incident Type	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Total	2014/15 Q2
Forest Fire	26	12			38	99
Grass Fire	50	22			72	113
Scrub Fire	4	5			9	8
Pile Burn	3	2			5	6
Structure Fire	4	4			8	11
Vehicle Fire	12	9			21	12
MVA	10	4			14	14
Oil Spill	2	2			4	3
AFA – No Fire	3	5			8	5
Smoke in Vicinity	8	3			11	14
Other	15	7			22	35
*Total*	*137*	75			*212*	*320*

Liaison Committee meeting

The next Liaison Committee meeting is scheduled 10 February 2015 at the NEOC.

CONSULTATION:

Rural Fire Service

Kempsey Shire Council

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

There are no environmental implications associated with this report.

Social

There are no social implications associated with this report.

Economic

There are no economic implications associated with this report.

Risk

There are no risk implications associated with this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

The 2014/2015 budget incorporated the RFS contribution.

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

There is a variation to the budget via another report to Council at this meeting

Attachments:

1	3363/2016 - NSW RFS Service Level Agreement - Minutes - 11 November 2015
2	3391/2016 - Report Attachment - NSW RFS - Lower North Coast Business Plan 2015

Ordinary Council Meeting 11 February 2016

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.7 T023/2015 110216 Tender T023/2015 for the Design and Construction of a Concrete Bridge over Taylors Arm on Boat Harbour Road Utungun

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES: Stephen Fowler, Engineering Designer

Summary:

Approval was granted on 21 December 2015 under the General Managers delegated authority Clause 15.9 to call tenders for the design and construction for the replacement of Boat Harbour Bridge on Boat Harbour Road, Utungun.

An open tender for a lump sum price was conducted through Tenderlink which closed on 28 January 2016. A compulsory tender site meeting was held on 18 January 2016 attended by Council’s Design Engineer and 5 representatives from interested Contractors.

Tenders where invited for 2 options: to build a concrete bridge at 0.3m above the existing deck height with length of 30 metres (2 x 15m spans); and to build a concrete bridge 1.0 metres higher than the existing deck height with a 45 metre length (3 x 15m spans). The proposed deck width is 8.2 metres.

Submissions have been received from the following Contractors:

· Coffs Harbour City Council trading as, Coastal Works

· Civilbuild Pty Ltd

· Waeger Constructions Pty Ltd

Recommendation:

1 That Council accept the submission for T023/2015 Design and Construction of a Concrete Bridge over Taylors Arm, Boat Harbour Road, Utungun from Waeger Constructions Pty Ltd for Option 2 (45m long x 8.2m wide, 3 span bridge, 1.0m higher than the existing bridge).

2 That Council note the contract period and foreshadowed revote of funds for the completion of the bridge approaches and payment of contractor progress instalments.

3 That Council update the Contract Register.

OPTIONS:

1 Accept the recommendation.

2 Not accept the recommendation and not proceed with the project.

3 Not accept the recommendation and select another tenderer.

4 Not accept the recommendation to construct Option 2 and select Waeger Constructions P/L, or another tenderer to construct Option 1.

DISCUSSION:

The existing timber bridge is degraded and requires replacement. Due to the brackish water conditions the existing bridge piles have come under attack from cobra worms and have been progressively concrete encased. The bridge was constructed in 1993 and major repairs where required in 2010 and emergency repairs in March 2015. The proposal is to replace the bridge with a reinforced concrete structure with a 100yr design life to avoid these problems in the future.

Regional Geotechnical Solutions Pty Ltd was commissioned in March 2015 to carry out Geotechnical investigation with boreholes at 4 locations along the existing road alignment.

The bridge is flood prone with a 5 year ARI flood event overwhelming the bridge to a depth of 4m above the deck. There is no practical or financially viable prospect of building a replacement bridge that would be immune to floods. However consideration has been given to reducing the frequency and duration of flooding by raising the bridge. Due to the low lying floodway on the eastern side of the bridge, any significant rise of bridge level requires a raised road embankment and a longer bridge to alleviate environmental impacts.

GHD Pty Ltd were engaged in March 2015 to undertake a Hydrological investigation to determine the impacts of building a new bridge at a higher deck level and road approach embankment. The report presented by GHD indicates a modest increase in upstream flood levels and increase in flow velocity under the bridge if the level was raised 1m and the length of the bridge increased to 45 metres. These impacts have been deemed acceptable. A rise of 2 m was considered but required a 60m bridge, which was estimated to cost well outside the councils budget allowance.

It is proposed that Council undertake the construction of a temporary side track and the removal of the existing bridge. Council will also undertake the construction of the road approaches once the bridge construction is complete.

The tender evaluation has considered the total costs of the bridge and the associated road works.

Evaluation Criteria and Weightings:

· Value for money 50%

· Evidence of Expertise and Resources 25%

· Proposed Duration 15%

· Enhancement of Local Economy 10%

Assuming the tender is endorsed by Council and contracts are awarded on 12 February 2016 following the Council meeting, the project construction period under the contact is 20 weeks, which see the construction of the bridge completed on or by 30 June. It is foreshadowed the funding will not be fully expended by 30 June and require a revote of funds in the vicinity of up $400,000.00 for the completion of road approaches as well as final contract payments. Staff will report the progress through the March and June Capital works QBR.

CONSULTATION:

Regional Geotechnical Solutions Pty Ltd

GHD Pty Ltd

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services

Manager Assets

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

The Construction will be undertaken from the existing roadway. Erosion and sediment controls will limit impact of the waterway. A Review of Environmental Factors (REF) has been prepared and a Fisheries Permit has been approved.

Social

The project will provide a reliable river crossing into the future without the risk of possible collapse. The proposed bridge structure will have a 100 year design life. The raising of the bridge will improve immunity from minor floods and result in shorter periods of inundation in major floods.

Economic

The project will reduce the risk of costly emergency repairs a road closures due to collapse of the existing timber bridge. Councillors may recall that the Assistant General Manager Corporate Services completed a cost benefit analysis (CBA) which determined that the best value was a concrete bridge replacement and Council provided the appropriate funds within the budget.

Risk

If the work is not undertaken the risk exists of collapse of the existing bridge. The risk exists of minor floods during the construction period damaging the side track.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

The funds of $1,010,000 have been allocated within the 2015/16 budget

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

No variations anticipated for the project, however it is foreshadowed that there may be a requirement to revote some funds from this financial year into 2016/17 budget for the earthworks and approaches.

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

The tender will be managed in house under existing staff resources..

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting - 11 February 2016

Adoption of Plan of Management for Duffo's Restawhile on Link Road Nambucca Heads

PLAN OF MANAGEMENT

LINK ROAD RESERVE NAMBUCCA HEADS

TOURIST INFORMATION REST AREA - DUFFO’S RESTAWHILE

Parcel 1002501

BACKGROUND

This Plan of Management has been prepared to document the environmental, economic, recreation and social values of the Link Road Reserve and to guide the future use, development and management of the reserve.

Underpinning the preparation of the plan is the involvement of the community in determining what values are important and how these should be protected and enhanced.

Council has a long affiliation with the Lions Club of Nambucca Heads. In August 2012 council resolved:

“That the request from the Lions Club of Nambucca Heads be acceded to, giving approval to build and maintain a rest area and a sign dedicated to Mr Barry Duffus OAM, near the Link Road Nambucca Heads and that the sign be erected in the proposed garden.”

In September 2014 Council then resolved:

“That Council agree to provide two shelters so that the Lions Club of Nambucca Heads can erect these shelters over the existing seating for all to enjoy at “Duffos Rest” at the Link Road Northern entrance to Nambucca Heads.”

“That a management plan for the future improvement of the site be prepared by both the Council and the Lions Club who have agreed to maintain the site after the management plan has been placed on public exhibition.”

“That the costs for the shelters are to be allocated against working funds and costs associated with the planting, gardening and solar lighting be funded from the environmental levy.”

This Plan of Management has been prepared as per the Council Resolution of 20 October 2014.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Link Road Reserve is located on the northern entrance to Nambucca Heads approximately 500m from the Pacific Highway. The portion of road reserve is 520m² in area. It is bounded by Link Road, Old Coast Road and Pioneer Street.

The reserve is surrounded by industrial land to the north east, residential to the south and undeveloped bushland to the west.

Description: Description: http://nscgis1/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/exportwebmap_asynchronous_gpserver/j8b5e4b362a1545b198c61504a9620be5/scratch/bf906a1c3cbd4b61825943396fdd0e76.jpg

Issues to be considered by the Manager (Council) when deciding whether a particular land use or development is appropriate include:

· The rest area is to meet the following Austroads requirements:

o Guide to Traffic Management, Part II: Parking, Commentary 12: Planning Rest Areas

o Guide to Road Design, Part 6B: Roadside Environment, 3: Roadside Amenity, 3.4: Rest Facilities

· Maintaining native flora and fauna in particular management of the Cabbage Gum Tree

· The use of recycled plastic for fencing (not pine logs)

· Signage

Following are photos of the current infrastructure, signage and landscaping located within the rest area.

Description: IMG_1302

Rest area name sign

Description: IMG_1305

Bird bath

Description: IMG_1311

Picnic table with shelter

Description: IMG_1308

Picnic table

Description: IMG_1310

Signage for various sites within Nambucca Heads

Description: IMG_1315

Raised garden bed

Description: IMG_1319

Cabbage Gum Tree with nesting Cockatoo

Description: IMG_1316

Saplings

CLASSIFICATION OF LAND

The Local Government Act 1193, Part 2 Public Land states:

“This Part requires all land vested in a council (except a road or land to which the Crown Lands Act 1989 applies) to be classified as either “community” or “operational””

Parcel 1002501 is road reserve land therefore it is not classified as either community or operational.

OWNER OF LAND

Nambucca Shire Council is the owner of the land.

TRUST, ESTATE, INTEREST, DEDICATION, CONDITION, RESTRICTION OR COVENANT APPLYING TO THE LAND

As this land is part of the road reserve, trusts, estates, interests, dedications, conditions, restrictions or covenants do not apply.

OWNERS APPROVAL OF MANAGEMENT PLAN

This information is shown in Schedule 1.

LEASEHOLD DETAILS

There is no leasehold details associated with the land known as Parcel 1002501 Link Road, Nambucca Heads.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE

The Nambucca Lions Club has sought the approval to develop a rest area to be called “Duffo’s Restawhile” to recognise the long standing contribution to the community by Mr. Barry Duffus OAM.

The site is located on an undeveloped portion of road reserve at the northern entrance to Nambucca Heads; it will as a rest area also feature an “entry statement” to Nambucca Heads.

Council resolved to develop a plan of management to consult with the community on the development of the site as a rest area as:

· The site is contained within the road reserve

· The site is not classified as “community or operational” land

· Improvements of the site are presently not listed on Council’s capital works program or long term financial planning for development as a rest area

· Any improvements to the site must be managed in accordance with appropriate standards and will be required to be listed on Council’s asset register and captured in the financial statements

The plan of management has been developed to:

· Clarify the legal requirements in relation to the siting of the rest area and entry statements on public land and ensure the appropriate standards are adhered to

· To ensure that rest area and entry statement is visually compatible with the character and scale of the proposed intent, the surrounding area and streetscape and does not adversely impact on traffic or community safety

· To ensure that the rest area and entry statement are designed to provide access for repair, maintenance and any necessary extensions to public infrastructure

· To promote conservation of the water supply through planting of species (preferably local native species) that do not rely on irrigation for ongoing survival and longevity

· To ensure that any components of the rest area and entry statement within the road reserve are designed to be low maintenance to reduce long term maintenance costs to Council

· To use environmentally sustainable materials

· To outline the development requirements and restrictions upon this land including the location of infrastructure eg; to keep the infrastructure (picnic tables and shelters) in their current location

The development of an “entry statement” which can be used in other tourist locations within the shire will be required.

Council engaged Red Belly Landscape Architecture and Urban Design to prepare a draft concept design which analysed the current standard of the rest area and proposed a design to enable the best utilisation of the site. A copy of the draft concept design is attached in Appendix 1.

It is therefore important that the siting and design of the rest area and entry statement is considered as an integral part of the initial site planning process to ensure that the appropriate design standards are integrated into the overall design of the site, eg:

· Does not obstruct access for repair or maintenance of any public infrastructure

· Does not have potential safety or visibility problems

· Does not obstruct any vehicle run off areas or any easement for future infrastructure extensions

The long term development of the site will be subject to funding and must be constructed in accordance with appropriate standards in concurrence with Council resolutions, the concept plan and Council staff.

The realignment of the Pacific Highway must also be taken into account as the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) will be constructing a rest area at the Nambucca Heads interchange which may reduce the number of people wanting to make use of this rest area.

A number of staged construction phases will be undertaken over an approximate 10 year period in alignment to funding available each financial year.

Consideration must be given to vehicles entering and exiting the site. Due to the unbroken white lines and traffic island in Link Road, vehicles can only enter and exit the site when heading south along Link Road from the Pacific Highway. Vehicles will not be able to turn right out of the rest area to return to the Pacific Highway.

The current dated signage on the site is to be replaced with a modern design encouraging visitors to progress onto accommodation, food and shopping and visit the natural environment that surrounds the tourist icon of the Nambucca Valley. This signage is to be consistent with other signage throughout the shire. Signage similar to that at the Visitor Information Centre in Nambucca Heads is to be used – photo below.

Description: IMG_1389 (2)

Tourist signage at the Visitor Information Centre

MANAGEMENT

MANAGEMENT ISSUES	OBJECTIVE/PERFORMANCE TARGETS	MEANS OF ACHIEVEMENT	MANNER OF ASSESSMENT
Management and Administration	An efficient and practical administration and management system with clear areas of responsibility and a well defined method of obtaining.	Lions Club members in coordination with Council staff to conduct maintenance activities.	Once constructed the rest area to remain in a safe usable condition.
		Lions Club members to undertake correct maintenance practice. Council to slash road reserve in accordance with maintenance program.	Funding assessed during the preparation of the draft budget each year.
		Provision of paths that do not flood in normal rain conditions. Provision of paths that are passable by wheelchairs. Paths that contribute to the landscape character of the park.	Design is in accordance with appropriate current standards.
Public Image	For the public to perceive and use the rest area as their own.	To make the rest area available to the public to use as first stop and information bay.	Increased number of people using rest area once the construction is complete.

MANAGEMENT ISSUES	OBJECTIVE/PERFORMANCE TARGETS	MEANS OF ACHIEVEMENT	MANNER OF ASSESSMENT
Dog Control	A safe reserve where dog excrement does not constrain recreational enjoyment.	Develop and implement a public education program regarding dogs in the reserve. Disseminate information as to dog owners’ responsibilities in regard to their dogs.	Monitored by Council’s Ranger.
Dog Control		Installation of signage to advise the public.	Signs are in accordance with current legislation and standards.
Soil and Drainage	To maintain a surface runoff system compatible with the reserve.	Use natural drainage lines, pipelines, dish drains, grass drains.	The reserve is to maintain its natural environment.
		Control runoff from road drainage.	No evidence of siltation or water borne rubbish.
		Prevent and control erosion.	Annual inspection.
		Keep gullies free of debris.	Annual inspection.
Signs	Used to identify the area and advise of limitations of usage.	Erect signs at access points.	Signs are in accordance with current Council policy, legislation and standards.
Signs		Upgrade and install signage in accordance with Council risk management policy and procedures.	Design is in accordance with appropriate current standards.

2015/16	FRNSW	RFS	SES
Council budget	$68,000.00	$220,220.00	$40.000.00
Confirmed budget	$60,618.00	$261.259.00	$32,914.66
Variance to budget	$7,382.00	-$40,039.00	$7,086.00