NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

12 January 2017

 

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 - 12 January 2017

 

In accordance with Council’s resolution from the 24 November 2016 meeting, prior to determining Planning Proposal No 21 there will be four site inspections as follows:

 

Time	Where
2.00pm	31 Tuna Street, Valla Beach
2.30pm	Boronia Street, Nambucca Heads
3.00 pm	Loftus Street, Nambucca Heads
4.00 pm	59 Waratah Street, Scotts Head

 

Property owners and objectors will be invited to attend both the site inspections and the Council meeting itself.

 

Time	Description	Where
5.00 pm	Lachlann Ison (Zone Manager Superintendent – LNC NSW RFS) to present 2017 NSW Rural Fire Service Budget	Council Chambers Council’s Administration Centre 44 Princess Street Macksville NSW 2447

 

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 - 15 December 2016.............................................................................. 7

5        NOTICES OF MOTION  

6        PUBLIC FORUM

7        ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE   

8        QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

9        General Manager Report

9.1     Outstanding Actions and Reports.................................................................................... 21

9.2     Replacement of Browns Bridge, Sadlers Lane, Taylors Arm.............................................. 28

9.3     Fit for the Future Improvement Plans and Integrated Planning and Reporting..................... 32

9.4     Filling and Compaction of Nambucca Heads Industrial Land zoned B7 Business Park........ 41

9.5     Building Regional Australia Summit - Nambucca Heads RSL - 26 to 28 April 2017.............. 45

9.6     Productivity Savings - Organisation Structure................................................................... 53

9.7     Illawong Village Boundary Adjustment............................................................................. 57

9.8     Development Applications greater than 12 months or where submissions received - 8 December to 3 January 2017.................................................................................................................. 65

9.9     Nambucca LEP Amendment No 21 - Housekeeping and Other Policy Amendments........... 67

9.10   2016 NSW population and household projections .......................................................... 218

9.11   Council Ranger's Report October and November 2016.................................................... 222

10      Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

10.1   2016/17 Borrowing Program.......................................................................................... 228

10.2   Investment Report to 31 December 2016........................................................................ 231

10.3   Schedule of Council Public Meetings 2017..................................................................... 236

10.4   Mary Boulton Pioneer Cottage and Museum - Committee of Management - Annual General Meeting 12 November 2016............................................................................................................ 237

10.5   Utungun Community Centre Committee of Management - Minutes of AGM - 10 November 2015   243

11      Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

11.1   NSW Rural Fire Service 2017/18 Budget Bid................................................................... 247

11.2   Purchase of a Zipper Machine....................................................................................... 256

11.3   Pacific Highway Upgrade - Assets Handover as at December 2016................................. 260    

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

12.1   General Manager's Performance Review

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals.

 

12.2   Economic Development/Tourism Inquiry

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

13      MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

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

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).

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Council Meeting HELD ON 15 December 2016

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

 

PRESENT

 

Cr Rhonda Hoban (Mayor) Arrived 6.13 pm	Cr John Ainsworth
Cr Martin Ballangarry OAM	Cr Brian Finlayson
Cr Susan Jenvey	Cr David Jones
Cr Janine Reed	Cr Anne Smyth
Cr John Wilson

 

 

ALSO PRESENT

 

Michael Coulter (General Manager)
Scott Norman (AGM Corporate Services)
Paul Gallagher (AGM Engineering Services) Arrived 6.13 pm
Monika Schuhmacher (Minute Secretary)

 

 

PRAYER

 

Pastor Peter Lott from the Christian Life Centre offered a prayer on behalf of the Nambucca Minister's Association.

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

 

Councillor Jones declared a non-pecuniary less significant conflict of interest in Item 5.2 Notice of Motion - Rubbish Removal at the Annual Nambucca Strikers Challenge Cup under the Local Government Act as Cr Jones is the Public Officer of the Nambucca Strikers Soccer Club.

 

Councillor Wilson declared a non-pecuniary significant conflict of interest in Item 6.1 Notice of Rescission - Australia Day under the Local Government Act as he is an executive member of the Lions Club of Nambucca Heads and the celebration of Australia Day on 26 January 2016 is important because of the funds they are able to raise at the event for local hospital/medical needs.

 

Councillor J Reed declared a non-pecuniary significant conflict of interest in Item 10.7 Macksville Hospital Redevelopment under the Local Government Act as Cr Reed is a Governing Board Member of the Mid North Coast Local Health District.  Cr Reed left the meeting for this item.

 

Councillor JA Ainsworth declared a non-pecuniary significant conflict of interest in Item 10.12 Gumma Swamp Land Dedication under the Local Government Act as Cr Ainsworth owns land in the Gumma Swamp area and is an immediate neighbour to the applicant.  Cr Ainsworth left the meeting for this item.

 

Councillor Smyth declared a non-pecuniary less significant conflict of interest in Item 10.16 Establishment of a Council 'Clean Energy Committee' under the Local Government Act as Cr Smyth is a non-executive member of Nambucca Valley Conservation

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council Meeting 24 November 2016

512/16/16 RESOLVED:   (Smyth/Reed)   That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of 24 November 2016 be confirmed.

 

ITEM 6.1      SF794                151216      Notice of Rescission - Australia Day

512/16 RESOLVED:        (Jenvey/Ballangarry)   That this motion be withdrawn.

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Smyth

 

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

513/16 RESOLVED:        (Smyth/Ballangarry)   That this motion be withdrawn.

 

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Jones

 

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

514/16 RESOLVED:        (Jones/Ballangarry)   That Council provide the rubbish removal for the Challenge Cup Event to be held on the 17, 18 and 19 of March 2017 at Coronation Park in Nambucca Heads.

 

 

PUBLIC FORUMS and DELEGATIONS

RECOMMENDATION:   That the following delegations be heard: PUBLIC FORUM i)          Ms Nicole Murphie – Road safety ii)         Mrs Elaine South – Congarinni Road iii)     Ms Elaine Ward - Wards Lane - Dust iv)      Mrs Marlene Hillard - Rubber trees on Bellevue Drive Macksville v)       Mr Peter Hill - Adopt a Highway—Not in attendance vi)      Mr Marcel De Koning – Cost of Beach Permits vii)     Ms Ange Myer – Speed Limit on Northbank Road viii)    Mr Paul Schadel – Give Way Sign ix)      Mr Michael Griffiths – Damage Caused by World Rally x)       Mr Garry Lee – Road Safety DELEGATION 10.10  Pacific Highway Road Noise Affecting Valla Residents.................................................. 11 i)             Mr Simon Wagg – Complainant

 

PUBLIC FORUM

 

i)       Ms Nicole Murphie—Road Safety and World Rally

          Ms Murphie welcomed Council to Utungun Hall and the community on behalf of Libby Ussher.

          Ms Murphie made the following points:

·    Road safety issue around hall

·    Presentation already made previously to Council without response

·    No designated speed limit, many activities take place in the Hall,

·    Approx. 1700 people came through hall in 2016

·    School bus stop directly outside hall

·    Many children come and go from the Hall

·    Traffic very fast, traffic vehicles varies from extremely large trucks to bicycles

·    Risk of accident is high, something tragic will occur due to excess speed and no speed limits

·    Suggests maximum of 60kmh around hall up to the fire station

·    Maras Creek intersection, no lines, only one give way sign

·    Not marked well and angle is dangerous

·    Culvert in front of hall, several accidents – needs to be improved

·    Inexpensive and easily implemented measures could save potential lives and accidents

·    World Rally – Utungun stage commences in front of the Hall

·    Was responses that were unacceptable – her horse was in a bad medical state which was exacerbated by the cars’ revving noises but police and officials would not move the vehicles a little further away

·    Helicopter landed in property without permission or medical reason

 

ii)         Ms Elaine South—Congarinni South Road

          On behalf of Congarinni South residents – 80 to 90 residents

·    Dust and dry conditions with some nearby houses not visible due to dust

·    Heavy usage of this road

·    Closest unsealed road to town

·    One home every 228 metres

·    Is used as a link road

·    Major transport road for semi-trailers, livestock movers etc

·    Country Roads Grant Round 3 coming up soon (Melinda Pavey MP)

·    Safety is a concern, many near accidents, many elderly locals.  All ratepayers.

 

iii)     Ms Elaine Ward—Condition of Wards Lane

·    Wards Lane is no through road, 800 metres unsealed and services 9 properties

·    Family lived there since 1922

·    Residents clear trees, fix washout etc after storms because they care, don’t call Council

·    Concerns for children at intersection – no shoulder

·    Adults with push stroller forced to walk on road

·    Intersection with Taylors Arm Road, no safety turning lane available,

·    Some upgrade with lines in 1990, then lines moved back after no consultation with locals

·    Very large tree on the crest of the hill and nearly on the road, dangerous hazard

·    lack of garbage service – no service is possible as Council has not provided a turning circle

·    No shoulder for bins or area for garbage bin pickups

·    Safety of residents and especially the very young is of utmost concern

·    Overgrown and dead trees on the road reservation are a problem.

 

iv)      Mrs Marlene Hillard—Rubber trees on Bellevue Drive Macksville

·    Trees opposite 40 Bellevue Drive Macksville, her mother’s home

·    The root system of trees is the problem, not the trees themselves

·    Logs, rubbish, leaves, root system prohibits mowing in some parts of lawn

·    Sections of cycleway replaced

·    Request Council remove the trees and replace with suitable natives

·    Some roots 20 metres long towards the Macksville bridge

·    Ongoing cost to ratepayers if trees/roots are not removed

·    Provided 2 photos for Council to peruse.

 

v)       Mr Peter Hill—Adopt a Highway - NOT PRESENT

 

The Mayor and Assistant General Manager Engineering Services arrived at the meeting at 6.13 pm.

 

vi)      Mr Marcel De Koning addressed Council on the Cost of Beach Permits

·    Price increase since last year – 100% increase to $60 pa

·    Some beaches part of National Parks and why should we pay Council fees as well

·    A lot of money to pay for some recreation

·    Not fair that they should pay for use of beaches in other Shires when they only want to use Nambucca Shire beaches.

 

vii)     Ms Ange Myer—Speed Limit on Northbank Road

·                     No speed limit on road

·                     Majority travel at respectable speed

·                     Some vehicles speed

·                     Their house is very close to the road and they worry about children and grandchildren

·                     Speed limit would ensure safety

·                     Upgrade bitumen in front of houses especially No 181 – is in bad condition after the World Rally

 

viii)    Mr Paul Schadel—Give Way Sign

·    Intersection with Maras Creek, Y intersection

·    Vision problems increased

·    Coming down Maras Creek Road towards Hall you need to look before intersections as too difficult to look back to Taylors Arm Road

·    Give way sign should be on Taylors Arm Road

 

ix)      Mr Michael Griffiths—Damage Caused by World Rally

·    Not only Rally Australia cause damage

·    Council graded road 3 weeks before the Rally which caused much dust on his property

·    Dealing with Rally Australia is very difficult

·    Asked for barriers on property to protect trees in first Rally

·    Second Rally no barriers advised by Rally official

·    Lost farm productions; lost work for his workers

·    Dust a problem in keeping finger limes alive

·    Rally and Council grading filled orchard with dust and destroyed all his fruit

·    Referred to World Rally Act which has to be adhered to

·    Not out of Council’s hands, Kyogle stopped the Rally

·    People set up unauthorised camping on his site, no water, no toilet, no communication

·    His fruit is exported and now has insufficient to supply

·    Letter of 22 November 2016 from Mr Griffiths needs to be answered

 

x)       Mr Garry Lee— Road Safety

·    Resident of Maras Creek Road

·    2.1 km left not sealed after 20 years

·    Need for Give Way sign, traffic management plan is completely wrong

·    Impeded by topography – landfall on the reserve

·    Stabilisation can be carried out

·    Pruning needed in Maras Creek Road, it is a tunnel of trees

·    Travel on wrong side of road in excess of 300 m

·    Road maintenance, would like 2.1 km sealed to the dairy

·    Sprayed bitumen each side of Tom Maras Bridge has reduced dust

·    Must be management plan that some funds can be earmarked to help

·    From Dairy to Summerville’s property grading once a year – is there a management plan for grading?

·    Speed concerns in Utungun area

·    Risks can be reduced by cutting back trees and sign posts cannot be seen as behind guide posts

·    Suggests 50kmh sign from intersection of Taylors Arm Road and Boat Harbour Road  to Hall.

 

The Mayor took the Chair at 6.54 pm at the conclusion of the public forums.

 

The Mayor thanked the Deputy Mayor for Chairing the Council meeting in her absence.

 

 

DELEGATION

 

10.10Pacific Highway Road Noise Affecting Valla Residents............................................................... 11

 

Mr Simon Wagg had to leave the meeting early and was not available to address Council.  He had advised the Mayor that he will send Council a petition.  He thanked Council for their support.

 

ITEM 10.10   SF1540              151216      Pacific Highway Road Noise Affecting Valla Residents

515/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Smyth)   That Council enquire with the RMS as to what action is being taken in relation to the noise complaints it has received from Valla and Valla Beach residents and secondly in view of those complaints, whether or not the RMS is reviewing proposed noise mitigation on the Warrell Creek to Nambucca Heads section of highway.

 

 

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 10.1    SF959                151216      Outstanding Actions and Reports

516/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Reed)   That the list of outstanding actions and reports be noted and received for information by Council.

 

 

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

517/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)   That the information concerning IPART’s determination of a 1.5% rate peg for the 2017-2018 financial year be received.

 

 

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

518/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Wilson)   That Council note the information concerning the review for the 2017 annual determination on the fees payable to Councillors and Mayors to take effect from 1 July 2017.

 

 

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

519/16 Motion:    (Finlayson/Ballangarry)   That Council replace Brown’s Bridge as per Council’s Bridge Replacement Program, utilising the $25,000 offered by the property owner to improve the bridge approaches.   Amendment:       (Finlayson/Ainsworth)   That Council take no action in regard to replacing Brown’s Bridge and that Council investigate the possibility of providing a causeway instead of a bridge.   The amendment was carried and it became the motion and it was:   520/16 Resolved:        (Finlayson/Ainsworth)   That Council take no action in regard to replacing Brown’s Bridge and that Council investigate the possibility of providing a causeway instead of a bridge.

 

 

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

521/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)   1        That Council approve the sale of proposed Lots 13 and 14 (to be known as Lot 131) and Lot 15 (to be known as Lot 132) to Mr Paul Kelsall or his company for a price of $370,000 inclusive of GST with the contract conditions to be as per those listed in the report.   2        That Council’s seal be attached to documents relating to the registration of the lots and the sale of the land as required.

 

 

ITEM 10.6    SF611                151216      Temporary Advisers and Financial Controllers

522/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)   That the information about the legislation to allow the appointment of temporary advisers and financial controllers to councils be received.

 

 

Cr Reed left the meeting for this Item at 7.42 pm and returned after the conclusion of this Item at 7.57 pm.

 

ITEM 10.7    SF988                151216      Macksville Hospital Redevelopment

523/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)   1        That given the allocated $50m for the redevelopment of the Macksville Hospital, Council request the Mid North Coast Local Health District and the NSW Department of Health to investigate the cost/benefit of establishing the Macksville hospital on a new site, including the option of RMS owned land at North Macksville.   2        That Council request the Mid North Coast Local Health District and the NSW Department of Health to consult with the public on the cost/benefit of establishing the Macksville hospital on a new site.

 

 

ITEM 10.8    SF2150              151216      Bowraville Solution Brokerage Task Group

524/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Jenvey)   That Council note the formation of the Bowraville Solution Brokerage Task Group.

 

 

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

525/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Reed)   That the Office of Local Government be advised of the observations and comments in the report concerning meeting rules.

 

Item 10.10 was dealt with under Delegations.

 

 

ITEM 10.11   SF578                151216      MIDROC Contaminated Land Policy and Policy Guidelines

526/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)   1          The Policy and guidelines be placed on exhibition for a minimum of 28 days.     2        After the completion of the exhibition period, the policy be referred back to Council for consideration.   3        That Council continues to maintain a Contaminated Land Register.   For the motion:       Councillors Hoban, Wilson, Ballangarry, Jenvey, Smyth, Finlayson, Reed, Ainsworth and                              Jones   (Total 9) Against the motion: Nil

 

Cr Ainsworth left the meeting for this Item at 8.12 pm and returned after the conclusion of the Item at 8.30 pm.

 

ITEM 10.12   LF1547               151216      Gumma Swamp Land Dedication

Motion:      (Jenvey/Smyth)   That Council accept dedication of the section of the Gumma Swamp located within Lot 20 DP 245595 and Lot 1 DP 1204205 as outlined in pink within figure 2 of the report.   Amendment:       (Hoban/Reed)   That Council receives a further brief report as to whether the has been any investigation has been made as to the potential of ownership for the land being dedicated to interested environmental groups such as Wetland Care Australia before reconsidering this proposal.   The amendment was carried and it became the motion and it was:   527/16 Resolved:        (Hoban/Reed)   That Council receives a further brief report as to whether there has been any investigation as to the potential for the land being dedicated to interested environmental groups such as Wetland Care Australia before reconsidering this proposal.

 

 

ITEM 10.13   DA2016/192        151216      Development Application DA2016/192

528/16 RESOLVED:        (Smyth/Finlayson)   That Council as the consent authority, pursuant Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, grant consent for Development Application 2016/192 for the change of use of an existing unauthorised studio into a secondary dwelling at Lot 8 Sec H DP 20823 – 20 Vernon Street, Scotts Head, subject to the schedule of conditions outlined in attachment 2 of this report.   For the motion:       Councillors Hoban, Wilson, Ballangarry, Jenvey, Smyth, Finlayson, Reed, Ainsworth and                              Jones   (Total 9) Against the motion: Nil

 

 

 

ITEM 10.14   SF2172              151216      Minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 25 October 2016

529/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Reed)   1        That Peter Shales be elected to the position of Committee Chairperson.   2        That Council endorse the minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 25 October 2016.

 

 

ITEM 10.15   SF2172              151216      Minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 15 November 2016

530/16 RESOLVED:        (Smyth/Finlayson)   1        That Mr Cameron Gowing be endorsed as a Committee member.   2        That Council’s Engineering staff investigate appropriate locations for dump points for RVs at Macksville, Nambucca Heads and Bowraville and provide a report back to the Access Committee.   3        That Council endorse the minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 15 November 2016.

 

 

ITEM 10.16   SF842                151216      Establishment of a Council 'Clean Energy Committee'

Motion:      (Jenvey/Smyth)   1          That Council adopt the Terms of Reference for a ‘Clean Energy Committee’ as outlined in the body of the body of this report.   2          That two Councillors, including a Chair, be appointed to the Committee.   3          That Council nominate a Chair and a second Councillor.   4          That Council formally invite the Office of Environment and Heritage to be a part of this Committee, specifically the Clean Energy Coordinator NE region.   5          That Council formally invite the Nambucca Valley Conservation Association be a part of this Committee and nominate a representative.   6          That Council formally invite Transition Nambucca Valley to be a part of this Committee and nominate two representatives.   7          That Council invite Bellingen Shire Council to be a part of this Committee in an advisory role.   Amendment:       (Jenvey/Smyth)   That Council invite Bellingen Shire Council to be a part of this Committee to order to take advantage of potential resource sharing on future projects. And further, if the response is positive, Council forward a copy of the draft Terms of Reference for consideration.   The amendment was carried and it became the motion and it was:   531/16 Resolved:        (Jenvey/Smyth)   That Council invite Bellingen Shire Council to be a part of this Committee to order to take advantage of potential resource sharing on future projects. And further, if the response is positive, Council forward a copy of the draft Terms of Reference for consideration.

 

 

ITEM 10.17   SF688                151216      Land for Wildlife in the Nambucca Shire

532/16 RESOLVED:        (Reed/Ballangarry)   That Council allocate $2000 from the Environmental Levy to support the Land for Wildlife Program in the Nambucca Shire during 2017.

 

 

ITEM 10.18   SF2173              151216      Development Applications greater than 12 months or where submissions received - 15 November to 7 December 2016

533/16 RESOLVED:        (Reed/Finlayson)   That the information be noted by Council.

 

 

ITEM 10.19   SF2173              151216      2016 November - Development and Complying Development Applications Received

534/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Ainsworth)   That the Development Applications and Complying Development Applications received in November 2016 be received for information.

 

 

ITEM 10.20   SF2173              151216      2016 November - Approved Construction and Complying Development Certificates

535/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Ainsworth)   That the Construction and Complying Development Certificates approved for November 2016 be noted and received for information by Council.

 

 

ITEM 10.21   SF2173              151216      Draft Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy

536/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Ballangarry)   That Council make a submission to the Department of Planning and Environment concerning the draft Coastal Management SEPP, including the points outlined in the report below.

 

 

ITEM 10.22   SF2173              151216      NSW Climate Change Policy Framework and Draft Climate Change Fund Strategic Plan

537/16 RESOLVED:        (Jenvey/Jones)   That Council make a submission about A Draft Climate Change Fund Strategic Plan and a Draft Plan to Save NSW Energy and Money as detailed in the report.

 

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

 

ITEM 11.1    SF2230              151216      Investment Report To 30 November 2016

538/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)   That the Accountants’ Report on Investments placed to 30 November 2016 be noted.

 

 

ITEM 11.2    SF251                151216      Schedule of Council Public Meetings

539/16 RESOLVED:        (Smyth/Wilson)   That the schedule of dates for public Council meetings be noted and received for information by Council.

 

 

ITEM 11.3    SF306                151216      Burrapine Public Hall Committee of Management - Minutes of Annual General Meeting - 13 November 2016

540/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Ballangarry)   That Council endorse the Minutes of the Committee of Management for the Burrapine Public Hall’s Annual General Meeting held on 13 November 2016 and thank the outgoing Committee for their work in the past twelve months.

 

 

ITEM 11.4    SF335                151216      Talarm Hall Committee of Management - Minutes of Annual General Meeting - 28 November 2016

541/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Reed)   That Council endorse the Minutes of the Committee of Management for the Talarm Hall Annual General Meeting held on 28 November 2016 and thank the outgoing Committee for their work in the past twelve months.

 

 

 

ITEM 11.5    SF1389              151216      Grant Application Status Report

542/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Ainsworth)   That Council receive the list of grant applications to 6 December 2016 and the list of current grant funding available from Council’s new Grants Calendar.

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

 

ITEM 12.1    ND-NA-50           151216      Quotations for Projects ND-NA-50, ND-NA-51 and ND-NA-52 23.5km, 24.9km and 25.7km on North Arm Road under Tender T008/2016 Bowraville

543/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Ainsworth)   1        That Council accept the quotation received from Sporting Services (Const) Pty Ltd t/as Pan Civil as a lump sum price for the landslip remediation for Project ND-NA-50 located at chainage 23.6km on North Arm Road.   2        That Council accept the quotation received from Sporting Services (Const) Pty Ltd t/as Pan Civil as a lump sum price for the landslip remediation Project ND-NA-51 located at chainage 24.9km on North Arm Road.   3        That Council note that the landslip remediation located at chainage 25.7km North Arm Road Project ND-NA-52 will be undertaken in-house with the construction of a 10m single lane bridge, and that Council is required to provide $30,000 funding from working funds toward the additional cost which is classified as betterment under the natural funding guidelines as the replacement of culverts are not adequate nor feasible due to the size of the catchment.   4        That Council endorse the tender evaluation as provided in the confidential report for Project ND-NA-50 and Project ND-NA-51 located on North Arm Road.   5        That Council update the Contract Register (TRIM: 31325/2016).   For the motion:       Councillors Hoban, Wilson, Ballangarry, Jenvey, Smyth, Finlayson, Reed, Ainsworth and                              Jones   (Total 9) Against the motion: Nil

 

 

ITEM 12.2    SF95                  151216      Results of the trial of nose-to-kerb parking in River Street (West) Macksville

544/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)   1        That Council note the results of community consultation, the online survey and questionnaires relating to the trial of nose-to-kerb parking arrangements on River Street (west) Macksville.   2        That Council revert back to reverse angle parking prior to the Christmas School Holidays.

 

 

ITEM 12.3    SF90                  151216      Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes - 6 December 2016

545/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)   1        That the Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee recommends that Council note the Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee meetings will continue to commence at 10.30 am on the first Tuesday of every second month with the exception of October, being 7 February; 4 April; 6 June; 1 August; 10 October and 5 December 2016.   2        That the Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee recommends that Council note the results of the community consultation, the on line survey questionnaires relating to the trial of nose to kerb parking arrangements on River Street (west) Macksville.   3        That the Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee recommends that Council revert back to reverse angle parking and finish the trial prior to the 2016 Christmas School Holidays.   4        That the Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee recommends that Council extend the 50 km/h speed zone that currently terminates at the end of Glenmore Crescent North Macksville to 30m beyond the intersection of Uriti Road and Gardens Estate.

 

 

ITEM 12.4    SF2195              151216      Damaged Roads due to World Rally Event

546/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)   1        That Council endorse the process for determining the Rally damage costs, utilising pre and post videos for comparison.   2        That the assessment of the cost for repairs to damaged roads be finalised and a claim for damages be submitted to Rally Australia.   3        That the General Manager and Assistant General Manager Engineering Services enter into negotiations with Rally Australia regarding the claim.   4        That a report be submitted to a future Council Meeting outlining the assessed claim and the outcome of the negotiations.   5        That Council note that all comments received by Council in relation to the World Rally, both positive and negative. as recorded in its customer request (MERIT) and document management systems (TRIM) will be forwarded to the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

 

 

ITEM 12.5    SF1075              151216      Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the Period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2016

547/16 RESOLVED:        (Smyth/Ainsworth)   That Council receive and note the report on the energy consumption and greenhouse gas production.

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report – LATE

 

ITEM 12.6    SF2195              151216      Estimated Repair costs after the World Rally Championship road held within Nambucca Shire

548/16 RESOLVED:        (Reed/Ballangarry)   Council invoice Rally Australia an amount of $156,242 for damage that has occurred to local roads during the World Rally Championship event held within the Nambucca local government area.

 

 

COUNCIL IN CLOSED MEETING (CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC)

Resolved:          (Ainsworth/Ballangarry)   1        That Council consider any written representations from the public as to why the Meeting should not be Closed to the public.   2        That Council move into Closed Meeting to discuss the matters for the reason(s) listed below.   Reason reports are in Closed Meeting:

 

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (c) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals.

 

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) (e) (g) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law; AND the report contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

 

CLOSED MEETING

 

The Ordinary Council Meeting's Meeting IN CLOSED MEETING commenced at 9.37 pm.

 

 

RESUME IN OPEN MEETING

Resolved:          (Ainsworth/Wilson)   That Ordinary Council Meeting resume in Open Meeting. The Ordinary Council Meeting resumed IN OPEN MEETING at 9.43 pm

 

FROM COUNCIL IN CLOSED MEETING

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 13.1    ND-NA-50           151216      Confidential Report Quotations for Project ND-NA-50 and ND-NA-51 23.6km and 24.9km on North Arm Road under Tender T008/2016

549/16 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Reed)   That Council receive and note the information contained in the contractor’s prices and the evaluation.

 

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 13.2    SF839                151216      General Manager's Performance Review

550/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Jones)   That this item be deferred until the Council meeting on 12 January 2017.

 

 

For Confidential Business Paper in Closed Meeting

ITEM 13.3    PRF71                151216      Nambucca Heads Skate Park

551/16 RESOLVED:        (Jenvey/Ballangarry)   That Council note the information concerning the Nambucca Heads Skate Park.

 

 

CLOSURE

 

There being no further business the Mayor then closed the meeting the time being 9.44 pm. 

 

Confirmed and signed by the Mayor on 12 January 2017.

 

 

 

 

CR RHONDA HOBAN

MAYOR

(CHAIRPERSON)

 

          

General Manager

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

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

 

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

 

 

FILE NO

COUNCIL MEETING

SUMMARY OF MATTER

ACTION BY

STATUS

MARCH 2011

1

DA2010/234

17/3/11

Council develop a policy as to the cumulative impacts of locating fill on the floodplain at Macksville and also review the matrix in the Floodplain Risk Management Plan

GM

The draft Floodplain Risk Management Plan has been circulated to Councillors and the Estuary Committee. Council has received a preliminary draft of the flood Risk Management Study and Plan which is presently being reviewed. The report will be distributed to Council and the Nambucca Rivers Creeks and Coastline Management Committee after this review is complete. Council staff and OEH are reviewing the draft.  The draft requires further work before it can be circulated to the Estuary Committee and Councillors. Draft now being circulated to Estuary Committee and Councillors.   Draft being uploaded to Council’s website.   Estuary Committee will be considering the study and plan at their meeting on 18 November 2016.   The study and plan are on public exhibition until 3 February 2017.  There will be drop in sessions in River Street, Macksville from 9.30am to 12pm on 14 December and also at the Nambucca Entertainment Centre between 1pm and 3.30pm on 14 December.

JULY 2011

2

SF1031

21/7/11

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

GM

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

AUGUST 2013

3

SF1031

14/08/13

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

AGMES

Report in September 2013. Deferred to October 2013. At the request of Cr Morrison this item has been deferred to the first meeting in November 2013. Cr Morrison has provided information to the Manager Civil Works who will draft a report to the December Council meeting. Staff on leave during December – deferred until February 2014. Deferred until April – Staff dealing with landslips. Deferred until May 2014 Deferred until June 2014 Deferred until September 2014 and a report will be prepared on the outcome of the meeting. Policy has been redrafted and a new operations procedures manual developed. A memo with the updated policy and procedures will be provided to Councillors for comment at the end of December Deferred with staff on leave - Guidelines and tree assessment form developed and now being trialled for tree assessment with the Policy and guideline review to be presented to Council for comment after trial – anticipate April. Deferred until September after the budget, restructure and staffing levels settle. Provided to Councillors on 29 October for comment. Not provided to Councillors on 29 October - now propose to provide to Councillors mid December 2015 for comment.  Deferred whilst trialling the International Society of Arboriculture, Tree Hazard Evaluation form which is intended to replace the tree inspection form within the policy. The policy in its present form has shown some issues pertaining to property owners wanting healthy trees removed citing the criteria in the policy, the new form provides greater transparency and clarity    New policy and procedures will be presented to the new Council in October for comment following the local government elections. Deferred to November 2016. Revised Policy this week 7/12/2016 Policy to be emailed to Councillors week ending 16 December 2016. New draft policy emailed to Councillors on 8 December 2016 requesting comments by 4pm 6 January 2017.

DECEMBER 2013

4

SF1842

11/12/13

That if Council and IPART support a rate increase above rate pegging, Council provide a quarterly report either through a media release or its rates newsletter to confirm to ratepayers that the additional funds are being spent on roads and bridges as indicated in our community consultation.

GM

The first quarterly report would be the rates newsletter to be distributed with the 2014/2015 rates notice. Report produced. Media release issued before 13 November Council meeting. Second media release issued 20 May 2015. Third media release issued 30 November 2015.   Proposed on-going progress report on Council’s capital works program with a monthly update to be listed on Council’s website.

MARCH 2015

5

SF841

12/03/15

Council make representations to the Member for Oxley, both pre and post 28 March 2015, for their support for the proposition that the bridges and major culvert structures which are located on the existing Pacific Highway through the Nambucca Valley should remain State assets and not be handed over to Council.

GM

Letter written w/e 20/3/2015. As at June 2015 arrangements are being made for a consultant to assist Council staff in investigating the liability associated with the proposed handover of the existing Pacific Highway to Council.  Data provided by the RMS needs to be reviewed as well as a physical inspection of the road and bridge assets. Mayor and GM met with the Member for Oxley on 18 September 2015.  Details of Council’s previous submissions forwarded to the Member for Oxley with a request that she make representations on behalf of Council. The early estimates of annual depreciation for the northern section of the Pacific Hwy (Nambucca Heads to Oyster Creek) assets are proposed to be transferred is approximately $1million per annum. Council is expecting receiving a written offer from the RMS in relation to the handover. Council received a briefing from the consultants reviewing the RMS assets to be handed over to Council on 30 June 2016 and a compensation package will not be developed until the transfer of traffic onto the new highway as the pavement can’t be assessed until the traffic is transferred off the old highway. A report on the status of the Bridges is anticipated in August   Mayor, GM and AGMES met with Member for Oxley on 16 August 2016.  Agreed that Council consult with other affected councils and submit a paper on the financial implications for the councils and options for a revised policy on Highway handovers.  In particular the Member for Oxley was interested in the proposition of IPART being asked to assess the appropriate handover package.   GM’s of Bellingen and Nambucca Shire Councils have now issued a joint letter to both the Member for Oxley and the RMS.

AUGUST 2015

6

SF674

13/08/15

Council write to the appropriate Minister drawing attention to the history of the matter (negotiations to extend Council’s Waste Depot) and particularly Council’s investment in studies made in good faith as well as the importance of the facility to the growth and security of our local community.

AGMES

Letter to be drafted to appropriate Minister. Letter sent week ending 30 September 2015. Nil response from the Minister to date, another letter sent 3 December 2015. Response received from Minister and report to a meeting in March 2016.   Minister referred staff to Forests and a meeting is being organised with Forests NSW in 2016 for further discussion with a report to be presented to Council afterwards.

OCTOBER 2015

7

SF1855

26/11/15

That Council receive a report regarding any options for traffic lights at River Street and Cooper Street following the completion of the Macksville by-pass.

GM

Report late 2017

APRIL 2016

8

SF1540

14/4/16

That Council apply to RMS through the Local Government Road Safety Program to have the speed limit from the railway bridge to the western side of Kuta Ave on Valla Beach Road reduced to 40kph.

AGMES

Letter sent   Response from RMS is forthcoming. Councils Manager Technical Services was verbally advised by the RMS that the section does not warrant a reduction in the speed limit to 40km/h and that RMS will be proposing traffic management solutions which are eligible for a 50:50 grant.   Still no response to date, MTS to send another letter

JULY 2016

9

LF968

14/7/16

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

AGMES

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

AUGUST 2016

10

SF325

25/8/16

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

AGMCS

To be discussed with Auditors.

11

SF1541

29/9/16

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

GM

Report in October 2016. Deferred to November 2016. Discussed with Manager Development & Environment and due workload proposed to report early in the new year.

OCTOBER 2016

12

SF2251

13/10/16

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

GM

Report in March 2017

13

SF842

13/10/16

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

GM

Briefing provided on 24 November 2016.   The Council has resolved to have a tour of the Shire’s industrial estates.  There will be a report to a meeting in February 2017 to finalise the composition of a Business Advisory Committee.

14

SF2230

13/10/16

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

AGMCS

February 2017

15

SF873

27/10/16

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

AGMCS

Report in February 2017 in association with the previous report.

16

SF2183

27/10/16

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

GM

Report January 2017.  Have followed up with staff and a report will be forthcoming in February 2017.

17

27/1016

GM provide options to Council regarding parameters for public forums.

GM

Report December 2016.  Delayed due to other priorities.  Will report in February 2017.

NOVEMBER 2016

18

RF275

10/11/16

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

GM

Letter written w/e 18/11/2016

19

PRF14

10/11/16

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

GM

Report February 2017.

DECEMBER 2016

20

Various

15/12/16

Public forums at Utungun Nicole Murphy Speed limits Maras Creek Rd intersection Culvert in front of hall Elaine South Dust and condition of Congarinni Road South Elaine Ward Condition of Wards Lane, overhanging trees, intersection with Taylors Arm Road et al Marlene Hillard Roots from rubber trees opposite 40 Bellevue Drive Marcel De Koning Cost of beach permits Ange Myer Speed limit on Northbank Rd Paul Schadel Maras Creek Rd intersection Michael Griffiths Damage caused by World Rally Garry Lee Condition of Maras Creek Road, intersection, overhanging vegetation.

Report outcome to February 2017.

21

SF1540

15/12/16

Council enquire with the RMS as to what action is being taken in relation to noise complaints from Valla and Valla Beach residents and secondly whether or not the RMS is reviewing proposed noise mitigation on the WC2NH section of highway.

GM

Letter sent to RMS on 20/12/2016

22

SF1479

15/12/16

That Council take no action in regard to replacing Brown’s Bridge and that Council investigate the possibility of providing a causeway instead of a bridge.

AGMES

Report to Council in February 2017

23

SF988

15/12/16

Council request the MNCLHD and Dept of Health to investigate the cost/benefit of establishing the Macksville hospital on a new site, including the option of RMS owned land at North Macksville.  Further that Council request the MNCLHD and Dept of Health to consult with the public in relation to this.

GM

Letter sent to MNCLHD on 20/12/2016

24

LF1547

15/12/16

That Council receive a brief report as to whether there has been any investigation as to the potential for the land (Gumma Swamp) being dedicated to interested environmental groups such as Wetland Care Australia before reconsidering the (dedication) proposal.

GM

Report to Council in February 2017.

25

SF2172

15/12/16

That Council’s engineering staff investigate appropriate locations for dump points for RV’s at Macksville, Nambucca Heads and Bowraville and provide a report back to the Access Committee.

AGMES

Report back to Access Committee in February 2017.

26

SF842

15/12/16

Council invite Bellingen Shire Council to be part of this (Clean Energy) Committee in order to take advantage of potential resource sharing on future projects, and further if the response is positive, Council forward a copy of the draft terms of reference for consideration.

GM

Letter sent to Bellingen Shire Council w/e 6/1/2017

27

SF2195

15/12/16

That a report be submitted to a future Council advising of the outcome of negotiations in relation to the damages claim of $156,242 for the World Rally event.

AGMES

Report by March 2017.   Invoice and supporting documentation was sent to Rally Australia prior to 23 December 2016.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

General Manager

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:   Council received a report on the replacement of Brown’s Bridge at the end of Sadlers Lane, Taylors Arm at its meeting held on 15 December 2016 and resolved the following;   “That Council take no action in regard to replacing Brown’s Bridge and that Council investigate the possibility of providing a causeway instead of a bridge.”   A basic costing and assessment has been undertaken by engineering staff for the construction of a 3m wide x 16m length concrete causeway including appropriate box culverts for fish passage. The estimate is $427,014.00 and is based on first principles, unit rates and a number of assumptions have been made as further detailed geotechnical investigation would be required within the stream bed to facilitate the design for the base of the river bed for the culverts and causeway.   In summary, the concept of a concrete causeway is more expensive than a replacement single lane concrete bridge and most probably would not receive approval from Fisheries.

 

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

 

OPTIONS:

 

A range of potential options were reported to Council in previous reports being:

 

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

2        Council accepts the $25,000 capital contribution towards the replacement of the bridge from the benefitting property owner or in the alternative the Council constructs the bridge without the capital contribution but the benefitting property owner agrees to accept on-going responsibility.

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

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

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council’s bridge replacement program for 2016/2017 included the replacement of Brown’s Bridge at the end of Sadlers Lane, Taylors Arm.  The existing single lane timber bridge is at the end of its life and is in a poor state of repair.  Also the approach to the bridge from the northern bank is severely eroded and is in poor condition. The Council considered this matter again at its meeting on 15 December 2016 and resolved as follows:

 

“That Council take no action in regard to replacing Brown’s Bridge and that Council investigate the possibility of providing a causeway instead of a bridge.”

 

Cost of causeway construction; A basic assessment and costing for a 3m wide concrete causeway has been undertaken by engineering staff noting that the estimate is based on first principles, unit rates and a number of assumptions have been made as further detailed geotechnical investigation is required to design the base of the causeway and culverts for fish passage within the river bed to quantify the final design and estimate. An alternate source (a Council contract engineer) checked the estimate with a similar outcome for the cost.

 

 

Comment from Senior Fisheries Manager - Aquatic Ecosystems (North Coast); Council staff contacted Mr Patrick Dwyer Senior Fisheries Manager - Aquatic Ecosystems (North Coast), and provided him with a brief description over the telephone on the proposed causeway.

 

Mr Dwyer indicated that even with large fish crossing culverts, it is a far better option to replace the bridge and advised that the department would be reluctant to agree to causeway when there is an existing bridge in place. He advised that with the limited information to hand (no design or site visit) he was only able to provide a general response that Fisheries would not support the causeway concept.

 

Time frame for construction; There is a significant time construction time frame between the construction of the bridge and causeway;

Causeway construction             estimated 12 weeks for completion

Bridge construction                    estimated 3.5 weeks for completion

 

Council’s bridge replacement program has listed the bridge replacement at $271,000 which was to replace a two span single lane timber bridge and concrete deck. To avoid the cost of replacing the bridge and the on-going risk of flood damage, staff investigated alternative solutions in providing access across adjoining properties to other roads.  However these alternatives were assessed as being more expensive than replacing the bridge.

 

An attempt has also been made to reduce this estimated cost by providing the replacement bridge slightly downstream of the existing bridge at a narrower crossing point requiring only a single span bridge. It is proposed to construct concrete abutments and prefabricated deck beams at a similar height to the existing bridge,

 

The revised estimated cost of this proposed structure including the road approaches is $200.000.00, and should Council consider utilising the $25,000 offered by the property owner to improve the access on the approaches to the bridge the revised Council expenditure would be $175,000.00.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Structures Coordinator

Manager Infrastructure Services

Contract Engineer

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

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

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

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

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

The budgetary impacts are discussed in the report.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

The recommendation has no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

The recommendation does not have any service level implications.

 

Attachments:

1

31404/2016 - Site Diagram - Browns Bridge

  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Replacement of Browns Bridge, Sadlers Lane, Taylors Arm

 

General Manager's Report

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:   A summary is not required.

 

Recommendation:   That Council note the information contained in Circular No. 16-49 issued by the Office of Local Government on 21 December 2016.

 

OPTIONS:

 

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

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received the attached circular from the Office of Local Government.

 

The circular is reminding Councils that the Office of Local Government will be monitoring councils’ performance against the Fit for the Future benchmarks over time.

 

The circular also advises councils to review their Fit for the Future Improvement Plans to identify all strategies and actions planned to enable them to remain fit into the future.  Where strategies and actions are required the councils are expected to consult with their communities via the integrated planning and reporting process in relation to their implementation.  Examples include special rate variations, service reviews, asset rationalisation and similar strategies.

 

The circular may have been prompted by some councils publicly rejecting the strategies in their own improvement plans prior to consulting with the community on their implementation.

 

The key points of the circular are:

 

·      The Integrated Planning and Reporting suite of documents prepared by councils following their election should have the support of the community and clearly describe how the council will achieve financial sustainability into the future.

·      Specific strategies and actions identified in the Fit for the Future Improvement Plan should be incorporated into the new Delivery Program and Resourcing Strategy documents.

·      Variations to improvement strategies identified in Fit for the Future Improvement Plans should be explained, and similar results demonstrated through alternative strategies.

 

The Office of Local Government (OLG) is clearly trying to “shore up” the improvement plans or alternatives providing the same result as future commitments against which the performance of councils will be measured.

 

The objective of the OLG is understood and accepted, although there is no recognition in the circular that sometimes councils incur large and unexpected hits to their costs and/or revenue from factors outside their control.  The pending handover of the existing Pacific Highway and the freeze on the indexation of financial assistance grants are just two examples.  Notwithstanding it is accepted that unexpected changes affect all businesses and part of the Council’s financial planning process must be to respond to those changes in a timely way.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The circular has been discussed with the Assistant General Manager Corporate Services.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are clearly risks if Council does not meet is Fit for the Future benchmarks over time, and particularly if it deviates from its improvement plan without adequate alternative offsets.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There is no service level or resourcing/staff implications.

 

Attachments:

1	45801/2016 - Fit for the Future - Implementation of Improvement Plans
2	184/2017 - Fit for the Future Improvement Plans and Integrated Planning and Reporting Appendix 1

  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Fit for the Future Improvement Plans and Integrated Planning and Reporting

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Fit for the Future Improvement Plans and Integrated Planning and Reporting

 

 

 

Apendix to Report  9.3 Council Meeting 12^th January 2017 - Fit for the Future Improvement Plans and Integrated Planning and Reporting

 

Nambucca Shire Council Performance Improvement Proposal

Nambucca Shire Coucil’s complete 2015 Performance Improvement Proposal can be down loaded from the IPart website.

Summary of proposal

In 2015 past performance against FFTF benchmarks had Council meeting only two of the seven indicators. The proposal forecast Council would meet six of the seven indicators by 2020.

 

The plan builds on existing reforms.  After the approved series of Special Rate Variations which will end in 2016-17 it predicts that there might be a need for a need a small SRV in 2018-19.  The compounding effect of previous rate rises and reducing infrastructure costs through improved management techniques are critical to the turnaround in performance.

 

It assumed costs would be constant in real terms, that there will be continued development of Asset Management systems, and current levels of services will be maintained. No savings from regional co-operation were assumed although Council remains open to the idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actual Results to date against Benchmarks

It should be noted that some benchmarks average ratios over three years, the results below are for that year only and are not a running average

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extracts from Nambucca Shire’s Fit for the Future Submission listing Strategies Actions and assumptions - These Should be reflected in Council’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Documents.

General Manager's Report

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:   A summary is not required.

 

Recommendation:   That Council proceed with engaging contractors to import 4,000m3 of hard stand fill material to proposed Lot 16 Railway Road, Nambucca Heads and for its spreading and compaction at an estimated total cost of $61,000 inclusive of GST.

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council does not have to proceed with this work at this time.  It can defer the work to a later date but the likelihood is that the cost will be far more significant as the fill material may need to be purchased and transported a longer distance.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council owns the proposed Lot 16 as shown on the attached plan being 1.183 hectares of land zoned B7 Business Park in Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010.  A map showing this zoning is also attached.

 

The land has had most of the top soil stripped by TAFE trainees at no virtually no cost to Council.  The top soil was used to repair erosion on the wall of Bowra Dam and also to build a spectator viewing area at Hennessey Tape oval.  Some was also used to construct a bund wall for noise mitigation from the new highway.  This was done by a private person at no cost to Council.

 

The land now requires approximately 4,000m³ of good hard fill to provide the finished levels for development.

 

Council’s Manager Business Development has secured an opportunity to source 4,000m³ of good hard fill material at no cost to Council.  Ordinarily the Council could be paying up to $25m³ for such material.  The Council does need to pay for the transport of the fill a short distance (less than 3km) and also for its spreading and compaction.  The hard fill material which has been sourced at no cost has to be moved by 21 January 2017.

 

Quotations were sought from four local contractors for the removal of the remaining top soil plus the spreading and compaction of the hard stand material with two quotations being submitted.

 

One of the contractors, Kerr’s Earthworks and Road Construction is available to immediately undertake the work at a price of $40,000.  The other price obtained was similar but the contractor was not immediately available.

 

Quotations have also been obtained from two local transport companies for the transport of the material.  It is proposed to proceed with the quotation provided by Blue Dog haulage at an estimated total cost of $15,000.

 

Other civil works will be required to complete the proposed lot 16 so that it can be sold.  These include road works for the site’s frontage including kerb and gutter.  At this stage it is not proposed to proceed with these works pending expressions of interest in the purchase of the land.

 

Besides the cost of transporting the fill and its spreading and compaction, the Council will also have to pay approximately $6,000 for geo-technical testing of the compaction.

 

Following the proposed filling work, the estimated en-globo value of the proposed lot 16 will be $400,000.  Given this value, the proposed $61,000 expenditure should provide a good return on the investment.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Manager Business Development.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no significant environmental implications.

 

Social

 

There are no social issues.  The proposed lot 16 has been the site of a TAFE training facility and has provided many local unemployed people with the opportunity to obtain skills and hopefully employment in earth moving and construction.  Council has benefitted from the work they have undertaken on the site.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

With any major construction undertaking there are risks arising out of unforeseen conditions.  In this instance there is already experience with stripping and filling the adjoining developed lots and the risk of unforeseen conditions in relation to the proposed Lot 16 is considered small.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The work is not included in Council’s budget.  However with the time limited opportunity to secure the fill material it is recommended that Council proceed with the work as it is likely that if the opportunity is not taken the cost of undertaking the work in future will be much greater.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The cost of the work will need to be met from working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no service level or staffing implications associated with the recommendation.

 

Attachments:

1	43134/2016 - Railway Rd - Proposed Lots
2	36/2017 - B7 Business Park land - Railway Road

  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Filling and Compaction of Nambucca Heads Industrial Land zoned B7 Business Park

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Filling and Compaction of Nambucca Heads Industrial Land zoned B7 Business Park

 

General Manager's Report

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:   A summary is not required.

 

Recommendation:   That Council provide $3,575 in additional sponsorship to secure the Building Regional Australia 2017 summit to be held at the Nambucca Heads RSL Club between 26 and 28 April 2017.

 

OPTIONS:

 

It is a matter for Council as to whether or not it provides sponsorship for the event.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council’s Manager Business Development has been negotiating with Mr Peter Bailey, the CEO of the Foundation for Regional Development Limited, for the Nambucca Valley to host the Building Regional Australia Summit to be held from 26 to 28 April 2017.  Mr Bailey has considerable experience in developing and hosting regional development expos and summits, including this summit and also the Country and Regional Living Expo.

 

A summit brochure and draft program is attached.

 

The Foundation for Regional Development Limited is seeking sponsorship from Council for the summit.  The sponsorship which is sought is $5,000 inclusive of GST less Council’s membership of the Foundation for Regional Development Limited of $1,750 which has already been paid.  Therefore the balance of sponsorship which is sought is $3,575.

 

The summit will be an opportunity for Councillors and Council staff to learn about regional development initiatives in other regional areas.  It will also profile this Council’s achievements with politicians and attendees, a useful activity when the Council needs to demonstrate in grant applications its ability to support economic development.  If the conference is reasonably patronised it also has the immediate benefit of supporting accommodation providers, restaurants and the like.

 

Given the profile of the Summit and the reasonably modest sponsorship request, it is recommended that Council provide the additional $3,575 in requested sponsorship.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with Council’s Manager Business Development.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no risks to the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social risks.

 

Economic

 

The objective of the Summit is to improve economic outcomes for Regional Australia.

 

Risk

 

There are no significant risks.  As indicated this Council has a longstanding involvement with Mr Peter Bailey in supporting this Summit and also the Country and Regional Living Expo.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The additional sponsorship is not funded in Council’s budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The proposed sponsorship of $3,575 will need to be met from working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no significant service level or staffing implications.

 

Attachments:

1	84/2017 - Building Regional Australia Summit
2	85/2017 - Building Regional Australia Summit Program

  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Building Regional Australia Summit - Nambucca Heads RSL - 26 to 28 April 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Building Regional Australia Summit - Nambucca Heads RSL - 26 to 28 April 2017

 

General Manager's Report

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:   As a matter of fiscal responsibility, the Council has to ensure, on average, a positive operating performance surplus.  This means that Council’s operating revenue, excluding capital grants and contributions are sufficient to cover operating expenditure, especially depreciation of infrastructure assets.  With the imminent handover of responsibility for the Pacific Highway from the RMS to Council, the evidence is that Council will not be in a position to achieve, on average, a positive operating performance surplus.   In response it is proposed to again review Council’s organisation structure to identify any opportunities for productivity savings.  It is proposed that this be undertaken via a general call for expressions of interest in voluntary redundancy.   The process for seeking voluntary redundancies is:   1.       Employee submits expression of interest 2.       Council may make an offer to the employee 3.       The employee may accept the offer

 

Recommendation:   That Council seek expressions of interest from its staff for voluntary redundancy as per the Local Government Award provisions, noting that Council is not obliged to make an offer, with each offer to be assessed on its merits including the duties of the position, the cost of the position to the general fund and the cost of the redundancy.  Following referral to the Consultative Committee, recommendations to make offers of voluntary redundancy will be reported to Council as a variation to the organisation structure.

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are many potential options to improve Council’s financial standing.  None are easy.

 

Alternatively Council can choose to do nothing.  If Council chooses to do nothing its overall position in terms of the Fit for the Future criteria will worsen.  Besides making it more difficult for future councils, it is evident from the approach of the Office of Local Government and the NSW Government, that declining financial sustainability may affect the Council’s very existence.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Whilst Council’s 10 year financial plan makes a range of assumptions concerning interest rates, population growth and the like, fundamentally Council’s financial sustainability is largely determined by a limited range of revenue and cost drivers.

 

On the revenue side Council derives about 65% of income from rates and charges and about 30% from grants.

 

In relation to income from rates and charges, in 2014 the Council achieved its ninth special rate variation approval in 12 years, locking in rate increases of 3.8% in 2014/15; 5.0% in 2015/16 and 5.5% in 2016/17.  There has also been significant increases in water charges (which are not subject to rate pegging) to pay for the Bowra Dam.  But with a disadvantaged community, there are practical limits to the community’s capacity to pay continuing special rate variations.

 

The Council has little effective control over our grant revenue and indeed Council has had to bear a real reduction in its financial assistance grants (FAGs) of $121,688 per annum as a consequence of the Federal Government’s decision to freeze the indexation of the grant for 3 years effective from June 2014.

 

The indexation freeze on the FAGs is due to be lifted in the Federal Government’s 2017/2018 budget but of course the FAG funding is entirely at the discretion of the Federal Government and Parliament.  At a time of extraordinary Federal Government budget deficits it should not be expected that the pressure to achieve savings in inter-governmental grants will abate.

 

This is not to say that the Council does not strive to maximise its grant revenue.  We do employ a Grants Officer to ensure we have a coordinated approach to the submission of grant applications and we have had some notable success in attracting major grants.

 

On the cost side, about 24% is related to expenditure on employees with a further 29% spent on materials and contracts.  The other major cost is depreciation being 24% of expenses from continuing operations.

 

In relation to the depreciation expense, the Council has been very active in taking up opportunities to reduce building and bridge assets as well as increase the life of replaced assets, for example by building concrete bridges.  Whilst all of these initiatives reduce the depreciation expense, the Council has limited scope to further withdraw from the services which contribute to the depreciation expense.

 

In fact with the pending handover of the Pacific Highway elsewhere reported in this business paper our depreciation expense is set to substantially increase.  The table below indicates that our existing depreciation expense for roads and bridges will increase by $4.6m per annum.  Whilst this will be partially offset by a “one off” financial package and an increase in our grant funding for regional roads, the quantum of cost shifting will send the Council from its classification as financially “fit” to being “unfit”.

 

	Annual Rates Revenue	Additional Assets $	Depreciation Increase	Rate Percentage
Nambucca	$9.4M	$234M	$4.6M	50%
Bellingen	$6.9M	$112M	$2.5M	33%

 

This leaves expenditure on employees (24%) and materials and contracts (29%).

 

There have been on-going changes to Council’s organisation structure as another means of responding to the financial pressures.  The Council has reduced its full time equivalent staff (FTE) to 113.54 and it is identified that further marginal reductions may be possible with little impact on service levels experienced by the public.

 

In relation to the significance of staffing costs in Council’s operations, it should be noted that one FTE with an annual salary of say $60,000 equates to an annual cost to Council of $85,200 when average on-costs of 42% are added (annual leave, sick leave, long service leave, superannuation).  If overheads such as office space, computers, telephones and the like are then added the real cost of the FTE is close to $90,000 per annum.  This compares to a 1% rate increase equating to about $100,000.  Accordingly it is proposed to again review the Council’s organisation structure to identify opportunities for productivity savings.  This will be undertaken via a general call for expressions of interest in voluntary redundancy. 

 

In terms of identifying opportunities for productivity savings, including changes to the Council’s organisation structure, the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG) has usefully posed a series of questions to be asked in any organisation review.

 

ASPECT OF THE SERVICE	QUESTIONS
Organisational structure	What is the staff structure? How many locations are involved?  Can locations be combined? Can “like” services be co-located?
Processes, procedures, work practices and tools	Are there duplicate processes?  Are there process gaps? Where and what are the opportunities for improvement? How can technology be used?
Resource use	Can resource use be optimised or reduced? Can assets or infrastructure be consolidated or used more efficiently? Can owned facilities be sold, leased, consolidated, regenerated or shared?
Community facilities	Do the facilities match community needs?  Are some facilities under-utilised? Is there duplication with other nearby facilities? What condition are the facilities in?  Do they require maintenance or upgrading and if so, what could this cost? Do they generate a relatively low income from usage?
Staff productivity	Can jobs be redesigned to increase the variety of tasks and improve job satisfaction? Would training increase productivity?  Can overtime levels be reduced? Can incentives and rewards be provided? Can staff outputs be monitored with appropriate measures?
Regulations	Can regulatory controls be reviewed? Will lobbying for legislative change improve efficiency/maximise productivity?

 

The process of seeking expressions of interest from staff for voluntary redundancy will principally draw on reviewing the organisation structure, resource use and staff productivity.

 

The provisions in the Award for voluntary redundancy are:

 

COMPLETED YEARS OF SERVICE WITH COUNCIL	ENTITLEMENT
Less than 1 year	Nil
1 year and less than 2 years	5 weeks pay
2 years and less than 3 years	9 weeks pay
3 years and less than 4 years	13 weeks pay
4 years and less than 5 years	16 weeks pay
5 years and less than 6 years	19 weeks pay
6 years and less than 7 years	22 weeks pay
7 years and less than 8 years	25 weeks pay
8 years and less than 9 years	28 weeks pay
9 years and less than 10 years	31 weeks pay
10 years and thereafter	34 weeks pay

 

The above entitlement is in addition to any accrued leave.  Voluntary redundancy payments would need to be met from Council’s working funds.  The Council would need to accept the reduced level of service from the redundant positions to reduce the potential for their future reinstatement.  There have been examples in government of redundant positions being reinstated within a short period, or worse redundant staff being rehired as consultants or contractors.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The recommendation provides for consultation with the Consultative Committee prior to any expressions of interest being reported to Council.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

At this stage there are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

At this stage there are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

The reduction of Council’s workforce and service levels will have a negative impact on the local economy, although relatively minor given the incremental nature of the change.

 

Risk

 

The report chiefly concerns the overall risk to Council’s financial well-being and sustainability if it does not contain its operating costs.   A decline in the Council’s operating performance ratio and other asset related performance criteria in the Fit for the Future benchmarks will erode the Council’s long term sustainability.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The budgetary implications will be reported when the expressions of interest have been received and considered.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The impact on working funds will depend on the number of offers which are supported and accepted and the length of service of the employees.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

If offers of voluntary redundancy are recommended and accepted, there are likely to be implications for service levels and resourcing.  These will be assessed and reported on.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  

General Manager's Report

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager; Wayne Lowe, Manager Business Development         

 

Summary:   A summary is not required.

 

Recommendation:   1        That the Illawong Village Limited be advised that Council will accept trusteeship of the land being Part Lot 483 DP 755550 and Lot 447 DP 755550 so as facilitate its     development for its intended purpose of providing affordable housing for seniors or people with a disability.   2        That if the Illawong Village Limited agrees to transfer trusteeship with the knowledge of Council’s intentions, then there be a further report to Council in relation to securing expressions of interest from suitable parties in the development of the land.

 

OPTIONS:

 

The options available to Council are those listed by the NSW Department of Industry – Lands being:

 

·           Trust Tenure to Council for a purpose consistent with the notified purpose of the reserve, under provisions of Section 108 or 102 of the Crown Lands Act, 1991 (CLA).

 

·           Tenure direct from the Department to Council for a purpose which is not considered consistent with the notified purpose of the reserve under provision of section 34A of the crown lands Act.

 

·           Council rationalise the ownership of the subject land through acquisition, under the provision of land Acquisition (Just terms) Compensation Act 1991.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

On 3 March 2016 the Manager of Illawong Village wrote to Council’s Manager Business Development in relation to relinquishing tenure back to Council of Part Lot 483 in DP 755550 and Lot 447 DP 755550, which comprises part of the Crown Reserve 85920 created for the purpose of Homes for the Aged.  A copy of the letter and background email is attached.  This land is shown in purple on the attached plan being the land on the corner of Woodbell Street and Riverside Drive.  The area of the land is approximately 2,800m².

 

The land shown in purple is part of the original Crown Reserve R85920 created for the purpose of Homes for the Aged on 26 August 1966.  The Illawong Retirement Village was constructed on the balance of the Reserve, with the Retirement Village being appointed as the Trustees of the Reserve and the Illawong Village Limited being appointed as the corporate manager of the Trust.

 

The correspondence from the Manager of Illawong Village Limited indicates that they do not wish to maintain the land and request that Council assume responsibility for the land and that it be effectively incorporated as part of McMorrine Park.

 

The matter has been discussed with a Property Management Officer from the NSW Department of Industry – Lands who has now advised that the following options may be considered by Council in relation to Lot 477 and the adjoining triangle part of Lot 483.

 

·           Trust Tenure to Council for a purpose consistent with the notified purpose of the reserve, under provisions of Section 108 or 102 of the Crown Lands Act, 1991 (CLA),

 

·           Tenure direct from the Department to Council for a purpose which is not considered consistent with the notified purpose of the reserve under provision of section 34A of the crown lands Act.

 

·           Council rationalise the ownership of the subject land through acquisition, under the provision of land Acquisition (Just terms) Compensation Act 1991

 

Council is certainly not in a financial position to acquire the land as per the third option so this option should be immediately discarded.

 

In relation to the remaining options, given the purpose of the Crown Reserve, the on-going costs to Council in maintaining the land as well as the on-going need for affordable housing for seniors or people with a disability, the first option is preferred being a trust tenure to Council for a purpose consistent with the notified purpose of the reserve.  Council would give effect to this by seeking expressions of interest in the development of the land for the purpose of housing for seniors or people with a disability.

 

As the preferred option of developing the land for housing for seniors or people with a disability is not the expressed preference of the Illawong Village Ltd, it is recommended that they be advised of Council’s position so they may have the opportunity to reconsider their on-going trusteeship or alternatively relinquish the trusteeship to Council.

 

As indicated on the attached zoning map, Lot 477 is zoned RE1 Public Recreation whilst the adjoining triangle part of Lot 483 is zoned R1 General Residential.  Housing for seniors or people with a disability is a permissible use of the land pursuant to the applicable State Environment Planning Policy for such housing.  There are now a number of non-government organisations (NGO’s) active in providing such housing in the local government area, the most recent similar development under the SEPP being a cluster unit development in River Street, Macksville near the Courthouse.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Illawong Retirement Village and the NSW Department of Industry – Lands.  The recommendation proposes further consultation with the Illawong Retirement Village.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

At this stage there are no implications for the environment.  There is a significant drainage channel through the land which would need to be maintained in any housing development.

 

Social

 

At this stage there are no social issues.  It is likely that there would be objections to what will be perceived as the “loss” of parkland.  However the vacant land which is part of the Crown Reserve was never identified to be used as a park but rather for “Homes for the Aged”.  Balanced against this perception is the real need for affordable housing for seniors and people with a disability.  This need is arguably more acute in 2016 than it was when the Reserve was created in 1966.

 

Economic

 

At this stage there are no economic implications.

 

 

Risk

 

The major risks are identified in the social considerations.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

At this stage there are no budgetary implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There are no implications for working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

The Illawong Retirement Village is seeking to shift legal responsibility for the maintenance of the land (2,800m²) from the Village to Council.  With the requirement for regular mowing and tree maintenance, this is not an insignificant on-going expense.

 

 

Attachments:

1	452/2017 - Report Attachment - Advice to Councillors
2	8502/2016 - Illawong Village Ltd correspondence
3	337/2017 - Reserve for Aged Homes
4	370/2017 - Illawong Village - Residue Crown Reserve
5	338/2017 - Reserve for Aged Homes Zoning

  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Illawong Village Boundary Adjustment

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Illawong Village Boundary Adjustment

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Illawong Village Boundary Adjustment

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Illawong Village Boundary Adjustment

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Illawong Village Boundary Adjustment

 

General Manager's Report

 

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

 

Summary: In accordance with Council's 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’s 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

 

There are no Development Applications in excess of 12 months old.

 

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

 

DA NUMBER	DATE OF RECEIPT		PROPOSAL		ADDRESS
2016/147	5 September 2016		Telecommunications Facility		Lot: 28 DP: 1048659, Vernon Street Scotts Head (Buz Brazel Park)
29 opposing submissions, two late supporting submissions and four late opposing submissions have been received (a number of other late submissions were received after Council’s onsite meeting in November – these have not been included in the count of submissions as they were received well after the closing date for submissions) ·           Too close to the Yarning Circle and other parts of the park where people relax ·           The proposed fence is divisive and aggressive ·           It is too close to the school – health and safety concerns from exposure to radiation ·           Not enough community consultation ·           Incompatible land use ·           Proposed screening is not sufficient ·           Unsuitable visual impact ·           Another site should be used instead – Gumma or Yarrahapinni ·           Properties will be devalued ·           Will impact on mental health of those who live nearby ·           Information in SEE is incorrect – pole is not screened, the vegetation to the east is not dense, there is no vegetation to the north. ·           Will disturb the habitat of the glossy black cockatoo and other wildlife ·           4G data and voice already available in Scotts Head ·           Emf information appears to be incorrect ·           Submission period shouldn’t be in the school holidays. ·           Department of Education believes Council should adopt their policy of “prudent avoidance” and have the tower relocated further away from the school Supporting submission: ·           Incorrect information is being circulated around the community ·           Better mobile phone reception would be a positive for the community
STATUS: Being assessed by Bellingen Shire Council.  Applicant currently assessing alternate sites which are further away from the Scotts Head Public School and housing.
DA NUMBER		DATE OF RECEIPT		PROPOSAL		ADDRESS
2016/215		15 November 2016		Dwelling-House		Lot 2 DP 21610, 51 South Bank Road, Eungai Rail
Two opposing submissions have been received. ·      Both submissions are concerned about the impact of drainage/stormwater runoff.
STATUS: Being assessed.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  

General Manager's Report

 

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

 

Summary:   Over the past three years Council has been preparing a Housekeeping Planning Proposal to correct a number of anomalies and make some minor policy changes in the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 (NLEP2010). The Planning Proposal has received a Gateway determination from the Department of Planning and Environment and has been publicly exhibited and notified to landowners, adjoining owners and Government agencies in accordance with the determination.   This proposal and all submissions received during the exhibition period were reported to Council at its meeting on 24 November 2016 for information. Immediately prior to this meeting, Council has undertaken a site inspection of four of the locations referred to in the proposal.   The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council proceed with the Planning Proposal as attached.   NOTE: This matter requires a “Planning Decision” meaning a decision made in the exercise of a function of the council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 including a decision relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan.  Under Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 it requires the General Manager to record the names of each Councillor supporting and opposing the decision.

 

Recommendation:   1        That Council proceed with the proposed amendment as attached to this report except for item 2.7.   2        That Council engage a suitably qualified person to undertake an assessment of flora and fauna on Lot 701 DP 1054525 - Boronia Street, Nambucca Heads to determine if the required asset protection zones from future residential development on the lot will result in any significant effects on threatened species, populations, communities or their habitats. If it will not, re-exhibit item 2.7 as a new planning proposal.   3        That pursuant to Clause 59(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Council request that a draft instrument be prepared by forwarding all relevant information to the Minister and requesting that the plan be made.   4        That those persons/agencies who made submissions be advised of Council's decision.

 

OPTIONS:

 

1        Pursuant with the clause 58 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Council may determine not to proceed with the Planning Proposal.

 

2        Council may choose to support some items of the Planning Proposal and not others. If Council wishes to approve some items and defer others, the deferred items will then become a new Planning Proposal which will need to be publically exhibited again.

 

3        Council may choose to amend one or more items and re-exhibit the Planning Proposal.

 

4        Council may choose to hold a public hearing prior to proceeding with the Planning Proposal. This is not recommended for the reasons outlined within the body of this report.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Background

 

Over the past three years Council has been preparing a Housekeeping Planning Proposal to correct a number of anomalies and make some minor policy changes in the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 (NLEP2010). The draft Planning Proposal is attached and the various proposed changes were detailed in Item No 9.4 of Council’s 24 November 2016 meeting.

 

Following public consultation, Council staff have decided to slightly amend Item 2.15 of the Proposal. To ensure that the B4 Mixed Use zone will not extend beyond this particular property, two land use zones are now proposed for Lot 12 DP 528491, 59 Waratah Street, Scotts Head. The northern portion of the property is proposed to be zoned B4 Mixed Use. This is the part of the property that adjoins another lot which is already zoned B4 Mixed Use. The southern portion of the property is proposed to be zoned R3 Medium Density Residential, which is the same land use zoning as the property to the south of this property. This change will allow for a small commercial development to occur on the site, but will limit its impact on the adjoining residential property. Limiting the area of the B4 zone and, hence, any commercial development, will also reduce the impact of this type of development on the neighbourhood with respect to traffic, parking, noise and bulk and scale.

 

A Gateway Determination was made by the Department of Planning on 4 April 2016. Minor amendments were made to the proposal and mapping was corrected after this date in accordance with the determination. Approval was given by the Department on 16 September 2016 for the proposal to be exhibited.

 

Agency Consultation

 

Pursuant to the Gateway Determination Council forwarded the application to agencies for comment. The Office of Environment & Heritage, the NSW Roads & Maritime Services and the NSW Rural Fire Service responded – their responses are attached. Council staff’s responses were detailed in Item 9.4 of Council’s 24 November 2016 meeting.

 

To further address the matters raised by the NSW Rural Fire Service in relation to items 2.7 and 2.8, it is considered that there is sufficient room on both of the subject lots for residential development to occur which can comply with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 (PBP 2006).

 

For the land off Loftus Street, there is existing managed land to the north, south and west of a potential development site and over 21m for the maintenance of the required asset protection zone within the development site, which is sufficient for compliance with PBP 2006. Please note that there will be no vegetation required to be removed for the maintenance of the required asset protection zone.

 

With regards to the land off Boronia Street, there is a potential building location within the proposed general residential zoned section of the site with managed land for over 70m to the east and south. Asset protection zones of at least 42m would be required to be established to the north and east within the lot to comply with PBP 2006.

 

However, having regard to the comments made by the Office and Environment and Heritage; it is considered that a flora and fauna report should be undertaken prior to this component of the planning proposal proceeding. This is to ensure that the required asset protection zones can be established on the land without resulting in any significant effects on threatened species, populations, communities or their habitats. As such, it has been recommended that item 2.7 be deferred until the flora and fauna report has been completed.

 

Public Exhibition

 

The Planning Proposal was exhibited between Friday 23 September 2016 and Friday 21 October 2016. During the exhibition period Council received 41 submissions and a petition which are attached. A summary of the concerns raised in the submissions was presented in Item 9.4 of Council’s 24 November 2016 meeting.

 

Immediately prior to this Council meeting, Council has undertaken an inspection of the following sites:

 

Item 2.7: Lot 701 DP 1054525, Boronia Street, Nambucca Heads

Item 2.8: Lot 470 DP 755550, Loftus Street, Nambucca Heads

Item 2.11: Lot 157 DP 755560, 31 Tuna Street, Valla Beach

Item 2.15: Lot 12 DP 528491, 59 Waratah Street, Scotts Head

 

Property owners and those who made submissions were invited to both the site inspection and this Council meeting.

 

In addition to Council staff’s response to the submissions within the report on 24 November 2016, it is not considered that the issues raised in the submissions received are of such significance that they should be the subject of a public hearing as provided for under section 57(5) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the act). Please note that under the above section of the act, it is up to Council as the planning authority to decide if a public hearing is warranted based on the nature of the submissions received.

 

If Council were to resolve to hold a public hearing, a suitably qualified independent person would need to be engaged to conduct the public hearing. It is considered that the costs associated with this as well as the additional staff resources that would be required are unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. It is considered that the site meetings held prior to this meeting, as well as providing the ability for those for and against the relevant items to present at this Council meeting, is sufficient for Council to make a determination.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Manager Development & Environment

Co-ordinator Strategic Planning & Natural Resources

Property owners, adjoining owners and government agencies as above

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The proposed amendments are mostly aimed at correcting anomalies with the Nambucca LEP 2010. There are no associated adverse environmental impacts.

 

Any environmental impacts resulting from dual occupancies/secondary dwellings in RU1, RU2 and R5 zoned land will be assessed and dealt with during the development application process.

 

Social

 

The proposed amendments are aimed at correcting anomalies with the NLEP 2010. It is not considered that there are any associated adverse social impacts.

 

Economic

 

The proposed amendments are aimed at correcting anomalies with the NLEP 2010. It is not considered that there are any associated adverse economic impacts.

 

It is considered that as a whole the proposed amendments will provide increased economic activity within the shire, with any potential negative impacts capable of being reasonably mitigated as part of the development assessment process.

 

Risk

 

One risk that faces Council with regards to this planning proposal is litigation from land owners resulting from its decision on items which affect them.

 

In particular, the intention of items 2.7 and 2.8 is to rectify an error in the preparation of the NLEP 2010 which resulted in the two privately owned lots being zoned from residential to public recreation. In the event Council does not proceed to rezone the subject lots as recommended in the attached planning proposal, the land owner may be in a position to commence proceedings against Council seeking compensation for the substantial loss of value the unreasonable rezoning of their land has had.

 

Conversely, some property owners adjoining the two lots the subject of items 2.7 and 2.8 have indicated that if the proposed rezoning proceeds, they will commence legal action against Council to recoup any losses they will experience if such a rezoning results in their properties losing value. However, it is considered that any potential amenity impacts resulting from the development of either lots can be appropriately mitigated during the development assessment process. While it is acknowledged that the proposed rezoning will result in development within parts of the outlook of some surrounding properties which currently contains undeveloped land; this is not considered to be a reasonable reason as to why the lots cannot be partially reverted back to their original residential land use. This is because they both contain suitable areas of land for the logical expansion of residential growth within Nambucca Heads.

 

The other risk for Council is that it could be forced to compulsorily acquire privately owned land which was zoned RE1 Public Recreation in Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010.  This could result in a very large expenditure by Council in purchasing land which will have no or very limited potential to be used for public recreation purposes.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

Approving the proposal will enable sustainable development to occur in various parts of the Shire. This is likely to have a positive impact on future budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

Nil

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

Nil

 

Attachments:

1	40756/2016 - Planning Proposal No 21 - Maps Item 2.1
2	40757/2016 - Planning Proposal No 21 - Maps Item 2.2
3	40758/2016 - Planning Proposal No 21 - Map Item 2.3
4	40759/2016 - Planning Proposal No 21 - Maps Item 2.4
5	40761/2016 - Planning Proposal No 21 - Maps Item 2.5
6	40762/2016 - Planning Proposal No 21 - Maps Items 2.7 & 2.8
7	40764/2016 - Planning Proposal No 21 - Maps Item 2.10
8	40766/2016 - Planning Proposal No 21 - Maps Item 2.11
9	44198/2016 - Amended Planning Proposal 21 - Housekeeping & Other Policy Amendments - change to Item 2.15
10	159/2017 - Redacted submissions to item 2.7 - Planning Proposal 21
11	185/2017 - Redacted submissions to Item 2.8 - Planning Proposal No. 21
12	178/2017 - Redacted submission to Item 2.11 - Planning Proposal No. 21
13	187/2017 - Redacted submissions to Item 2.15 - Planning Proposal No. 21
14	44204/2016 - Response from RMS - Planning Proposal No 21
15	39383/2016 - OEH detailed comments following review of planning proposal documentation for LEP 2010 Amendment No 21 Housekeeping
16	44205/2016 - Response from NSW RFS - Planning Proposal No 21

  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Nambucca LEP Amendment No 21 - Housekeeping and Other Policy Amendments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Nambucca LEP Amendment No 21 - Housekeeping and Other Policy Amendments

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Nambucca LEP Amendment No 21 - Housekeeping and Other Policy Amendments

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Nambucca LEP Amendment No 21 - Housekeeping and Other Policy Amendments

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Nambucca LEP Amendment No 21 - Housekeeping and Other Policy Amendments

 

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Nambucca LEP Amendment No 21 - Housekeeping and Other Policy Amendments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Nambucca LEP Amendment No 21 - Housekeeping and Other Policy Amendments

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Nambucca LEP Amendment No 21 - Housekeeping and Other Policy Amendments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Nambucca LEP Amendment No 21 - Housekeeping and Other Policy Amendments

 

 

Nambucca Shire Council

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planning Proposal

Nambucca Local Environmental Plan

Amendment No. 21

Housekeeping and Other Policy Amendments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared by:

Development & Environment Section

Nambucca Shire Council

 

Dated: September 2016

 

File:SF2208

Table of Contents

 

 

1.0             Preliminary.. 1

Part 1    Objectives or Intended outcomes. 1

Part 2    Explanation of Provisions. 1

2.1    Lot 12 Sec A DP 11590; Lot 1 DP 122896; Lot 1 DP 122897; Lot 1 DP 122898; Lot 7 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 6 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 5 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 4 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 1 DP 729696, Dudley Street, Macksville (Known as Thistle Park) – change Land Use Zoning and remove various controls. 1

2.2    Nambucca Veterinary Clinic, 5 Beer Parade, Nambucca Heads (Lot 1 DP 541043 & Lot 9 Sec 27 DP 758749) – change Land Use Zoning and remove various controls. 1

2.3    Macksville Post Office, Cooper Street, Corner River Street, Macksville (Lot 1 DP 816339) – heritage listing   2

2.4    Nambucca Bridge Club, 2 Fred Brain Avenue, Nambucca Heads (Lot 21 DP 1161807) – change Land Use Zoning   2

2.5    24 Bellevue Drive & 10 McLennans Lane, North Macksville - Amendment to the Floor Space Ratio & Height of Buildings Maps. 2

2.6    Amend clause 7.1(6) of NLEP2010 to clarify the exempt provisions contained within the clause  2

2.7    Lot 701 DP 1054525, Boronia Street, Nambucca Heads – change Land Use Zoning and alter various controls  3

2.8    Lot 470 DP 755550, Loftus Street, Nambucca Heads – change Land Use Zoning and alter various controls  4

2.9    Amend clause 4.1(4A)(a) of the NLEP2010 to clarify the exempt provisions contained within the clause  4

2.10 Lot 1 DP 560614, Upper Buckrabendinni Road, Buckra Bendinni – change Land Use Zoning and amend Minimum Lot Size Map. 5

2.11 Lot 157 DP 755560, 31 Tuna Street, Valla Beach – change Land Use Zoning and alter various controls  5

2.12 Ensure permissibility of Secondary Dwellings in the R5 Large Lot Residential Zones. 5

2.13 Amend the Land Use Table to make detached dual occupancies permissible within the RU1 Primary Production, RU2 Rural Landscape and R5 Large Lot Residential zones and remove the word “attached” from Clause 4.2A   6

2.14 Amend the Land Use Table to make eco-tourist facilities permissible within the RU1 Primary Production, RU2 Rural Landscape, and R5 Large Lot Residential zones. 6

2.15 Lot 12 DP 528491 59 Waratah Street Scotts Head – change Land Use Zoning.. 8

2.16 Amend the Land Use Table to make vehicle sales and hire premises permissible within the IN1 General Industrial zone. 8

Part 3    Justification.. 9

Section A – Need for the Planning Proposal. 9

Section B –Relationship to strategic planning framework. 9

Section C – Environmental, social and economic impact. 10

Section D – State and Commonwealth Interests. 10

Part 4    Mapping.. 10

Part 5    Community Consultation.. 10

Part 6    Project Timeline.. 11

Appendix 1 - State Environmental Planning Policies. 12

Appendix 2 - Section 117 Directions. 13

Appendix 3 - Maps. 1

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Nambucca LEP Amendment No 21 - Housekeeping and Other Policy Amendments

 

1.0 Preliminary

 

This planning proposal has been drafted in accordance with Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and ‘A guide to preparing planning proposals’ (DoP, 2009). A gateway determination under Section 56 of the Act is requested.

 

The Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 (NLEP2010) was made on 30 July 2010. Since its commencement a number of housekeeping amendments have been identified and the purpose of the planning proposal is to implement these matters. Other policy amendments have also been included in the planning proposal. The background to each of the items is discussed below.

 

This planning proposal applies to the following subject land as listed in Part 2.

 

All maps and figures relating to the subject land are included in Appendix 3.

 

Part 1    Objectives or Intended outcomes

 

The primary objective of this LEP Amendment is to implement housekeeping and policy amendments with the NLEP2010.

 

Part 2    Explanation of Provisions

 

2.1  Lot 12 Sec A DP 11590; Lot 1 DP 122896; Lot 1 DP 122897; Lot 1 DP 122898; Lot 7 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 6 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 5 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 4 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 1 DP 729696, Dudley Street, Macksville (Known as Thistle Park) – change Land Use Zoning and remove various controls

 

Thistle Park Reserve, Macksville is presently zoned R1 General Residential. This land was acquired from the Department of Education in 2009 during the development of the NLEP2010. One of the terms of the contract of sale was that Council agreed not to dispose of the land and the land would be zoned for open space purposes.

 

To that effect, this amendment proposes to zone Thistle Park (Lot 12 Sec A DP 11590; Lot 1 DP 122896; Lot 1 DP 122897; Lot 1 DP 122898; Lot 7 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 6 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 5 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 4 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 12 Sec A DP 11590; Lot 1 DP 729696) RE1 Public Recreation and to remove the following controls – Floor Space Ratio of 0.55, Height of Buildings of 8.5m and Minimum Lot Size of 450m².

 

2.2 Nambucca Veterinary Clinic, 5 Beer Parade, Nambucca Heads (Lot 1 DP 541043 & Lot 9 Sec 27 DP 758749) – change Land Use Zoning and remove various controls

 

Examination of the zoning relating to the above property has confirmed that this land was incorrectly zoned when the NLEP2010 was gazetted. The landowner has provided Council with a letter confirming their request to correct this.

 

The NLEP1995 zoned Lot 1 DP 541043 as 3(a) Commercial. Lot 9 Sec 27 DP 758749, a small portion of land measuring approximately 65 m² was zoned 2(b) Residential (Medium-High Density).  In preparing the NLEP2010 the intention was to prepare a best fit transfer from the existing zones to the new template requirements unless otherwise specified. However, an error has occurred and the entire land has been zoned R3 Medium Density Residential.

 

It is proposed to correct this and zone the entire land B1 Neighbourhood Centre and remove the Floor Space Ratio and Minimum Lot Size to reflect the adjoining land and other commercial land in the Shire. A Development Application for a Veterinary Clinic was approved over both lots in 1982.

 

2.3 Macksville Post Office, Cooper Street, Corner River Street, Macksville (Lot 1 DP 816339) – heritage listing

 

On 9 November 2011 the Macksville Post Office was gazetted in the Commonwealth Heritage List under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Macksville Post Office was one of 43 post offices listed throughout Australia at this time.

 

Macksville was identified for the following reasons:

 

Macksville Post Office, constructed in 1917, is of historical significance as one of the first two NSW Post offices, along with Botany, credited to Commonwealth architects. Although extended and modified, the building is legible as a 1917 era structure. The freestanding timber clad telephone exchange is extant, although in poor condition and no longer used for its original function. The significant components of Macksville Post Office include the main building dating from 1917.

 

To complement the Commonwealth listing of this item, it is recommended the Post Office be listed in Schedule 5 Part 1 of the NLEP2010. This will allow for the appropriate consideration of heritage matters related to the building should future development occur.

 

2.4 Nambucca Bridge Club, 2 Fred Brain Avenue, Nambucca Heads (Lot 21 DP 1161807) – change Land Use Zoning

 

The Nambucca Bridge Club acquired a portion of land at Fred Brain Avenue, Nambucca Heads in 2012. The land is presently zoned RE1 Public Recreation. As the land is no longer owned by Council it is considered that a Land Use Zone of RE2 Private Recreation is more appropriate.

 

2.5 24 Bellevue Drive & 10 McLennans Lane, North Macksville - Amendment to the Floor Space Ratio & Height of Buildings Maps

 

24 Bellevue Drive, North Macksville is made up of five allotments which are legally known as Lot 5 DP 242819, Lot 9 DP 534177, Lot B DP 955417, Lot 1 DP 558086, and Lot 1 DP 1063510. The site is commonly known as the ‘Midco Site’. 10 McLennans Lane is legally known as Lot 412 DP 625737.

 

All of the above allotments are located within the R1 General Residential Zone under the NLEP. However, only one of the allotments is shown on the Floor Space Ratio Map and the Height of Buildings Map.

 

In order to correct this, it is recommended that the Floor Space Ratio Map be amended to include all of the above allotments on the map with a maximum floor space ratio of 0.55:1.  It is also recommended that the Height of Buildings Map be amended to provide a maximum building height of 8.5m on these lots. This is consistent with surrounding allotments within the R1 General Residential Zone which already have a maximum floor space ratio of 0.55:1 and a building height of 8.5m. This will ensure future buildings on the allotments are compatible with the desired bulk and scale of built form within the surrounding area. The land was previously identified as 2(a) Residential (Low-Medium Density) under the NLEP1995 and had an 8 metre maximum building height and relative density requirements.

 

2.6 Amend clause 7.1(6) of NLEP2010 to clarify the exempt provisions contained within the clause

 

The objective of clause 7.1 of the NLEP2010 is “to ensure that development does not disturb, expose or drain acid sulfate soils and cause environmental damage”. The development standard within clause 7.1 prohibits Council from granting development consent for the specified works within the clause on land mapped on the Acid Sulfate Soils Map, unless “an acid sulfate soils management plan has been prepared for the proposed works in accordance with the Acid Sulfate Soils Manual and has been provided to the consent authority”.

 

Clause 7.1 (6) states:

 

“development consent is not required under this clause to carry out any works if:

(a)  the works involve the disturbance of less than 1 tonne of soil, such as occurs in carrying out agriculture, the construction or maintenance of drains, extractive industries, dredging, the construction of artificial water bodies (including canals, dams and detention basins) or foundations or flood mitigation works, or

(b)  the works are not likely to lower the water table.

 

It is considered that the word ‘or’ located at the end of paragraph (a) in clause 7.1 (6) is an error because it excludes the operation of the clause from developments which may result in significant environmental impacts resulting from the disturbance of acid sulfate soils. The use of the word ‘or’ in clause 7.1 (6) derives from the Settled Model Local Provisions prepared by the Department of Planning. However, examples of the use of the word ‘and’ in similar clauses are found within the Coffs Harbour and Kempsey local environmental plans.

 

Having regard to the above, it is recommended that clause 7.1 (6) be amended as follows:

 

(6) Despite subclause (2), development consent is not required under this clause to carry out any works if:

(a)  the works involve the disturbance of less than 1 tonne of soil, and

(b)  the works are not likely to lower the water table.

 

The amendment has been requested by the Department of Planning and Environment during the preparation of this Planning Proposal.

 

2.7 Lot 701 DP 1054525, Boronia Street, Nambucca Heads – change Land Use Zoning and alter various controls

 

The Nambucca Heads Local Aboriginal Land Council (NHLALC) currently owns Lot 701 DP 1054525, Boronia Street, Nambucca Heads. This allotment is currently connected to reticulated sewer and water, with both legal and physical access available from Boronia Street and Pacific Street. It is zoned RE1 Public Recreation.

 

The RE1 Public Recreation Zone is generally intended for a wide range of public recreational areas and activities including local and regional parks and open space. As Lot 701 DP 1054525 is owned by the NHLALC and not been reserved for public recreation purposes on the Land Reservation Acquisition Map, it is not considered that its current zoning is appropriate for the location and nature of the site, an opinion shared by the NHLALC.

 

While the development potential of the site is constrained due to steep slopes and watercourses; it is considered that some form of residential development could potentially occur on the site subject to matters such as slope, flora and fauna, bushfire, and drainage been addressed during the development assessment process.

 

Having regard to the above, it is recommended that part of the land be rezoned to part R1 General Residential and part E3 Environmental Management. The proposed R1 zone boundaries are contained areas with managed or disturbed lawn with scattered trees and reasonable grades.

 

As part of this rezoning, it is also recommended that the residential part of the lot be provided with 450m2 minimum lot size and the E3 Environmental Management be provided with a 40HA minimum lot size. Further, the Height of Buildings Map would show a maximum building height of 8.5m, and the Floor Space Ratio Map a maximum floor space ratio of 0.55:1. The inclusion of these standards and zones will provide consistency with adjoining land. Further to this it is noted that this land was previously zoned 2(a) Residential (Low-Medium Density) and the proposed R1 and E3 zones provide a sustainable balance to the potential future development of the land.

 

2.8  Lot 470 DP 755550, Loftus Street, Nambucca Heads – change Land Use Zoning and alter various controls

 

As with the aforementioned allotment, the NHLALC also owns Lot 470 DP 755550, Loftus Street, Nambucca Heads. This allotment is also zoned RE1 Public Recreation and has not been reserved for public recreation purposes on the Land Reservation Acquisition Map. The lot has access to reticulated sewer and water, with both legal and physical access available from Loftus Street.

 

Having regard to the above, it is not considered that its current zoning is appropriate for the location and nature of the lot. Furthermore, it is considered that the lot is less constrained than Lot 701 DP 1054525 and has potential for residential development in a manner which is consistent with the surrounding area. Some constrained vegetated land exists on the eastern portion of the site.

 

As such, it is recommended that the western portion of the lot be rezoned to R3 Medium Density Residential to be consistent with the zoning of the surrounding area and the constrained area be zoned E3 Environmental Management. As part of this rezoning, it is also recommended that the lot be included on the Lot Size Map with a minimum lot size of 450m² over the residential portion and 40HA on the E3 portion. The Height of Buildings Map would be designated with a maximum building height of 8.5m, and the Floor Space Ratio Map with a maximum floor space ratio of 0.75:1 for the R3 zoned area. The inclusion of the lot on these maps will ensure the development standards applicable to the lot will be the same as the adjoining R3 Medium Density Residential zoned land. Further to this it is noted that the land was zoned 2(b) Residential (Medium Density) under the Nambucca LEP 1995.

 

2.9 Amend clause 4.1(4A)(a) of the NLEP2010 to clarify the exempt provisions contained within the clause

 

Clause 4.1 (3) of the NLEP2010 states that “The size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land”.

 

However, clause 4.1 (4A) (a) excludes the operation of clause 4.1 to development applications for the subdivision of land if the land contains an existing dual occupancy. Clause 4.1 (4A) reads as follows:

 

“(4A) This clause does not apply in relation to the subdivision of land in Zone R1 General Residential, R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential or R4 High Density Residential:

(a)    if the land contains an existing dual occupancy, or

(b)    for the purpose of erecting an attached dwelling or a semi-detached dwelling, or

(c)    if a single development application is made for the subdivision of the land into 2 lots and for the erection of a dwelling house on each of the 2 resulting lots.”

 

The intention of clause 4.1 (4A) (a) is to exclude the minimum lot size development standard from applying to the subdivision of land which contains a dual occupancy, if only two lots will result from the subdivision and one existing dwelling is located on each resulting lot. However, as can be seen above, the way the clause is written is that clause 4.1 does not apply to the subdivision of land as long as a dual occupancy is located on the land. This means that a development application for the subdivision of land into more than two allotments with sizes below the minimum lot size is excluded from the operation of clause 4.1. It is considered that this is an error as it is contrary to the objective of the clause because such an exemption to the operation of the clause removes a vital control which helps ensure subdivision layouts are compatible with the desired future character of the locality in which the subdivision is located.

 

Having regard to the above, it is recommended that clause 4.1 (4A) be amended as follows:

 

(4A) This clause does not apply in relation to the subdivision of land in Zone R1 General Residential, R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential or R4 High Density Residential:

(a)    if the land contains an existing dual occupancy and there are only 2 lots resulting from the subdivision, with an existing dwelling located on each resulting lot, or

(b)    for the purpose of erecting an attached dwelling or a semi-detached dwelling, or

(c)    if a single development application is made for the subdivision of the land into 2 lots and for the erection of a dwelling house on each of the 2 resulting lots.

2.10        Lot 1 DP 560614, Upper Buckrabendinni Road, Buckra Bendinni – change Land Use Zoning and amend Minimum Lot Size Map

 

Lot 1 DP 560614, Upper Buckrabendinni Road, Buckra Bendinni was created in 1973 by a subdivision initiated by the State Government so that land could be purchased by the then Minister for Conservation to add to the Buckra Bendinni State Forest. A subdivision of Lot 45 DP 755548 and the adjoining State Forest was undertaken. The new Lot 2 DP 560614, with an area of 15.38 hectares at the rear of the previous Lot 45 DP 755548 was transferred to the ownership of the State Government and is part of the State Forest. It is now zoned RU3 Forestry and it is not proposed to change this. In return for acquiring this parcel of land, Lot 1 DP 560614 was transferred from the State Forest to private ownership. It has an area of approximately 15.05 hectares. This parcel of land remains in private ownership but is still zoned RU3 Forestry. A more appropriate zone would be a combination of RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural Landscape, similar to the lots around it. It is also proposed to amend the minimum lot size map to 100 Hectares to be in line with the adjoining lots.

 

2.11        Lot 157 DP 755560, 31 Tuna Street, Valla Beach – change Land Use Zoning and alter various controls

 

Lot 157 DP 755560 – 31 Tuna Street, Valla Beach is privately owned and contains areas of land zoned R1 General Residential, E1 National Parks & Nature Reserves, and E3 Environmental Management.

 

The NLEP2010 was produced as a best fit transfer from the NLEP1995. As such, the intent was for this land to be zoned R1 General Residential with a strip of E3 Environmental Management over a riparian corridor which crosses the site. However, during the preparation of the NLEP2010 the NSW Land and Property Information Services incorrectly mapped the cadastre boundary of the adjoining National Park 20m to the west of its actual location. This resulted in the position of the E1 National Park and Nature Reserve zone incorrectly encroaching within Lot 157 DP 755560.

 

In order to rectify this error, it is recommended that the land zoning map be amended by removing the E1 National Parks & Nature Reserves zone from Lot 157 DP 755560 and replacing it with the corresponding R1 General Residential and E3 Environmental Management zones, together with the corresponding floor space ratios, height of buildings and minimum lots sizes for each of the proposed zones.

 

2.12        Ensure permissibility of Secondary Dwellings in the R5 Large Lot Residential Zones

 

During the preparation of the NLEP2010, Council proposed to make secondary dwellings permissible with consent in the R5 Large Lot Residential Land Use Table. However, at the time the Department of Planning advised that as secondary dwellings were permissible in the R5 Zone within the provisions of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 it was not necessary to reiterate this within the Land Use Table.

 

However, Council has since had enquiries regarding approval for secondary dwellings in the R5 Large Lot Residential zone and the following issue has been identified in applying the SEPP provisions.

 

Clause 22(3)(b) of the SEPP states the following:

 

‘the total floor area of the secondary dwelling is no more than 60 square metres or, if a greater floor area is permitted in respect of a secondary dwelling on the land under another environmental planning instrument, that greater floor area.’

 

Council’s provisions in the NLEP2010 allow development of secondary dwellings up to 50% of the size of the primary dwelling. However, as the LEP does not specifically permit secondary dwellings in the R5 zone then the SEPP provisions must be relied upon. It could be argued that the SEPP provisions would only allow secondary dwellings to be constructed to the 60sqm, not 50% of the size of the primary dwelling.

 

The proposed amendment is to simply include ‘secondary dwellings’ as permissible with consent within the R5 Large Lot Residential zone. This would ensure consistency with secondary dwelling provisions within rural and other residential land in the NLEP2010.

 

2.13        Amend the Land Use Table to make detached dual occupancies permissible within the RU1 Primary Production, RU2 Rural Landscape and R5 Large Lot Residential zones and remove the word “attached” from Clause 4.2A

 

Under the NLEP2010, the erection of an attached dual occupancy (two dwellings of any size attached to each other) is permissible within the RU1 Primary Production, RU2 Rural Landscape and R5 Large Lot Residential zones. Also, a secondary dwelling (a dwelling which can be detached from the primary dwelling with limited floor area) is permissible with consent within the RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural Landscape zones. However, a detached dual occupancy is prohibited in all three land use zones.

 

It is considered that amending the Land Use Table of the NLEP2010 to permit detached dual occupancies with development consent in the RU1, RU2 and R5 zones would result in the same positive outcomes for property owners that secondary dwellings and attached dual occupancies provide, while allowing landowners greater freedom in the development of their land.

 

It is to be noted that potential impacts on the natural, social, and economic environments associated with the construction of a detached dual occupancy are no different to that of a detached secondary dwelling; all of which would be considered by Council prior to determining the development application. It should also be noted that Council’s current development controls within the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 (DCP2010) and relevant State Environmental Planning Policies are sufficient to ensure the development of detached dual occupancies will not result in any significant impacts on the natural, social or economic environments of the locality in which they are located.

 

Furthermore, due to the current ability to have an attached dual occupancy and secondary dwelling within the RU1, RU2 & R5 (secondary dwellings pending – see above) zones, it is not considered that permitting detached dual occupancies will result in any increased demands on public infrastructure or services, or any significant increase in rural housing supply than that which could already occur. Having regard to this, it is currently permissible to grant development consent for 3 or more detached dwellings on land within the RU1 and RU2 zones which have an area greater than 10 hectares and comply with the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 15—Rural Landsharing Communities (SEPP). However, it is not permissible to grant development consent for 2 detached dwellings under the SEPP or the NLEP2010.

 

The existing subdivision development standards are proposed to remain in force. This means that the subdivision of land to locate the detached dwellings onto separate allotments will only be permissible if it is already permissible to subdivide the land; therefore ensuring rural land fragmentation will not occur as a result of permitting detached dual occupancies.

 

As such, it is recommended that the Land Use Tables for the RU1 Primary Production, RU2 Rural Landscape and R5 Large Lot Residential Land Use Tables be amended by deleting “dual occupancies (attached)” and adding “dual occupancies” as permissible with consent. Also, the word “attached” is proposed to be removed from clause 4.2A.

 

2.14        Amend the Land Use Table to make eco-tourist facilities permissible within the RU1 Primary Production, RU2 Rural Landscape, and R5 Large Lot Residential zones

 

Amendment No 7 of the NLEP2010 was to allow ‘Tourist and Visitor Accommodation’ as permissible with consent in the RU1 Primary Production Zone, RU2 Rural Landscape Zone, and R5 Large Lot Residential Zones but prohibit the land uses ‘backpackers accommodation’, ‘hotel and motel accommodation’ and ‘serviced apartment’. By preparing the Land Use Tables in this way ‘farm stay accommodation’, ‘bed and breakfast accommodation’ and any other form of tourist accommodation which did not fall within the definition of a prohibited land use became permissible uses.

 

It is to be noted that clause 5.4 of the NLEP2010 restricts guest accommodation within farm stay accommodation to no more than 5 bedrooms and no more than 3 bedrooms for bed and breakfast accommodation.

 

The intent of Amendment No 7 was to promote alternative forms of temporary accommodation in rural areas, such as tourist cabins, as it was considered that ‘farm stay accommodation’ and ‘bed and breakfast accommodation’ was too restrictive in the development of tourism in the rural areas of the shire.

 

However, having regard to the definition of ‘tourist and visitor accommodation’ and the definition of ‘hotel or motel accommodation’; it is not considered that there are other forms of tourist and visitor accommodation which are permissible as it is considered that they would fall within the definition of ‘hotel or motel accommodation’ which is a prohibited land use.

 

In order to permit alternative forms of temporary accommodation in rural areas (such as self-contained cabins) in a manner which will not be contrary to the rural planning principles, it is recommended that the Land Use Table be amended by making an ‘eco-tourist facility’ permissible with consent in the above zones.

 

Furthermore, if an ‘eco-tourist facility’ was permissible with consent; clause 5.13 of the NLEP2010 would become applicable which would read as follows:

5.13   Eco-tourist facilities

(1)  The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a)  to maintain the environmental and cultural values of land on which development for the purposes of eco-tourist facilities is carried out

(b)  to provide for sensitively designed and managed eco-tourist facilities that have minimal impact on the environment both on and off-site.

(2)  This clause applies if development for the purposes of an eco-tourist facility is permitted with development consent under this Plan.

(3)  The consent authority must not grant consent under this Plan to carry out development for the purposes of an eco-tourist facility unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a)  there is a demonstrated connection between the development and the ecological, environmental and cultural values of the site or area, and

(b)  the development will be located, constructed, managed and maintained so as to minimise any impact on, and to conserve, the natural environment, and

(c)  the development will enhance an appreciation of the environmental and cultural values of the site or area, and

(d)  the development will promote positive environmental outcomes and any impact on watercourses, soil quality, heritage and native flora and fauna will be minimal, and

(e)  the site will be maintained (or regenerated where necessary) to ensure the continued protection of natural resources and enhancement of the natural environment, and

(f)   waste generation during construction and operation will be avoided and that any waste will be appropriately removed, and

(g)  the development will be located to avoid visibility above ridgelines and against escarpments and from watercourses and that any visual intrusion will be minimised through the choice of design, colours, materials and landscaping with local native flora, and

(h)  any infrastructure services to the site will be provided without significant modification to the environment, and

(i)   any power and water to the site will, where possible, be provided through the use of passive heating and cooling, renewable energy sources and water efficient design, and

(j)   the development will not adversely affect the agricultural productivity of adjoining land, and

(k)  the following matters are addressed or provided for in a management strategy for minimising any impact on the natural environment:

(i)  measures to remove any threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage

(ii) the maintenance (or regeneration where necessary) of habitats

(iii) efficient and minimal energy and water use and waste output

(iv)     mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing the effect of the development on the natural environment

(v) maintaining improvements on an on-going basis in accordance with relevant ISO 14000 standards relating to management and quality control.

 

Having regard to the above, it is considered that amending the Land Use Table by making an ‘eco-tourist facility’ permissible with consent within the RU1 Primary Production, RU2 Rural Landscape, and R5 Large Lot Residential Zones will promote additional tourist accommodation within the rural areas of the shire in a manner which will positively contribute to the local economy and be consistent with Council’s previous resolution to support Amendment No 7 of the NLEP.

 

It is considered that clause 5.13 will provide sufficient grounds to regulate the location and size of eco-tourism developments to ensure they are suitable for the area in which they are to be located. Should Council wish to further regulate the location and size of such developments, an amendment to the DCP could be made in the future.

 

2.15        Lot 12 DP 528491 59 Waratah Street Scotts Head – change Land Use Zoning to a combination of B4 Mixed Use and R3 Medium Density Residential

 

Last year Council submitted a planning proposal to amend the zoning of land at Adin St from B2 Commercial zoned land to B4 Mixed Use zone land. During the exhibition of this planning proposal the owner of 59 Waratah Street made a submission to Council to extend the proposed mixed use zone to 59 Waratah Street.  In considering this submission Council resolved to provide owner of this property the opportunity to provide more detail of their proposal so it could be more appropriately considered.

 

The owner has since provided plans demonstrating that mixed use development could be achieved on the site subject. It is noted that the plans may require significant modifications and refinements to be acceptable to Council and meet relevant Australian standards.

 

The proposal is a minor extension to the recently gazetted B4 Mixed Use zone on Adin Street and will maintain the existing site densities. It is not proposed to amend the Floor Space Ratio at this site.

 

The landowners’ proposed amendment of this site to a Mixed Use zone will extend the potential for landuse conflicts with the adjoining medium residential density zones to the south and west of the site. To minimise these potential conflicts, it is believed that a better outcome would be to only change the land use zoning on the northern portion of the lot to B4 Mixed Use, whilst retaining the R3 Medium Density Residential zoning to the south. This will also provide a solid end to the B4 Mixed Use Zone and remove the potential for it to spread further south. 

 

2.16        Amend the Land Use Table to make vehicle sales and hire premises permissible within the IN1 General Industrial zone

 

As part of preparing for the future development of the Valla Growth Area, Council staff have been reviewing permitted uses for the different Land Use Zones there.

 

Examination of the permitted uses in the IN1 General Industrial Land Use Table showed that vehicle sales and hire premises had not been added to the “permitted with consent” section.

 

Commercial premises are prohibited in the IN1 Land Use Table unless specific types of commercial premises are listed in the “permitted with consent” section of the Land Use Table.

 

Examination of the IN1 Land Use Table shows that the following types of retail premises are listed in the “permitted with consent” section:

 

Garden centres, Hardware and building supplies, Landscaping material supplies, Neighbourhood shops, Plant nurseries, and Timber yards.

 

It is considered that the addition of vehicle sales and hire premises to the IN1 Land Use Table (permitted with consent) would have the positive benefit of increasing the possible land uses of IN1 zoned land whilst still achieving the objectives of the zone which are:

 

“•  To provide a wide range of industrial and warehouse land uses.

 

•  To encourage employment opportunities.

 

•  To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

 

•  To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.”

 

Whilst vehicle sale and hire premises are not defined as an industrial land use, many of these premises also carry out mechanical and body work on vehicles, which is an industrial land use. It would allow a business which conducted both activities to appropriately operate on IN1 land which is often a more suitable venue for repair and maintenance work to occur.

 

It should be noted that Coffs Harbour City Council, Kempsey Shire Council and Port Macquarie-Hastings Council all permit vehicle sales and hire premises within their IN1 Land Use Zone.

 

Part 3    Justification

 

Section A – Need for the Planning Proposal

 

1        Is the planning proposal the result of any strategic study or report?

 

          The Planning Proposal is not specifically the result of any Strategic Study or Report, rather it is implementing housekeeping and policy amendments within the NLEP2010, some of which have been noticed by Council and others being requested by property owners. The NLEP2010 was prepared in accordance with a number of State Government Policies, Local Strategies and the Nambucca Structure Plan.

 

2        Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way?

 

          Yes, the objectives are unable to be achieved without a Planning Proposal.

 

Section B –Relationship to strategic planning framework.

 

3        Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions contained within the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy?

 

          Yes, the NLEP2010 is consistent with the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy. New housing options provided by changes to dual occupancy and secondary dwelling permissibility will cater to the needs of an ageing population. The additional permitted land use within the IN1 zone will increase employment opportunities.

 

4        Is the planning proposal consistent with the local Council’s Community Strategic Plan, or other strategic plan?

 

Yes, the NLEP2010 is consistent with Council’s 2023 Community Strategic Plan and this planning proposal is implementing housekeeping and policy amendments within the NLEP2010. In particular, the changes to dual occupancies and secondary dwellings will assist in meeting strategy 5.2.1: “Provide diverse, sustainable, adaptable and affordable housing options through effective land use planning”. Also, the additional permitted land use in the IN1 zone will assist in meeting strategy 10.2 “To provide economic conditions which will encourage the creation of employment in the Nambucca Valley.”

 

5        Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP’s)?

 

          Yes – see Appendix 1.

 

6        Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s.117 directions)?

 

          Yes – see Appendix 2.

 

Section C – Environmental, social and economic impact

 

7        Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal?

 

          No, where these amendments will result in future developments, these developments will be subject to threatened species consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

 

8        Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the planning proposal and how are they proposed to be managed?

 

          No, the amendments proposed in this Planning Proposal are mostly rectifying issues with the NLEP2010 which have potential to result in detrimental environmental impacts or an unreasonable level or inappropriate type of development. Any other environmental effects will be assessed via the development application process.

 

9          Has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?

 

            Yes, amendments proposed in this Planning Proposal are mostly rectifying issues with the NLEP2010 which have the potential to result in detrimental social impacts and an unreasonable level of development. With regard to secondary dwellings, dual occupancies and eco-tourist facilities, the addition of these uses in the Land Use Table will provide greater capacity for inter-generational farming, more diverse uses of rural properties and better economic outcomes for property owners. The additional permitted land use in the IN1 zone will assist in improving employment opportunities in the Valley.

 

Section D – State and Commonwealth Interests

 

10         Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal?

 

            Yes –the proposal relates to housekeeping and policy amendments to the NLEP2010 for which additional public infrastructure is not required. The issue of provision of public infrastructure for dual occupancies, secondary dwellings and eco-tourist facilities is not considered significant as attached dual occupancies and other tourist and visitor accommodation types are already permitted in these zones.

 

11         What are the views of State and Commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with the gateway determination?

 

Government authorities have not been formally involved in this Planning Proposal as it is yet to receive Gateway Approval. It is anticipated that consultation will be required with the NSW Rural Fire Service and Department of Primary Industries regarding some of the proposed amendments.

 

Part 4    Mapping

 

Please see Appendix 3 for all maps related to this Planning Proposal. All maps as required by the Department of Planning & Environment have been lodged via the Planning Portal in the correct format and will be made available with this Planning Proposal when it is on public exhibition.

 

Part 5    Community Consultation

 

Council will commence community consultation in accordance with the Gateway Determination. The proposal will be advertised in the local newspaper and on Council’s website.

 

Part 6    Project Timeline

 

October 2016                           Gateway determination issued by Department of Planning & Environment

November 2016                        Public exhibition of planning proposal and consultation with government agencies

January 2017                            Analysis of public submissions and agency responses

                                               Preparation of Council report

February 2017                          Endorsed planning proposal submitted to Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation

Appendix 1 - State Environmental Planning Policies

 

The following State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) are considered relevant to and have been considered in the preparation of this planning proposal:

 

 

·              State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection

 

SEPP 44 encourages the conservation and management of natural vegetation areas that provide habitat for koalas to ensure permanent free-living populations will be maintained over their present range.

 

Under SEPP 44, potential koala habitat is defined as areas of native vegetation where the trees listed in Schedule 2 of the SEPP constitute at least 15% of the total number of trees in the upper or lower strata of the tree component. A koala habitat assessment is required for any significant development in such areas.

 

The amendments within this planning proposal are consistent with the requirements of this SEPP.

 

·              State Environmental Planning Policy No 71 – Coastal Protection

 

The object of this policy is to provide for the protection and management of sensitive and significant areas within the coastal zone. Part of the subject land is located within the coastal zone. Therefore, in preparing the final LEP, Council must consider the natural, cultural, recreational and economic attributes of land within the coastal zone to ensure that public access to foreshore areas, Aboriginal heritage, visual amenity, coastal flora and fauna, coastal processes and cumulative impacts are addressed.

 

The amendments within this planning proposal are consistent with the requirements of this SEPP.

 

·              State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands)

 

The aim of this policy is to facilitate the orderly and economic use and development of rural lands for rural and related purposes. The SEPP identifies rural planning principles (clause 7) that must be taken into account when a Council prepares a planning proposal. These are brought into effect through a Section 117 Direction. This is dealt with in more detail in the following section. It also identifies matters to be considered in determining development applications for rural subdivision and rural dwellings (clause 10). These are the matters that Council must take into account if it receives an application for a detached dual occupancy or a secondary dwelling, should the planning proposal succeed in amending NLEP2010.

 

The planning proposal is consistent with the rural planning principles and any application arising from this planning proposal will only be approved if it is consistent with the matters in clause 10. On balance it is consistent with the SEPP.

 

·              State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

 

SEPP 55 (Remediation of Land) recognises that land which is known to be contaminated by past land uses can still be zoned for development as long as:

 

“(a) the planning authority has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

(b) if the land is contaminated, the planning authority is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for all the purposes for which land in the zone concerned is permitted to be used, and

(c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for any purpose for which land in that zone is permitted to be used, the planning authority is satisfied that the land will be so remediated before the land is used for that purpose.“

 

In this planning proposal, only housekeeping amendments are causing land to be rezoned. Further, detached dual occupancies, secondary dwellings and eco-tourist facilities will only be permissible where a dwelling is already permitted on the land.

 

Because the planning proposal is not significantly increasing the range of sensitive land uses on the site and past land use will still be addressed in any development application, it is consistent with the SEPP.

Appendix 2 - Section 117 Directions

 

 

A number of directions under Section 117 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are relevant to this planning proposal.

 

1       Employment and Resources

 

Direction 1.1         Business and Industrial Zones

 

The objectives of this direction are to encourage employment growth in suitable locations, protect employment land in business and industrial zones, and support the viability of identified strategic centres.

 

This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will affect land within an existing or proposed business or industrial zone (including the alteration of any existing business or industrial zone boundary).

 

A planning proposal must:

a        give effect to the objectives of this direction,

b        retain the areas and locations of existing business and industrial zones,

c        not reduce the total potential floor space area for employment uses and related public services in business zones,

d        not reduce the total potential floor space area for industrial uses in industrial zones, and

e        ensure that proposed new employment areas are in accordance with a strategy that is approved by the Director-General of the Department of Planning

 

A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that the provisions of the planning proposal that are inconsistent are:

 

a        justified by a strategy which:

i         gives consideration to the objective of this direction, and

ii        identifies the land which is the subject of the planning proposal (if the planning proposal relates to a particular site or sites), and

iii       is approved by the Director-General of the Department of Planning, or

 

b        justified by a study (prepared in support of the planning proposal) which gives consideration to the objective of this direction, or

c        in accordance with the relevant Regional Strategy or Sub-Regional Strategy prepared by the Department of Planning which gives consideration to the objective of this direction, or

d        of minor significance.

 

The housekeeping and policy amendments within this planning proposal are consistent with the requirements of this direction. The additional of vehicle sales and hire premises to the IN1 zone is considered to be of minor significance.

 

Direction 1.2         Rural Zones

 

The objective of this direction is to protect the agricultural production value of rural land.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a planning proposal that affects land within an existing or proposed rural zone (including the alteration of any existing rural zone boundary).

 

A planning proposal shall:

 

a        not rezone land from a rural zone to a residential, business, industrial, village or tourist zone.

b          not contain provisions that will increase the permissible density of land within a rural zone (other than land within an existing town or village).

 

A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if council can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that the provisions of the planning proposal that are inconsistent are:

 

a        justified by a strategy which:

i         gives consideration to the objectives of this direction,

ii        identifies the land which is the subject of the planning proposal (if the planning proposal relates to a particular site or sites), and

iii       is approved by the Director-General of the Department of Planning, or

b          justified by an environmental study prepared in accordance with section 57 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 which gives consideration to the objectives of this direction, or

c          in accordance with the relevant Regional Strategy or Sub-Regional Strategy prepared by the Department of Planning which gives consideration to the objective of this direction, or

d        is of minor significance.

 

The housekeeping and policy amendments within this planning proposal are consistent with the requirements of this direction. As attached dual occupancies and some tourist and visitor accommodation types are already permitted in the RU1, RU2 and R5 zones, permitting detached dual occupancies, secondary dwellings and eco-tourist facilities will not increase the permitted density on these properties, but will provide more flexibility in how developments can be carried out.

 

Direction 1.3         Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries

 

The objective of this direction is to ensure that the future extraction of State or regionally significant reserves of coal, other minerals, petroleum and extractive materials are not compromised by inappropriate development.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a planning proposal that would have the effect of:

 

a          prohibiting the mining of coal or other minerals, production of petroleum, or winning or obtaining of extractive materials, or

b          restricting the potential development of resources of coal, other minerals, petroleum or extractive materials which are of State or regional significance by permitting a land use that is likely to be incompatible with such development.

 

In the preparation of a planning proposal affected by this direction, the council shall:

 

a        consult the Director-General of the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) to identify any:

i         resources of coal, other minerals, petroleum or extractive material that are of either State or regional significance, and

ii        existing mines, petroleum production operations or extractive industries occurring in the area subject to the planning proposal, and

b          seek advice from the Director-General of DPI on the development potential of resources identified under (4)(a)(i), and

c          identify and take into consideration issues likely to lead to land use conflict between other land uses and:

i         development of resources identified under (4)(a)(i), or

ii        existing development identified under (4)(a)(ii).

 

The amendments within this planning proposal are consistent with the requirements of this direction.

 

Direction 1.5         Rural Lands

 

The objectives of this direction are to:

 

a        protect the agricultural production value of rural land,

b        facilitate the orderly and economic development of rural lands for rural and related purposes.

 

This direction applies when:

 

a          a council prepares a planning proposal that affects land within an existing or proposed rural or environment protection zone (including the alteration of any existing rural or environment protection zone boundary) or

b          a council prepares a planning proposal that changes the existing minimum lot size on land within a rural or environment protection zone.

 

What a council must do if this direction applies

 

a          A planning proposal to which clauses 3(a) or 3(b) apply must be consistent with the Rural Planning Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008.

b          A planning proposal to which clause 3(b) applies must be consistent with the Rural Subdivision Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008.

 

The amendment is consistent with this direction – see Direction 1.2 above.

 

 

2       Environment and Heritage

 

Direction 2.1         Environment Protection Zones

 

The objective of this direction is to protect and conserve environmentally sensitive areas.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a planning proposal.

 

What a council must do if this direction applies:

 

a          A planning proposal shall include provisions that facilitate the protection and conservation of environmentally sensitive areas.

b          A planning proposal that applies to land within an environment protection zone or land otherwise identified for environment protection purposes in a LEP shall not reduce the environmental protection standards that apply to the land (including by modifying development standards that apply to the land). This requirement does not apply to a change to a development standard for minimum lot size for a dwelling in accordance with clause (5) of Direction 1.5 “Rural Lands”.

 

The amendments within this planning proposal are consistent with the requirements of this direction as some of the housekeeping and policy amendments to be implemented relate to land in environment protection zones.

 

Direction 2.2         Coastal Protection

 

The objective of this direction is to implement the principles in the NSW Coastal Policy.

 

This direction applies to the coastal zone, as defined in the Coastal Protection Act 1979.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a planning proposal that applies to land in the coastal zone.

 

A planning proposal shall include provisions that give effect to and are consistent with:

 

a        the NSW Coastal Policy: A Sustainable Future for the New South Wales Coast 1997, and

b        the Coastal Design Guidelines 2003, and

c          the manual relating to the management of the coastline for the purposes of section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993 (the NSW Coastline Management Manual 1990).

 

The amendments within this planning proposal are consistent with the requirements of this direction. The NLEP2010 contains provisions which address Coastal Development.

 

Direction 2.3         Heritage Conservation

 

The objective of this direction is to conserve items, areas, objects and places of environmental heritage significance and indigenous heritage significance.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a planning proposal.

 

A planning proposal shall contain provisions that facilitate the conservation of:

 

a          items, places, buildings, works, relics, moveable objects or precincts of environmental heritage significance to an area, in relation to the historical, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic value of the item, area, object or place, identified in a study of the environmental heritage of the area,

b          Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places that are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, and

c          Aboriginal areas, Aboriginal objects, Aboriginal places or landscapes identified by an Aboriginal heritage survey prepared by or on behalf of an Aboriginal Land Council, Aboriginal body or public authority and provided to the council, which identifies the area, object, place or landscape as being of heritage significance to Aboriginal culture and people.

 

The amendments within this planning proposal are consistent with the requirements of this direction, particularly the proposed listing of the Macksville Post Office. The NLEP2010 contains provisions to address Heritage Areas and Items.

 

 

3       Housing, Infrastructure and Urban Development

 

Direction 3.1         Residential Zones

 

The objectives of this direction are:

 

a          to encourage a variety and choice of housing types to provide for existing and future housing needs,

b          to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services and ensure that new housing has appropriate access to infrastructure and services, and

c        to minimise the impact of residential development on the environment and resource lands.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a planning proposal that affects land within:

 

a          an existing or proposed residential zone (including the alteration of any existing residential zone boundary),

b          any other zone in which significant residential development is permitted or proposed to be permitted.

 

A planning proposal shall include provisions that encourage the provision of housing that will:

 

a        broaden the choice of building types and locations available in the housing market, and

b        make more efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, and

c          reduce the consumption of land for housing and associated urban development on the urban fringe, and

d        be of good design.

 

A planning proposal shall, in relation to land to which this direction applies:

 

a          contain a requirement that residential development is not permitted until land is adequately serviced (or arrangements satisfactory to the council, or other appropriate authority, have been made to service it), and

b        not contain provisions which will reduce the permissible residential density of land.

 

The amendments within this planning proposal are consistent with the requirements of this direction. Amendments under this proposal are proposed to implement housekeeping and policy amendments with residential zoned land in a number of areas.

Direction 3.4         Integrated Land Use and Transport

 

The objective of this direction is to ensure that urban structures, building forms, land use locations, development designs, subdivision and street layouts achieve the following planning objectives:

 

a        improving access to housing, jobs and services by walking, cycling and public transport, and

b        increasing the choice of available transport and reducing dependence on cars, and

c          reducing travel demand including the number of trips generated by development and the distances travelled, especially by car, and

d        supporting the efficient and viable operation of public transport services, and

e        providing for the efficient movement of freight.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a planning proposal that creates, alters or removes a zone or a provision relating to urban land, including land zoned for residential, business, industrial, village or tourist purposes.

 

A planning proposal shall locate zones for urban purposes and include provisions that give effect to and are consistent with the aims, objectives and principles of:

 

a        Improving Transport Choice – Guidelines for planning and development (DUAP 2001), and

b        The Right Place for Business and Services – Planning Policy (DUAP 2001).

 

The proposal does not propose to rezone areas rather it is implementing housekeeping and policy amendments. The additional of vehicle sales and hire premises to the IN1 zone is considered to be of minor significance.

 

 

4       Hazard and Risk

 

Direction 4.1         Acid Sulfate Soils

 

The objective of this direction is to avoid significant adverse environmental impacts from the use of land that has a probability of containing acid sulfate soils.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a planning proposal that will apply to land having a probability of containing acid sulfate soils as shown on the Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Maps.

 

Council shall consider the Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Guidelines adopted by the Director-General of the Department of Planning when preparing a planning proposal that applies to any land identified on the Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Maps as having a probability of acid sulfate soils being present.

 

 

When a council is preparing a planning proposal to introduce provisions to regulate works in acid sulfate soils, those provisions shall be consistent with:

 

a          the Acid Sulfate Soils Model LEP in the Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Guidelines adopted by the Director-General, or

b          such other provisions provided by the Director-General of the Department of Planning that are consistent with the Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Guidelines.

 

A council shall not prepare a planning proposal that proposes an intensification of land uses on land identified as having a probability of containing acid sulfate soils on the Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Maps unless the council has considered an acid sulfate soils study assessing the appropriateness of the change of land use given the presence of acid sulfate soils. Council shall provide a copy of any such study with its statement to the Director-General of the Department of Planning under section 64 of the EP&A Act.

 

Where provisions referred to under paragraph (5) of this direction have not been introduced and council is preparing a planning proposal that proposes an intensification of land uses on land identified as having a probability of acid sulfate soils on the Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Maps, the planning proposal must contain provisions consistent with paragraph (5).

 

The following properties are indicated as being impacted by acid sulphate soils:

 

Thistle Park, Dudley Street, Macksville (Lot 12 Sec A DP 11590; Lot 1 DP 122896; Lot 1 DP 122897; Lot 1 DP 122898; Lot 7 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 6 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 5 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 4 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 1 DP 729696) – Classes 3 and 4

 

5 Beer Parade, Nambucca Heads, Lot 1 DP 541043 and Lot 9 Sec 27 DP 758749 – Class 5

 

Macksville Post Office, Cnr Cooper and River Streets, Macksville, Lot 1 DP 816339 – Classes 3 and 4

 

2 Fred Brain Avenue, Nambucca Heads, Lot 21 DP 1161807 – Class 4

 

24 Bellevue Drive & 10 McLennans Lane, North Macksville, Lot 5 DP 242819, Lot 9 DP 534177, Lot B DP 955417, Lot 1 DP 558086, Lot 1 DP 1063510 & Lot 412 DP 625737 – Classes 5, 3 and 2

 

Boronia Street, Nambucca Heads, Lot 701 DP 1054525 – Class 5

 

31 Tuna Street, Valla Beach, Lot 157 DP 755560 – Class 5

 

The amendments within this planning proposal are consistent with this direction and will result in better environmental protection with regard to acid sulphate soils.

 

Direction 4.3         Flood Prone Land

 

The objectives of this direction are:

 

a          to ensure that development of flood prone land is consistent with the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy and the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005, and

b          to ensure that the provisions of an LEP on flood prone land is commensurate with flood hazard and includes consideration of the potential flood impacts both on and off the subject land.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a planning proposal that creates, removes or alters a zone or a provision that affects flood prone land.

 

A planning proposal shall include provisions that give effect to and are consistent with the NSW Flood Prone Land Policy and the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005 (including the Guideline on Development Controls on Low Flood Risk Areas).

 

A planning proposal shall not rezone land within the flood planning areas from Special Use, Special Purpose, Recreation, Rural or Environmental Protection Zones to a Residential, Business, Industrial, Special Use or Special Purpose Zone.

 

A planning proposal shall not contain provisions that apply to the flood planning areas which:

 

a        permit development in floodway areas,

b        permit development that will result in significant flood impacts to other properties,

c        permit a significant increase in the development of that land,

d          are likely to result in a substantially increased requirement for government spending on flood mitigation measures, infrastructure or services, or

e          permit development to be carried out without development consent except for the purposes of agriculture (not including dams, drainage canals, levees, buildings or structures in floodways or high hazard areas), roads or exempt development.

 

A planning proposal must not impose flood related development controls above the residential flood planning level for residential development on land, unless a council provides adequate justification for those controls to the satisfaction of the Director-General (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General).

 

For the purposes of a planning proposal, a council must not determine a flood planning level that is inconsistent with the Floodplain Development Manual 2005 (including the Guideline on Development Controls on Low Flood Risk Areas) unless a council provides adequate justification for the proposed departure from that Manual to the satisfaction of the Director-General (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General).

 

The following lots are indicated as being flood-prone land:

 

Thistle Park, Dudley Street, Macksville (Lot 12 Sec A DP 11590; Lot 1 DP 122896; Lot 1 DP 122897; Lot 1 DP 122898; Lot 7 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 6 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 5 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 4 Sec D DP 11590; Lot 1 DP 729696)

 

5 Beer Parade, Nambucca Heads, Lot 1 DP 541043 and Lot 9 Sec 27 DP 758749

 

Macksville Post Office, Cnr Cooper and River Streets, Macksville, Lot 1 DP 816339

 

24 Bellevue Drive & 10 McLennans Lane, North Macksville, Lot 5 DP 242819, Lot 9 DP 534177, Lot B DP 955417, Lot 1 DP 558086, Lot 1 DP 1063510 & Lot 412 DP 625737

 

31 Tuna Street, Valla Beach, Lot 157 DP 755560

 

The planning proposal is consistent with this direction. The NLEP2010 contains provisions that address flooding.

 

Direction 4.4         Planning for Bushfire Protection

 

The objectives of this direction are:

 

a          to protect life, property and the environment from bush fire hazards, by discouraging the establishment of incompatible land uses in bush fire prone areas, and

b        to encourage sound management of bush fire prone areas.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a planning proposal that affects, or is in proximity to land mapped as bushfire prone land.

 

In the preparation of a planning proposal a Council shall consult with the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service under section 62 of the EP&A Act, and take into account any comments so made.

 

A planning proposal shall:

 

a        have regard to Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006,

b        introduce controls that avoid placing inappropriate developments in hazardous areas, and

c        ensure that bushfire hazard reduction is not prohibited within the APZ.

 

A planning proposal shall, where development is proposed, comply with the following provisions, as appropriate:

 

a        provide an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) incorporating at a minimum:

i         an Inner Protection Area bounded by a perimeter road or reserve which circumscribes the hazard side of the land intended for development and has a building line consistent with the incorporation of an APZ, within the property, and

ii        an Outer Protection Area managed for hazard reduction and located on the bushland side of the perimeter road,

b          for infill development (that is development within an already subdivided area), where an appropriate APZ cannot be achieved, provide for an appropriate performance standard, in consultation with the NSW Rural Fire Service. If the provisions of the planning proposal permit Special Fire Protection Purposes (as defined under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997), the APZ provisions must be complied with,

c          contain provisions for two-way access roads which links to perimeter roads and/or to fire trail networks,

d        contain provisions for adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes,

e        minimise the perimeter of the area of land interfacing the hazard which may be developed,

f        introduce controls on the placement of combustible materials in the Inner Protection Area.

 

The following lots are indicated as being bushfire-prone:

 

24 Bellevue Drive & 10 McLennans Lane, North Macksville, Lot 5 DP 242819, Lot 9 DP 534177, Lot B DP 955417, Lot 1 DP 558086, Lot 1 DP 1063510 & Lot 412 DP 625737

 

Boronia Street, Nambucca Heads, Lot 701 DP 1054525

 

Loftus Street, Nambucca Heads, Lot 470 DP 755550

 

Upper Buckrabendinni Road, Buckra Bendinni, Lot 1 DP 560614

 

31 Tuna Street, Valla Beach, Lot 157 DP 755560

 

The planning proposal is consistent with this direction.

 

 

5       Regional Planning

 

Direction 5.1         Implementation of Regional Strategies

 

The objective of this direction is to give legal effect to the vision, land use strategy, policies, outcomes and actions contained in regional strategies.

 

This direction applies to land to which the following regional strategies apply:

(a) Far North Coast Regional Strategy

(b) Lower Hunter Regional Strategy

(c) Illawarra Regional Strategy

(d) South Coast Regional Strategy

(e) Sydney–Canberra Corridor Regional Strategy

(f) Central Coast Regional Strategy, and

(g) Mid North Coast Regional Strategy

 

This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal.

 

Planning proposals must be consistent with a regional strategy released by the Minister for Planning.

 

A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General), that the extent of inconsistency with the regional strategy:

(a) is of minor significance, and

(b) the planning proposal achieves the overall intent of the regional strategy and does not undermine the achievement of its vision, land use strategy, policies, outcomes or actions.

 

The planning proposal is consistent with this direction.

 

Direction 5.4         Commercial and Retail Development along the Pacific Highway, North Coast

 

The objectives for managing commercial and retail development along the Pacific Highway are:

(a) to protect the Pacific Highway’s function, that is to operate as the North Coast’s primary inter- and intra-regional road traffic route;

(b) to prevent inappropriate development fronting the highway;

(c) to protect public expenditure invested in the Pacific Highway;

(d) to protect and improve highway safety and highway efficiency;

(e) to provide for the food, vehicle service and rest needs of travellers on the highway; and

(f) to reinforce the role of retail and commercial development in town centres, where they can best serve the populations of the towns.

 

This Direction applies to those council areas on the North Coast that the Pacific Highway traverses, being those council areas between Port Stephens Shire Council and Tweed Shire Council, inclusive.

 

This Direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal for land in the vicinity of the existing and/or proposed alignment of the Pacific Highway.

 

A planning proposal that applies to land located on “within town” segments of the Pacific Highway must provide that:

(a) new commercial or retail development must be concentrated within distinct centres rather than spread along the highway;

(b) development with frontage to the Pacific Highway must consider impact the development has on the safety and efficiency of the highway; and

(c) for the purposes of this paragraph, “within town” means areas which, prior to the draft local environmental plan, have an urban zone (eg: “village”, “residential”, “tourist”, “commercial”, “industrial”, etc) and where the Pacific Highway speed limit is less than 80km/hour.

 

A planning proposal that applies to land located on “out-of-town” segments of the Pacific Highway must provide that:

(a) new commercial or retail development must not be established near the Pacific Highway if this proximity would be inconsistent with the objectives of this Direction;

(b) development with frontage to the Pacific Highway must consider the impact the development has on the safety and efficiency of the highway; and

(c) for the purposes of this paragraph, “out-of-town” means areas which, prior to the draft local environmental plan, do not have an urban zone (eg: “village”, “residential”, “tourist”, “commercial”, “industrial”, etc) or are in areas where the Pacific Highway speed limit is 80km/hour or greater.

 

Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (4) and (5), the establishment of highway service centres may be permitted at the localities listed in Table 1, provided that Roads and Maritime Services is satisfied that the highway service centre(s) can be safely and efficiently integrated into the Highway interchange(s) at those localities. For the purposes of this paragraph, a highway service centre has the same meaning as is contained in the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006.

 

A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this Direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Secretary) that the provisions of the planning proposal that are inconsistent are of minor significance.

 

The planning proposal is consistent with this direction.

 

 

6       Local Plan Making

 

Direction 6.1         Approval and Referral Requirements

 

The objective of this direction is to ensure that LEP provisions encourage the efficient and appropriate assessment of development.

 

A planning proposal shall:

 

a          minimise the inclusion of provisions that require the concurrence, consultation or referral of development applications to a Minister or public authority, and

b          not contain provisions requiring concurrence, consultation or referral of a Minister or public authority unless the council has obtained the approval of:

i         the appropriate Minister or public authority, and

ii        the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General),

prior to a certificate under section 65 of the Act being issued, and

c        not identify development as designated development unless the council:

i         can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that the class of development is likely to have a significant impact on the environment, and

ii        has obtained the approval of the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) prior to a certificate being issued under section 65 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

This Planning Proposal does not require the implementation of any concurrence provisions. The planning proposal is consistent with this direction.

 

Direction 6.2         Reserving Land for Public Purposes

 

The objectives of this direction are:

 

a        to facilitate the provision of public services and facilities by reserving land for public purposes, and

b          to facilitate the removal of reservations of land for public purposes where the land is no longer required for acquisition.

 

A planning proposal shall not create, alter or reduce existing zonings or reservations of land for public purposes without the approval of the relevant public authority and the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General).

 

When a Minister or public authority requests a council to reserve land for a public purpose in a planning proposal and the land would be required to be acquired under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, the council shall:

 

a        reserve the land in accordance with the request, and

b          include the land in a zone appropriate to its intended future use or a zone advised by the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General), and

c        identify the relevant acquiring authority for the land.

 

When a Minister or public authority requests a council to include provisions in a planning proposal relating to the use of any land reserved for a public purpose before that land is acquired, the council shall:

 

a        include the requested provisions, or

b          take such other action as advised by the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) with respect to the use of the land before it is acquired.

 

When a Minister or public authority requests a council to include provisions in a planning proposal to rezone and/or remove a reservation of any land that is reserved for public purposes because the land is no longer designated by that public authority for acquisition, the council shall rezone and/or remove the relevant reservation in accordance with the request.

 

A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if council can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that:

 

a          with respect to a request referred to in paragraph (7), that further information is required before appropriate planning controls for the land can be determined, or

b          the provisions of the planning proposal that are inconsistent with the terms of this direction are of minor significance.

 

This Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction

 

Direction 6.3         Site Specific Provisions

 

The objective of this direction is to discourage unnecessarily restrictive site specific planning controls.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a planning proposal to allow a particular development to be carried out.

 

A planning proposal that amends another environmental planning instrument in order to allow a particular development proposal to be carried out shall either:

 

a        allow that land use to be carried out in the zone the land is situated on, or

b          rezone the site to an existing zone already applying in the environmental planning instrument that allows that land use without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in that zone, or

c          allow that land use on the relevant land without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in the principal environmental planning instrument being amended.

 

A planning proposal shall not contain or refer to drawings that show details of the development proposal.

 

The planning proposal is consistent with this direction.

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Nambucca LEP Amendment No 21 - Housekeeping and Other Policy Amendments

 

Appendix 3 - Maps

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 January 2017 Nambucca LEP Amendment No 21 - Housekeeping and Other Policy Amendments