NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

General Purpose Committee - 16 February 2011

 

AGENDA                                                                                                   Page

 

1        APOLOGIES

2        DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

3        DELEGATIONS—Motion to hear Delegations

Nambucca Valley Landcare

Ms Joy van Son on behalf of NVL Project Officer

4        General Manager Report

8.1     Presentation to Council by Mr Richard Holloway, Regional Arts Development Officer, Arts Mid North Coast Inc.

8.2     Scotts Head Reserve and Caravan Park

8.3     Progress of Promoting Social Inclusion though Sport Programs

5        Director Environment and Planning Report

9.1     Presentation - Indian Myna Control Project - Mid North Coast

9.2     Report submitted for determination of Application for Dwelling - 9 Allison Road, Hyland Park

9.3     Draft Library Agreement for Clarence Regional Library  

6        Director Engineering Services Report

10.1   Tree Removal/Prunning Application - 8 Hibiscus Drive, Valla Beach

10.2   Review of Landslip Remediation Proposals - Nambucca Heads

 

Time

Description

Where

OS/CC

Item No

Page No

8.30 am

Meet new staff member – Kate Wickman, Projects Officer for Drink Don’t Sink Program

CC

 

 

8.35 – 8.35

Progress of Promoting Social Inclusion through Sport Program - Allan Turner, Richie Donovan, Mark Werner, Ralph Johnson

CC

8.3

25

9.00  – 9.15

Presentation to Council by Richard Holloway - Regional Arts Development Officer, Arts Mid North Coast

CC

8.1

4

9.15 - 10.30

Scotts Head Reserve & Caravan Park

CC

8.2

7

10.00 – 10.15

Morning Tea

CC

 

 

10.15 – 10.45

Draft Library Agreement for Clarence Regional Library

 

9.3

49

10.45 - 11.00

Presentation - Indian Myna Control Project - Mid North Coast

CC

9.1

26

11.15 - 12.00

Review of Landslip Remediation Proposals – Nambucca Heads

O/S

10.2

58

12.00 noon

Lunch

VWall

 

 

1.15 – 1.45

Report submitted for determination - 9 Allison Road Hyland Park DA

O/S

9.2

29

2.00 – 2.30

Tree Removal/Pruning application - 8 Hibiscus Drive Valla Beach

O/S

10.1

52

 

 

 


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

          (name)

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Council’s Facsimile Number – (02) 6568 2201

 

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

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

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

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

         


General Purpose Committee

16 February 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.1      SF775              160211         Presentation to Council by Mr Richard Holloway, Regional Arts Development Officer, Arts Mid North Coast Inc.

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

Mr Richard Holloway, Regional Arts Development Officer of Arts Mid North Coast Inc. has been invited to address Council at the General Purpose Committee meeting on 16 February 2011.

 

He will inform Council about their activities in 2010 and plans for 2011.

 

Mr Holloway also advises that Council’s annual financial contribution will be held at the same figure as 2010, being $4,838.15 plus GST.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council note the presentation by Mr Richard Holloway on the activities of Arts Mid North Coast and their plans for 2011.

 

2        That Council make provision in its 2011/2012 budget for a contribution of $4,838.15 to Arts Mid North Coast Inc.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no real options.  Mr Holloway’s request to address the General Purpose Committee has been approved.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received the letter (below) from Mr Richard Holloway, Regional Arts Development Officer.

 

Mr Holloway makes an annual presentation to Council on the activities of Arts Mid North Coast and their plans for 2011.  He will be making his presentation to this General Purpose Committee meeting.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with Mr Holloway in relation to his availability to address this meeting.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

Arts Mid North Coast Inc. is the lead agency on the Mid North Coast concerned with the development of the Arts

 


Economic

 

There are no economic implications arising out of the presentation.

 

Risk

 

There are no risks as a consequence of the presentation.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The letter from Mr Holloway advises that Council’s financial contribution to Arts Mid North Coast for 2011 has not been increased over last year’s contribution and remains at $4,838.15 plus GST.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.


 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


General Purpose Committee

16 February 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.2      SF382              160211         Scotts Head Reserve and Caravan Park

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

At Council’s meeting on 18 November 2010 further options were put forward for the Scotts Head Reserve and Caravan Park in response to the proposed Master Plan.  The Land and Property Management Authority have now advised that they do not support the options.

 

There are only 3 options available to Council for the Scotts Head Reserve and Caravan Park .  These are:

 

A.                   Terminate the use of Council’s land by the “semi-permanent” caravan owners and restore the                  7,378 m2 site to parkland.

 

B.                   Negotiate directly with the Scotts Head Reserve Trust (Administrator Mr Geoff Firkin) for a           new lease for the 7,378 m2 site.

 

C.                   Implement the Master Plan as exhibited (Option A) and accept responsibility for the                management of the balance of the reserve (not including the caravan park) subject to                adequate compensation.

 

Should Council wish to proceed with implementing the Master Plan and accepting responsibility for the Reserve (Option C) it needs to put forward a financial proposal to the Land and Property Management Authority.  The recommended financial proposal is as follows:

 

1.   Compensation for the management of the Scotts Head Reserve (excluding the caravan park) of $103,637 per annum CPI indexed plus

 

2.   Rental for use of Council land for the caravan park for a 21 year lease being:

 

                   Year 1          (2011/12)      $17,500 (+CPI)

                   Year 2          (2012/13)      $25,625 (+CPI)

                   Year 3          (2013/14)      $33,750 (+CPI)

                   Year 4          (2014/15)      $41,875 (+CPI)

             Year 5          (2015/16)      $50,000 (+CPI) plus

 

3.   Payment of general rates and charges.  In 2010/11 general rates on the caravan park were $15,535.83.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council decide on its preferred option for the Scotts Head Reserve and Caravan Park being Option A, Option B or Option C.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council has previously considered many options in relation to the future of the Scotts Head Reserve and Caravan Park, however except for option A. below, all require the agreement of the Land and Property Management Authority or Scotts Head Reserve Trust.  Beside option A, options B & C are the only options which the Land and Property Management Authority will consider.

 

A.                   Terminate the use of Council’s land by the “semi-permanent” caravan owners and restore the              7,378 m2 site to parkland.

 

B.                   Negotiate directly with the Scotts Head Reserve Trust (Administrator Mr Geoff Firkin) for a              new lease for the existing 7,378 m2 site.

 

C.                   Implement the Master Plan as exhibited (Option A) and accept responsibility for the                 management of the balance of the reserve (not including the caravan park).

 

             It is suggested that Option C be subject to the following financial terms:

 

                       Compensation for the management of the Scotts Head Reserve (excluding the                              caravan park) of $103,637 per annum CPI indexed plus

 

                       Rental for use of Council land for the caravan park for a 21 year lease being:

 

                                      Year 1          (2011/12)      $17,500 (+CPI)

                                      Year 2          (2012/13)      $25,625 (+CPI)

                                      Year 3          (2013/14)      $33,750 (+CPI)

                                      Year 4          (2014/15)      $41,875 (+CPI)

                                Year 5          (2015/16)      $50,000 (+CPI) plus

 

                       Payment of general rates and charges.  In 2010/11 general rates on the caravan park                     were $15,535.83.

 

Council needs to decide on one of these 3 options.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

At Council’s meeting 18 November 2010 it was resolved that:

 

“1a     Council approach the Land and Property Management Authority with a proposed change to the       Master Plan being a reconfiguration of caravan sites on Council land as shown on the sketch plan   (that indicates 23 spaces) submitted to the meeting.

 

1b      Should recommendation 1a be agreed to by Council, the reconfigured plan be discussed with the   Land and Property Management Authority at a General Purpose Committee meeting.

 

2        That a draft plan of management to re-categorise the Adin Street reserve as “Community Land       General Community Use” be prepared and be placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of   42 days.

 

3        That Council staff provide a report on possible costs and revenue as per paragraph 8.2 and 10.1 of          the Memorandum of Understanding.

 

4        That in any negotiation with the Land and Property Management Authority, Council make clear that          accepting responsibility for the maintenance and any capital upgrading of the day reserve and    foreshore area will be conditional on there being no net cost to Council.”

 

The option referred to in resolution 1a was put to the Land and Property Management Authority (LPMA) along with other alternative layouts submitted by Cr Court and Mr John Craven.  The Mayor and General Manager met with Land and Property Management Authority staff on 13 January to discuss the alternative plans which are attached (Cr Ainsworth & Cr Court) and circularised (Mr John Craven - 29440/2010).  The Authority has now formalised their response in the attached letter.  In summary the LPMA believe the suggested alternatives are inferior to the advertised Master Plan for the following reasons:

 

·      Loss of the “Town Green” concept centrally located opposite the commercial precinct and contiguous with (the) day-use area

·      Local flooding of sites adjoining (the) existing stormwater channel – no recognition of (the) need for (the) retention system to address water quality and discharge rates

·      Site numbers providing yield on investment to contribute to (the) long term sustainable public benefit.

 

The LPMA advises that should Council wish to pursue alternate redevelopment of the Adin Street Reserve currently occupied by the holiday vans, then direct negotiation with the Reserve Trust Manager (Administrator) would be required to establish terms and conditions of any proposed lease offer from Council.

 

The purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) entered into in February 2007 was to, “establish a cooperative liaison between the NSW Department of Lands and Nambucca Shire Council:

 

·      to develop a partnership between Lands and Council for the caravan park utilising Crown land and Council community land (vide management zone C1),

·      for Council management of the day use area (vide management zone C2), and the balance of the reserve (vide management zones A, B, D, E, F, G).

·      to define the boundaries between the management zones.”

 

Clause 8.2 of the MoU provided for a revenue percentage split to be determined as follows:

 

(Dept. of) Lands = Area of Crown Land in the Active Recreation Area x 100/Total Active Recreation Area

Council = Area controlled by Council in the Active Recreation Area x 100/Total Active Recreation Area

 

Clause 10.1 of the MoU provided that, “where the parties agree to develop the Active Recreation Area jointly, using any management model, funding for the development and revenue received will be based on the cost/revenue percentage split defined in 8.2”.

 

The MoU defined the active recreation area as the existing caravan park plus the day use area, but not the balance of the extensive foreshore reserve.  It proposed a proportional arrangement for financing the redevelopment of the caravan park and maintaining the day use area which is beyond Council’s means.

 

The LPMA staff have not insisted that all changes to the Scotts Head Reserve and Caravan Park proceed only in accordance with the provisions of the MoU.  However they have been consistent in terms of the expressed purpose of the MoU, which was to develop a partnership for the caravan park utilising Crown Land and Council community land and secondly for Council management of the day use area and the balance of the reserve.  The LPMA staff acknowledge that for Council to be responsible for the day use area and for the balance of the reserve, that adequate compensation would be required for this additional expense. 

 

The cost of maintaining the Scotts Head Reserve was investigated by Council’s Director Engineering Services in November 2005.  The cost breakdown is shown in the attachment.  From the figures, the total estimated cost of maintaining the Scotts Head Reserve (excluding the caravan park) is $103,637 per annum.

 

The Scotts Head Reserve Trust was requested to provide their estimate for maintaining the reserve and has advised as follows:

 

“Michael

 

As discussed it is difficult to place an accurate figure on the costs to maintain the public open space areas of Scotts Head Reserve due to,

1.   There is a single contract for management of the holiday park and reserve with no dissection of costs between the areas

2.   Costs associated with services including electricity, water, garbage and gas are not apportioned between the areas.

 

Noting these constraints it is estimated that the following costs are incurred,

 

Labour costs day use area - $12,000 p.a.

Rec Hut Maintenance - $5,000 p.a.

Playground Maintenance - $5,000 p.a.

Reserve Maintenance (excluding bush regeneration) – including tree maintenance, gas, electricity, water, garbage - $25,000

Bush regeneration - $27,500

 

Geoff Firkin”

 

Therefore the Reserve Trust’s estimate for maintaining the public open space areas of the Scotts Head Reserve is $74,500 per annum.

 

As a consequence of the discussions and correspondence with the Land and Property Management Authority and previous resolutions not to manage the semi-permanent area as a separate caravan park, there are now three options available to Council.  They are:

 

A.                   Terminate the use of Council’s land by the “semi-permanent” caravan owners and restore the              7,378 m2 site to parkland.

 

B.                   Negotiate directly with the Scotts Head Reserve Trust (Administrator Mr Geoff Firkin) for a              new lease for the 7,378 m2 site.

 

C.                   Implement the Master Plan as exhibited (Option A) and accept responsibility for the                 management of the balance of the reserve (not including the caravan park) subject to                     adequate compensation.

 

The perceived advantages and disadvantages of each option are listed in the following tables.  The Master Plan has an extensive analysis of the area and a detailed rationale for its recommendations.

 

 

A.  Terminate use of Council’s land by the “semi-permanent” caravans and restore site as parkland

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Additional foreshore parkland (7,378 m2)

·  Loss of economic benefit provided by 41 caravan sites and implications for local businesses

·  Loss of annual rental income which is currently $16,262

·  Additional maintenance expense for parkland

·  Council may be required to serve notice on the 41 site holders and secure vacant possession

 

 

B.  Negotiate directly with Reserve Trust Administrator for a new lease of Council’s land

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Maintains economic benefit of approx. 25 caravan sites (reduced from 41 to comply with fire separation requirements)

·  Less economic benefit than Master Plan which provides for 37 sites on the Adin Street Reserve

· On-going rental income (yet to be determined)

· Reconfiguration of existing leased area may require major expenditure in relocating and replacing water, sewerage and electrical services.

·  Rental income may be reduced as a consequence of reduction in number of sites and capital expenditure

 

 


C.  Implement Master Plan as exhibited and accept responsibility for management of the Scotts Head Reserve (excluding the Caravan Park)

 

·

·

·

· 

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Maximises economic benefit with area of caravan park and number of sites being approximately maintained plus $3m investment in its redevelopment.

·  Risk that compensation for maintenance of Reserve proves inadequate

· On-going rental income (yet to be determined)

· $200,000 provided for drainage work.  The attached letter from the Bowling & Rec Club is an example of the problem.
· $80,000 provided for parking in Adin Street and refurbishment of new “village green”
· Will clarify confusion over respective responsibilities of the Reserve Trust and Council.  As an example refer to the attached letter from Mr Andrew Stoner MP.
 

Should Council wish to proceed with implementing the Master Plan and accepting responsibility for the Reserve (Option C) it needs to put forward a financial proposal to the Land and Property Management Authority.  The recommended financial proposal is as follows:

 

4.   Compensation for the management of the Scotts Head Reserve (excluding the caravan park) of $103,637 per annum CPI indexed plus

 

5.   Rental for use of Council land for the caravan park for a 21 year lease being:

 

                   Year 1          (2011/12)      $17,500 (+CPI)

                   Year 2          (2012/13)      $25,625 (+CPI)

                   Year 3          (2013/14)      $33,750 (+CPI)

                   Year 4          (2014/15)      $41,875 (+CPI)

             Year 5          (2015/16)      $50,000 (+CPI) plus

 

6.   Payment of general rates and charges.  In 2010/11 general rates on the caravan park were $15,535.83.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Land and Property Management Authority

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no significant implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

In response to the exhibition of the draft Master Plan, 85 separate issues were identified in the public submissions.  Of these 85 separate issues, the 14 issues which received the most comment are listed in the following table together with a rating of each option in terms of satisfying the expressed concern.


 

Issue

Options which most satisfy concern

A – Terminate “semi-permanents” & restore site as parkland

B – Negotiate new lease for “semi-permanents”

C – Implement Master Plan & accept responsibility for management of the Scotts Head Reserve

Support for increasing the day use area

C

More car parking

C

Support for the village green concept

C

Removal of long term casual occupants

A

Support for new entry into the caravan park

C

Keeping the open space on the Adin Street oval

A, B

Preference for camping sites to extra cabins

Nil

Losing sites will impact on other businesses

C

Don’t change zoning

A, B, C

Council to retain ownership of land

A, B, C

Upgrade stormwater

C

Allocate land for extra tennis courts

A, B, C

Retain trees and increase plantings

A, B, C

 

The Master Plan (Option C) and subsequent Council resolutions meet most, but not all of the issues raised, and is the best fit in terms of the expressed views.  It is acknowledged that the assessment is unweighted and that people may attach more weight to some issues than others.

 

Economic

 

The Master Plan (Option C) which approximately retains the existing caravan park site yield but also provides for a $3m redevelopment including expenditure on drainage and parking has the best economic outcome.

 

Risk

 

For Option A which is terminating use of Council’s land by the “semi-permanent” caravans and restoring the site as parkland there are no significant risks to Council.  It is known that Council will forgo rental income (currently $16,262 p.a.) and have an additional maintenance expense.  It is known that the economic benefit will be reduced and this will have a negative impact on businesses in Scotts Head.

 

For Options B and C there are risks in relation to the achievement of adequate rental income and compensation.  There are also risks in relation to obtaining approval for a new 21 year lease of Council land for the purpose of continuing the use of Council land for a caravan park.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

At this stage there is no budgetary impact.  However, should Option C be agreed to by Council and the LPMA, the proposed rent for Council land together with the payment of general rates would eventually amount to approximately $65,000 per annum which is equivalent to a 0.85% increase in general rates.  This does not include the proposed expenditure on drainage and parking which Council may otherwise have to provide funding for.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.


 

Attachments:

1View

28875/2010 - Alternate Master Plan submitted by Cr John Ainsworth

 

2View

28878/2010 - Alternate Master Plans submitted by Cr Janet Court

 

3View

2470/2011 - LPMA written advice

 

4View

2662/2011 - Scotts Head Reserve - Maintenance Schedule

 

5View

2394/2011 - Request for footpath and drainage work

 

6View

1648/2011 - Andrew Stoner's query

 

  


General Purpose Committee - 16 February 2011

Scotts Head Reserve and Caravan Park

 

 


General Purpose Committee - 16 February 2011

Scotts Head Reserve and Caravan Park

 



 

 


General Purpose Committee - 16 February 2011

Scotts Head Reserve and Caravan Park

 

 


General Purpose Committee - 16 February 2011

Scotts Head Reserve and Caravan Park

 

Scotts Head Reserve  –  Maintenance Schedule

 

Zone & Activity

Annual Cost 2005$

 

A.  Northern Sector

1.   Weed control

2.   Maintenance of access paths

3.   Assist dune care

 

 

1,500

500

500

2,500

 

B.  Caravan Park Frontage

1.   Weed control

2.   Maintenance of access paths

3.   Assist dune care

4.   Signs maintenance

5.   Litter collection (twice per week)

 

750

750

750

250

2,000

4,500

C.  Day Use Area

1.   Mowing and brush cutting (24x)

2.   Maintaining playground

3.   Maintenance of shade trees

4.   Maintenance of fencing

5.   Maintenance of shelters

6.   Maintenance of pavilion

7.   Painting (graffiti etc)

8.   Road maintenance

9.   Line marking

10.  Kerb and gutter repairs

11.  Sign maintenance

12.  Litter collection (6 times per week)

13.  BBQ cleaning (6 times per week)

14.  Sweeping (4 times)

15.  Assist dune care

16.  Gas BBQ

17.  Electricity to shelters and pavilion

18.  Public lighting

19.  Water supply

20.  Sewerage connection

21.  Change room cleaning (6 x week)

22.  Public toilet cleaning (6 x week)

23.  Insurance for buildings and playground

 

 

1,950

2,200

1,000

500

1,000

1,000

500

2,000

500

500

500

7,000

10,000

600

500

600

1,800

300

500

350

7,800

10,200

400

51,700

 

D.  Carpark & Headland

1.   Maintenance of road

2.   Maintenance of rock fence

3.   Maintenance of viewing platform

4.   Maintenance of headland path

5.   Maintenance of signposting

6.   Maintenance of boat ramp (currently Council)

7.   Weed control

8.   Assist dune care

9.   Litter collection (6 times per week)

 

 

1,500

500

1,000

500

500

Nil

300

400

4,000

8,700

 

E.  Ocean Street Frontage

1.   Mowing (14 x)

2.   Shelter maintenance

3.   Seat maintenance

4.   Fence maintenance

5.   Tree pruning

 

 

900

1,000

400

500

500

3,300

 

F.  Little Beach

1.   Weed control

2.   Maintenance of access path

3.   Assist dune care

4.   Litter collection (6 times per week)

 

500

750

500

3,000

4,750

 

 

G. Southern Sector

1.   Weed control

2.   Assist dune care

3.   Protection of Kangaroo Grass

4.   Security of Elephant Head access

5.   Drainage maintenance

6.   Control of residential encroachments (inspections)

7.   Waiki Kaiki rest area

 

1,000

1,000

750

1,000

1,000

100

400

5,250

 

Administration & Management

1.   Staff and contractor supervision

2.   Clerical administration/cost accounting

3.   Facility management

 

5,000

1,000

3,000

9,000

 

TOTAL IN 2005 $

89,700

 

TOTAL IN 2011 $ (174.0/150.6 x 89,700)

103,637

 

 

 


General Purpose Committee - 16 February 2011

Scotts Head Reserve and Caravan Park

 

 


General Purpose Committee - 16 February 2011

Scotts Head Reserve and Caravan Park

 


 


General Purpose Committee

16 February 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.3      SF1503            160211         Progress of Promoting Social Inclusion though Sport Programs

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the information concerning the Progress of Promoting Social Inclusion through Sport Program be received.

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

This Program has been underway for approximately twelve months.  Representatives of the Program will be in attendance to inform Council of its achievements over the past twelve months.  Funding has been obtained to extend the Program and there will also be a briefing on how it will be delivered. 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


General Purpose Committee

16 February 2011

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.1      SF787              160211         Presentation - Indian Myna Control Project - Mid North Coast

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Phillip Gall, Manager Health and Building         

 

Summary:

 

For the past two years Nambucca Shire Council has been a part of the Indian Myna Control Project – Mid North Coast, NSW Environmental Trust funded project along with Coffs Harbour City Council, Bellingen Shire Council, DECCW(NPWS), Bellinger Landcare, Coffs Harbour Regional Landcare and Nambucca Valley Landcare, all partners forming the steering committee. The committee employed a Project Officer for 3 days/week for the first year, then 2 days/week for the second year to coordinate the borrowing of traps, train volunteers (on-site and workshops), collect scientific data on the control of these pests, set up a website, set up and coordinate a network of champion volunteers, euthanase birds and liaise with others in NSW and Australia who are attempting to control Mynas.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the presentation by Ms Tien Pham (Indian Myna Project Officer, Nambucca Valley Landcare) on the Indian Myna Control Project – Mid North Coast.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no real options. Address to the General Purpose Committee has been approved.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Ms von Son advises that the project has been highly successful with a huge commitment from volunteers across the three Shires. It has been found that the community feels quite strongly about the impact these pest birds have on our local native species, native bird populations, schools, playing fields and farmers.

 

Ms Joy von Son, Nambucca Valley Landcare – Project Manager has requested time by the Project Officer to present the results of the Indian Myna Control Project – Mid North Coast which is drawing to a close on 30 April 2011.

 

The attached letter also outlines several options for ongoing funding of the program and wishes to present those options to Council for consideration in the upcoming 2011/2012 budget.

 

Risk

 

There are no risks as a consequence of the presentation.

 

Attachments:

1View

3324/2011 - Indian Myna control in the Nambucca Shire

 

  


General Purpose Committee - 16 February 2011

Presentation - Indian Myna Control Project - Mid North Coast

 

 

The General Manager

Nambucca Shire Council

PO Box 177

Macksville NSW 2447

 

Dear Mr. Coulter, Mr Meyers and Councillors,

 

Re:     INDIAN MYNA CONTROL PROJECT- MID NORTH COAST

 

For the past two years Nambucca Shire Council has been a part of the above NSW Environmental Trust funded project along with Coffs Harbour City Council, Bellingen Shire Council, DECCW(NPWS), Bellinger Landcare, Coffs Harbour Regional Landcare and Nambucca Valley Landcare, all partners forming the steering committee. The committee employed a project officer for 3 days/wk for the first year, then 2 days/wk for the second year to coordinate the borrowing of traps, train volunteers (on-site and workshops), collect scientific data on the control of these pests, set up a website, set up and coordinate a network of champion volunteers, euthanase birds and liase with others in NSW and Australia who are attempting to control mynas. (The introduced pest Indian Myna bird not to be confused with the native Noisy Miner)

 

This project will be drawing to a close on the 30th April 2011.  In 2010 the committee applied to NSW Environmental Trust for another 3 year extension to the project, to continue with the current Indian Myna Project Officer 2 days/wk for the next 3 years. This application was unsuccessful.

 

BACKGROUND

Large numbers of Indian Myna birds can have huge negative impacts on an area.

Crop farmers such as blueberry growers in the Coffs Harbour area have reported extensive damage to harvests. As a result these farmers are now actively involved in our trapping program. A representative from the Norco group of farmers has also implicated Indian mynas in the contamination of their milk products. Many other local businesses have been affected. During the project period, Indian myna incident reports have been received from poultry and livestock farmers, stud operators, nursery growers, as well as shop owners in town. Indian mynas nesting in roofs of houses often cause mite infestations in those homes. There are health problems around school grounds and sporting fields where their numbers are large, taking advantage of ‘free feed’.

 

Local Councils up and down the NSW coast are currently tackling this huge problem in various ways.

For example, Tweed Council employs an officer 4 days/wk to control 4 pest species, giving Indian Mynas 1 day/wk.

Clarence Council contracts an officer outside of Council and the position is managed by a community group. In recent years Hastings Council have been funding Hastings Landcare to carry out 1 day/wk control through their Environment Levy. Coffs Council’s Biodiversity officer Nigel Cotsell, has indicated they would be willing to finance Coffs Landcare to carry out IM control through their Community Action Grants. The problems caused by huge numbers now congregating in Tamworth and Armidale has been in the news lately.

 

The Indian Myna Control Project- Mid North Coast has been very successful in raising public awareness and community action for the control of Indian Myna infestations in the Coffs Harbour, Bellingen and Nambucca Local government areas. It has resulted in a significant number of Indian mynas being removed from these areas and a noticeable drop in density and distribution of this introduced pest at key locations. The gains are a direct result of the efforts of the current project officer and the commitment of a large number of local community volunteers.

Educational materials were produced and a large number distributed across the mid-north coast.

As at the end of 2010:-

 

1056 volunteers have been involved in this project, 

281 were trappers, while others carried out surveys, euthanased, built traps, or assisted others. 88 trappers in the Nambucca.

2117 Indian myna birds have been caught and euthanased. 587 in the Nambucca

752 volunteers have been trained.

21 community groups and 7 schools have been informed and trained.

 

There was a small commitment of funds to Indian Myna control from all three Councils prior to and during the Environmental Trust program. However experience has now shown that to make an impact on their numbers and to satisfy or adequately attend to the needs of our communities to control these birds, an employed person is required at least 2 days/week to service the three Shires.

 

ACTION

Nambucca Valley Landcare would like to work with Nambucca Shire Council to find a way to continue adequate Indian Myna control in the Nambucca Shire.

The gains achieved by the project and the raised community awareness cannot be sustained without a control officer. It is vital that mynas do not once again increase in numbers and expand their range either in to new areas or in previously cleared areas.

 

Nambucca Shire Council currently commits $1500/yr to Indian myna control in way of trap materials, gas bottles, photocopying etc, but does not contribute towards employment costs.

 

This letter is asking Nambucca Shire Council to consider the following options.

 

1.     Extend the Nambucca Shire’s ranger position from the current 3 days/wk to 4 days/wk so that the ranger can carry out Indian myna control as a part of his duties. From running the current Indian Myna Control program it is estimated that a minimum of 5 hrs/wk will be needed for the next 3 years just for the Nambucca to adequately service the community. (This would be the cheapest option costing approximately $6,500 for the 5 hrs for 1 year and the ranger could work on other Council matters if trapping reduces as bird numbers do. There is enough equipment to keep trapping so the current input of $1500 by NSC could form part of that cost.)

2.     Discuss options with Coffs Harbour and Bellingen Councils.  It may be possible to get 6 months worth of funding ($24,000 wages, inc. travel, for the three Shires, for 2 days/wk) from the “Our Living Coast Project” currently being run between the three Shires, with the other 6 months being covered by a contribution of $8000 from each Shire Council. If this funding became available this could be a temporary solution for the next financial year to give the 3 Councils time to instate a more permanent solution such as Option 1. Both Bellingen and Coffs Council’s Biodiversity Officers are in support of this approach, however it is unknown at this stage if there will be any money available at all from the “Our Living Coast Project”.  (Contact Phillip Gall for further information on this option). If none available other options between the 3 Councils could be explored.

3.     That Nambucca Shire Council contract a project officer to service the volunteers controlling Indian Mynas only in the Nambucca Shire, for 1 day/wk. The current Indian Myna Control Officer would be willing to take on the position bringing with her two years of experience.  This would cost around $15,000/yr. Nambucca Valley Landcare has been managing this Control Project for the past two years and would be happy to administer this position at no cost, on behalf of Council.

 

The employment of a Control Officer by any of the above methods will provide the drive and coordination required to ensure long-lasting community involvement in trapping, which will in turn control the otherwise growing number of Indian mynas. (Mynas are prolific breeders and can raise multiple clutches of 4-5 chicks per year).

 

The current project, which has been highly successful, is reaching a critical stage in the control of local populations of mynas and in raising community capacity to do so. These achievements and momentum will be lost if an officer does not continue with the coordination necessary to succeed within the Nambucca Shire.

 

The Indian Myna project officer will be giving an half hour power point presentation at Council’s next General Purpose Committee meeting on the 16th February, which will give further explanation and results & statistics of the project to date.

 

For more information visit the Indian myna website at www.indianmynaproject.com.au or contact

Phillip Gall (NSC) 65680222

Joy van Son (NVL) 65647838

Tien Pham (Indian Myna Control Officer) 0438 218 261

 

Yours sincerely,

Joy van Son

Manager-Indian Myna Control Project

Nambucca Valley Landcare

PO Box 239

Bowraville  NSW  2449

 

cc. Greg Meyers, Phillip Gall, Rhonda Hoban, Janet Court, Anne Smyth, Brian Finlayson, John Ainsworth, Paula Flack, Elaine South, Martin Ballangarry, Mike Moran

 

 


General Purpose Committee

16 February 2011

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.2      DA2010/283      160211         Report submitted for determination of Application for Dwelling - 9 Allison Road, Hyland Park

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Kyle Bates, Area Health & Building Surveyor         

 

Summary:

 

Applicant:                      Mr Kerry Riddell

 

Proposal:                       Dwelling-House

 

Property:                        Lot 30 DP 24431, 9 Allison Road, Hyland Park

 

Zoning:                           R1 General Residential

 

The above application is to erect a single storey dwelling house on the property at 9 Allison Road which fronts Deep Creek.

 

The allotment slopes significantly away from Allison Road towards Deep Creek and has a Council sewer main traversing the allotment approximately 20 metres from the front boundary.

 

The applicant proposes the dwelling to be built on the one level and has requested variations to Council’s Building in the Vicinity of Sewers Policy and development standards in the following areas:

 

·              Permission to build over sewer main,

·              Variation to building setback to front property boundary,

·              Height of the building at the rear over Council’s sewer main,

 

Council has received two (2) submissions from residents in Allison Road, being house numbers 7 & 5 relating to loss of views across the vacant property towards Deep Creek.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1          It is recommended that Development Application 2010/283 be supported and consent be granted subject to conditions of consent contained within the report.

 

2          That those persons making submissions to the application be notified of Council’s decision.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1          To approve the application subject to conditions.

 

2          Refuse the application.

 

3          Request the applicant to modify the design to comply with the design height of Councils LEP/DCP 2010 by stepping the building down the slope. This will impact on the clearance height over Council’s sewer main.

 

4          Require a modified design for the dwelling to be clear of Council’s sewer main.

 

5          Reposition the sewer main at the applicants cost through their property provided there is sufficient grade and fall in the main and redesign the dwelling to step down the slope of the land. (Note:  Further engineering design/investigation would be required to determine whether such works are possible.)

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The existing dwellings in Allison Road with frontages to Deep Creek are generally constructed with reduced building setbacks to the street to maximise the building envelope between the front boundary and the sewer main which cuts through the properties at varying distances from the front boundaries of each allotment.

 

The road pavement is constructed in the road reserve with a grass verge of varying distances to the properties boundaries along Allison Road. The kerb is approximately 6 metres from the front boundary of the subject property.

 

To accommodate the building design on the area of the site between the front boundary and sewer main the building has been positioned 2.7m from the front boundary, This reduced setback enables the main footprint of the dwelling to be accommodated outside of the sewer main easement. The rear deck of approximately 3.5m in depth X the width of the house is proposed to be constructed over the sewer main.

 

The proposal to build over the sewer main has been referred to and considered by Council's Engineering Department who have provided conditional approval subject to footing depths, design and clearances for access. The recommended conditions will be incorporated into the draft conditions for the development.

 

The rear boundaries of the Allison Road allotments fronting onto Deep Creek and its associated tidal waters, are not parallel with the street frontage. This has the impact of allowing a different range of views from each allotment towards the creek and rural areas across the creek towards Valla and Valla Beach (see attached plan).

 

While the two properties to the west of the subject allotment have up until now enjoyed shared and filtered views across the rear of the vacant property at 9 Allison Road, existing vegetation on the reserve area at the rear of all of the allotments in this location does restrict the view of the waterway, being Deep Creek. It being noted that the current owners have been progressively removing large trees and other vegetation from the vacant lot in preparation for the construction of a dwelling which has in the main improved the views over the vacant lot that were not previously available to the adjoining properties.

 

The proposed building is designed to have a minimum 2.4 metre clearance above the sewer main to ensure adequate access for future maintenance should it ever be required and the footings will be designed to allow for any future excavation of the main for maintenance or replacement. The rear covered deck is proposed to be screened on the western end for privacy reasons.

 

Council has no established setback distance restrictions to the reserve that runs parallel to Deep Creek and it appears the physical restriction in the past has been the sewer main, which has restricted design and size of buildings on the various allotments in the past. 

 

The proposed dwelling will be set 1.5m off the western side common boundary and extend approximately 5.5 metres beyond the rear of the existing A-framed dwelling on 7 Allison Road. The wall height at this point will be approximately 6.3 m to the eave, noting that approximately 3m from natural ground level to the underside of the rear deck will be open and views will still exist under the deck floor level over the site. However, there will be some restriction of views from the rear deck of the existing A framed house across the vacant allotment.

 

The restricted view across the vacant land is attributed to a number of factors:

 

·               Position of the existing dwelling house on 7 Allison Road being back behind the sewer main,

·               The allotments to the west of the proposed building site not having a rear boundary angling away from Deep Creek. These properties will retain views directly out over their rear boundaries onto Deep Creek and the associated tidal waterway.

·               Trees and vegetation to the eastern side of the building site along the creek bank.

·               The proposed dwelling height and position over the sewer main which is approximately 5.5 metres forward of the rear of the A framed house on 7 Allison Road.

 

The rear covered deck will be positioned approximately 6 metres from the back boundary of the allotment.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 71 – Coastal Protection applies to the application. As such Clause 8 Matters for Consideration must be addressed through the assessment process for the application as relevant to the specific location.

Clause 8 Matters for consideration – SEPP 71 – Coastal Protection

(a) the aims of this Policy set out in clause 2,

 

(b) existing public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability should be retained and, where possible, public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability should be improved,

 

A public reserve was created between the high water mark and the rear boundaries of those properties in Hyland Park which front onto Deep Creek and its associated tidal water areas in 1981. This development will not impinge upon that reserves nor will it interfere with public access across and over the reserve. Access onto the reserve exists in several locations with the nearest being at the eastern end of Allison Road.

 

It being noted that Council does not maintain the reserve and its use by abled and disable persons is very restrictive due to the topography, vegetation and boggy nature of areas on the reserve.

 

(c) opportunities to provide new public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability,

 

The subject site is a vacant residential lot created through Deposited Plan 24431 in 1952. A proposed "20 foot wide reserve for pathway" some 5 lots to the east of this subject site was deleted by Nambucca Shire Council by resolution on 16 June 1952. Adequate access to the Reserve still exists.

 

(d) the suitability of development given its type, location and design and its relationship with the surrounding area,

 

The proposed dwelling is a single storey single level building with a modest appearance from the Road Reserve. The elevated rear deck due to the slope from Allison road to the rear reserve is very similar to other developments in the area and in particular to the dwelling immediately to the east.

 

(e) any detrimental impact that development may have on the amenity of the coastal foreshore, including any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore and any significant loss of views from a public place to the coastal foreshore,

 

The proposed dwelling is to the south of Deep Creek and its adjoining Reserve which will result in no overshadowing of the reserve.

 

As is the case along Allison Road views towards Deep Creek to the north will be maintained between buildings and over the top of the buildings as most dwellings are below the level of Allison Road. The finished floor level of the proposed dwelling at 9 Allison Road will be approximately 1.5m below the kerb level of Allison Road..

 

 

 

(f) the scenic qualities of the New South Wales coast, and means to protect and improve these qualities,

 

The proposed dwelling will not detract from the scenic quality of the coast or waterway as it is infill development in keeping with the character of the existing buildings in Allison Road in the vicinity.

 

(g) measures to conserve animals (within the meaning of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 ) and plants (within the meaning of that Act), and their habitats,

 

The land is vacant residential land and a number of trees/shrubs have been removed in readiness for the development of the site. It is not considered that there has been an impact on any Threatened Species or habitats.

 

(h) measures to conserve fish (within the meaning of Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 ) and marine vegetation (within the meaning of that Part), and their habitats

 

It is unlikely that any impact on fish will arise due to this development as a reserve currently exists between the rear property boundary and the high water mark of Deep Creek.

 

(i) existing wildlife corridors and the impact of development on these corridors,

 

There are no existing wildlife corridors adjacent to or near this site.

 

(j) the likely impact of coastal processes and coastal hazards on development and any likely impacts of development on coastal processes and coastal hazards,

 

The property is well elevated and unlikely to be impacted by rising sea levels and other coastal processes. Council is currently preparing a Deep Creek Flood Study and a Coastal Hazard Management Plan.

 

The Coastal Hazard Study identified the 2100 Limit of Wave Impact and Slope Adjustment if no remedial works are programmed. The subject property is not identified as being affected.

 

(k) measures to reduce the potential for conflict between land-based and water-based coastal activities,

 

Not applicable due to the public reserve between the subject property and the high water mark of Deep Creek.

 

(l) measures to protect the cultural places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge of Aboriginals,

 

A search of Council's Aboriginal Sites Register and the AIHMS register does not identify any registered Aboriginal Sites on or adjacent to the subject site.

 

(m) likely impacts of development on the water quality of coastal waterbodies,

 

The property is sewered. Stormwater is proposed to be captured in rainwater tanks with their overflow discharging to the Deep Creek. It is unlikely that water quality will be affected.

 

(n) the conservation and preservation of items of heritage, archaeological or historic significance,

 

There are no conservation or preservation actions required.

 

(o) only in cases in which a council prepares a draft local environmental plan that applies to land to which this Policy applies, the means to encourage compact towns and cities,

 

Not applicable.

 

(p) only in cases in which a development application in relation to proposed development is determined:

 

(i) the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the environment, and

 

The proposed development is infill development on one of the few remaining undeveloped Deep Creek frontage residential lots in the locality. The cumulative impacts on the environment are considered negligible.

 

(ii) measures to ensure that water and energy usage by the proposed development is efficient.

 

The proposed dwelling has been assessed against the BASIX requirements and certificate has been issued.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The application has been recommended for conditional approval for the following reasons:

 

i        Due to the relatively small site area measuring 537.m2 it will be difficult to design a single level house that will not impact on view loss from the adjoining property at 7 Allison Road Hyland Park. The proposed building is of modest dimensions in regard to floor area comprising of double garage, 3 bed rooms, an ensuite, a combined laundry and bath room, decking area and a shared dining, lounge and kitchen area. The overall site coverage of the proposed development does not exceed the maximum site coverage requirements specified by Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010.

 

ii       The area of view from 5 and 7 Allison Road that will be obstructed by the proposed development is currently partly obstructed by existing vegetation on the creek side reserve. The partly obstructed area created by the existing vegetation does not offer unimpeded views of the river.

 

iii      The proposed development meets both side and rear setback requirements whilst seeking a front setback reduction pushing the dwelling away from rear boundary and allowing better view sharing from 5 and 7 Allison Road Hyland Park.  Council has no established setback distance restrictions to the Deep Creek frontages and side setbacks meet the requirements specified by Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010.

 

iv       The views to be impeded by the development when viewed from 7 Allison Road are restricted to the habitable rooms and the balcony on the North West side of the building only. No major openings from habitable rooms will experience loss of view sharing from the South West side of the buildings as none exist.

 

v        A submission was also received from the property owner at 5 Allison Road Hyland Park. The concerns raised by this property owner related to loss of views and health related issues in regards to building over sewer main. View loss from 5 Allison Road is of less impact than the view loss from 7 Allison Road and the above first 3 points are applicable. Health related issues relating to access to sewer main has been considered by the Engineering Department and access to the sewer main has been incorporated into the design of the building.

 

vi       The proposal is seeking a variation to height limits imposed on the area. The highest portion of the development proposes to be constructed up to 9.35m above the current ground level. The height restriction on this area limits development to 8.5m above ground level. The variation to height will have little impact when the property is viewed from the street as the main roof of the home is a continuous plane. The height will also have little impact on the adjoining neighbours as the views of significance are restricted by wall height.

 

vii      The development is proposing a front setback of 2.7m from the front boundary (excluding articulation by the front porch). Adjoining properties will have limited impact by this reduced setback as solar access and overshadowing will not be affected. Visual bulk on the street will be minimal as the street has very large verge areas and development view from the street appears to be only single storey. Outlook and surveillance of the street will not be compromised. Adjoining properties are of varying setback distances and the proposed development attempts to provide transition between the dwellings.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

A site inspection was carried out with Director of Environment and Planning and Manager of Health & Building Services

 

The following internal referrals have been undertaken:

 

·              Manager Technical Services — Submitted recommendations for conditions to be included in development consent.

 

External referrals:

 

·              Rural Fire Service — Submitted recommendations to include as conditions of consent.

·              Notification of adjoining property owners and land owners across the street — Two submissions by way of objection.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The building site has been cleared of all large trees and the site retained with two (2) timber retaining walls within the property towards the rear fronting Deep Creek. Access onto the creek reserve is provided with steps.

 

The allotment is fully serviced and impacts on the environment are expected to be minimal for a residential use.

 

Social

 

Social impacts/privacy issues on adjoining properties to the west of the development site from the deck have been addressed by placing a privacy wall across the end of the deck. Views from yard level of adjoining properties will be retained under the elevated house on the subject site.

 

Economic

 

There is an economic cost to the applicant should Council request the applicant to modify the building design or undertake works to reposition Council’s sewer main through their property.

 

Risk

 

There is limited risk to the building being positioned over the sewer main, provided adequate clearance and access width is maintained for plant access and the footings of the building are designed around the sewer main depth. The main being a gravity system is unlikely to cause any damage to the building.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no direct cost impact on Council’s budget. There is the possibility of future legal costs should there be an appeal to the Land & Environment Court over any decision Council makes.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil

 

 


PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF CONSENT

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THIS CONSENT

 

Development is to be in accordance with approved plans

 

1        The development is to be implemented generally in accordance with the plans and supporting documents endorsed with the Council stamp, dated 21 February 2011 and authorised signature, and set out in the following table except where modified by any conditions of this consent.

 

Plan No/Supporting Document

Version

Prepared by

Dated

Statement of Environmental Effects

-

Kerry Riddell

undated

Building Plans

11008

Sunergy Design

27 Sept 10

Basix Certificate

349714S

John Basden

28 Nov 10

 

In the event of any inconsistency between conditions of this development consent and the plans/ supporting documents referred to above, the conditions of this development consent prevail.

 

Compliance with Building Code of Australia and insurance requirements under Home Building Act 1989

 

2        All building work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia as in force on the date the application for the relevant construction certificate or complying development certificate was made.

 

          In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act, that such a contract of insurance is in force before any building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences.

 

This condition does not apply:

 

a        to the extent to which an exemption is in force under clause 187 or 188, subject to the terms of any condition or requirement referred to in clause 187 (6) or 188 (4), or

b        to the erection of a temporary building.

 

Notification of Home Building Act 1989 requirements

 

3        Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the Council) has given the Council written notice of the following information:

 

a        in the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed:

i         the name and licence number of the principal contractor, and

ii        the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act,

b        in the case of work to be done by an owner-builder:

i         the name of the owner-builder, and

ii        if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit under that Act, the number of the owner-builder permit.

 

If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information notified above becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the Council) has given the Council written notice of the updated information.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE FOR BUILDING WORKS

 

Driveway

 

4        Vehicular access must be in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004: Parking facilities, Part 1: Off-street Car Parking No 1. The driveway must be:

 

·          Minimum 3m wide. Paving to be 125mm thick reinforced with construction joints to suit service trenches.

·          The footpath crossing must be designed to provide a cross-fall of 1 % or 1:100 (maximum 2.5% or 1 in 40) for a width of at least 2.4 metres to provide for pedestrians with access disabilities.

·          Note. Driveway strips are not permitted within the road reserve

 

Sewer main to be relocated or protected

 

5        Where the sewer main cannot be relocated clear of the building the sewer main is to be protected. All costs are the responsibility of the proponent.

 

Strip footings and posts supports adjacent to the sewer easement shall be piered to a depth equal to that of the pipe invert so that they are adequately supported in the event that the sewer has to be excavated.

 

A minimum clearance of 2.4m shall be maintained from the finished surface level to the underside of the deck along the length of the sewer easement.

 

An approval is to be obtained under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 to carry out sewerage work.

 

Compliance with BASIX Certificate

 

6        The Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) is to ensure that the proposed development is constructed in accordance with the requirements of BASIX Certificate No 349714S, dated 28 November 2010. The Plans submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate must include all of the BASIX Certificate commitments indicated in this certificate.

 

Where changes to the development are proposed that may affect the water, thermal comfort or energy commitments, a new BASIX Certificate may be required.

 

Application for a construction certificate

 

7        An application for a construction certificate must be lodged with the principal certifying authority prior to any works commencing onsite.  The application for a construction certificate must be lodged with relevant fees and documentation.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTION WORKS COMMENCING

 

Plumbing Standards and requirements

 

8        All Plumbing, Water Supply and Sewerage Works are to be installed and operated in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the NSW Code of Practice for Plumbing and Drainage and AS/NZS 3500 Parts 0-5, the approved plans (any notations on those plans) and the approved specifications.

 

 

Erosion & sediment measures

 

9        Erosion and sedimentation controls are to be in place in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and Construction Vol 1, 4th Edition prepared by Landcom and Development Control Plan (Erosion and Sediment Control) 2009.

 

Note: Council may impose on-the-spot fines for non-compliance with this condition.

 

Toilet facilities

 

10      Toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site. Each toilet provided must be a standard flushing toilet connected to a public sewer.

 

House numbering

 

11      The street number for this property is 9. The number must be displayed at the main driveway entrance approved for the property.

 

Site construction sign required

 

12      A sign or signs must be erected before the commencement of the work in a prominent position at the frontage to the site:

 

a        showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work, and

b        showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

c        stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

 

The sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed. No sign is to have an area in excess of one (1) m2.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH DURING CONSTRUCTION

 

Consent required for works within the road reserve

 

13      Consent from Council must be obtained for all works within the road reserve pursuant to Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993. Three (3) copies of engineering construction plans must accompany the application for consent for works within the road reserve. Such plans are to be in accordance with Council's Adopted Engineering Standard.

 

Construction times

 

14      Construction works must not unreasonably interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood. In particular construction noise, when audible on adjoining residential premises, can only occur:

 

a        Monday to Friday, from 7.00 am to 6.00 pm.

b        Saturday, from 8.00 am to 1.00 pm.

 

No construction work is to take place on Sundays or Public Holidays.

 


Builders rubbish to be contained on-site

 

15      All builders rubbish is to be contained on the site in a ‘Builders Skips’ or an enclosure. Building materials are to be delivered directly onto the property. Footpaths, road reserves and public reserves are to be maintained clear of rubbish, building materials and all other items.

 

Maintenance of sediment and erosion control measures

 

16      Sediment and erosion control measures must be maintained at all times until the site has been stabilised by permanent vegetation cover or hard surface.

 

Rainwater tank requirements

 

17      Rainwater tank/tank-stand installations are to be structurally sound, and in accordance with manufacturers detail and/or Guidelines for Plumbing Associated with “Rainwater Tanks in Urban Areas”. Overflow from the tank is to be diverted to the existing stormwater system, or disposed of in a manner not to cause nuisance to neighbouring properties or degradation of land.

 

Survey of building location required

 

18      A survey certificate prepared by a registered surveyor is to be submitted to the Principal Certifier upon completion of the floor slab formwork, before concrete is poured, to ensure the siting of the building in relation to adjacent boundaries is in accordance with the development consent.

 

Survey of building height required

 

19      A survey certificate prepared by a registered surveyor is to be submitted to the Principal Certifier upon completion of the roof framing to ensure that the roof peak is at or below 17.550 metres AHD in accordance with the development consent.

 

Stormwater Disposal

 

20      Stormwater to be disposed of in a manner not to cause a nuisance to adjoining property owners, affect the structural integrity of any structures on site and not to cause degradation of the land.

 

Bushfire

 

21      Water, electricity and gas are to comply with Section 4.1.3 of “Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006”.

 

22      New construction shall comply with Section 5 (BAL 12.5) Australian Standard AS3959-2009 “Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas” and Section A3.7 Addendum Appendix 3 of “Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006”.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO OCCUPATION OF THE BUILDING

 

Works to be completed

 

23      All of the works indicated on the plans and granted by this consent, including any other consents that are necessary for the completion of this development, are to be completed and approved by the relevant consent authority/s prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

Sewer and water to be connected

 

24      Sewer and water supply is to be connected to the premises in accordance with an approval granted under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993.


THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH AT ALL TIMES

 

Bushfire

 

25       At the commencement of building works and in perpetuity, the entire property shall be managed as an inner protection area (IPA) as outlined within Section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of the ““Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006” and the NSW Rural Fire Service’s document “Standards for asset protection zones”.

 

26       To aid in fire fighting activities, unobstructed pedestrian access to the rear of the property shall be provided and is to be maintained at all times.

 

27       Landscaping to the site is to comply with the principles of Appendix 5 of the “Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006”.

 

 

REASONS FOR CONDITIONS

 

a        To ensure the development is completed in accordance with conditions of consent and approved plans.

 

b        To preserve the environment and existing or likely future amenity of the neighbourhood.

 

c        To ensure that the land or adjoining land is not damaged by the uncontrolled discharge of runoff of stormwater from any buildings and paved areas that may be constructed on the land.

 

d        To protect the environment.

 

e        To minimise the possible adverse effects from bushfires.

 

f         To ensure compliance with Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

NOTES

 

Construction Certificate required

This development consent is issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and does not relate to structural aspects or specifications of the building under the Building Code of Australia. All buildings and alterations require the issue of a Construction Certificate prior to works commencing.

 

Occupation Certificate required

The building must not be occupied until the Principal Certifying Authority has issued an Occupation Certificate.

 

Attachments:

1View

119/2011 - Submission in relation to DA2010/283 - Dr B Vanselow

 

2View

 - CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - COUNCILLORS ONLY - Coloured Photos for Submission from E Newman

 

3View

2873/2011 - Plans of Development

 

4View

3030/2011 - Location Map

 

  


General Purpose Committee - 16 February 2011

Report submitted for determination of Application for Dwelling - 9 Allison Road, Hyland Park

 


 


General Purpose Committee - 16 February 2011

Report submitted for determination of Application for Dwelling - 9 Allison Road, Hyland Park

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 2

 

 

 

Report submitted for determination of Application for Dwelling - 9 Allison Road, Hyland Park

 

 

 

CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - COUNCILLORS ONLY - Coloured Photos for Submission from E Newman

 

  Pages

 

 


General Purpose Committee - 16 February 2011

Report submitted for determination of Application for Dwelling - 9 Allison Road, Hyland Park

 




 


General Purpose Committee - 16 February 2011

Report submitted for determination of Application for Dwelling - 9 Allison Road, Hyland Park

 

Subject Property

 

 


General Purpose Committee

16 February 2011

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.3      SF29                160211         Draft Library Agreement for Clarence Regional Library

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Coral Hutchinson, Manager Community and Cultural Services         

 

Summary:

 

In October and November 2010, Council considered reports on the Clarence Regional Library (CRL) which lead to a number of decisions about the proposed new Library Agreement, the level of contribution to the CRL and the need for increased lobbying to the State government. 

 

Then at its meeting on 3 February 2011 Council made the following resolutions following a Notice of Motion from Councillor Anne Smyth, delegate to Clarence Regional Library Committee:

 

1        That Council request the Clarence Regional Library Committee of Management defer any decision on the Draft Agreement to allow Council time to consider the contents and provide direction for our delegates.

 

2        That this matter be dealt with at the next General Purpose Committee meeting on 16 February 2011 with the draft Agreement being circulated to Councillors prior to this meeting.

 

This report is to provide feedback following the Clarence Regional Library (CRL) Committee meeting held on 4 February 2011. Council was represented by Councillors Moran and Smyth and the author of this report as an observer.

 

A copy of the draft Library Agreement and the Director Environment and Planning’s Report to 17 November 2010 are circularised

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council advise its Clarence Regional Library partner Councils that it will consider entering into a new Library Agreement which sets the contribution to the Clarence Regional Library at the Rate Peg plus 2%.  This would be the minimum with partner councils having the opportunity to agree on a larger increase.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are many options available to Council. 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

There have been a number of reports over the past year or so regarding Council’s involvement in Clarence Regional Library.  A comprehensive report (circularised) was prepared by the Director Environment and Planning to the 17 November 2010 Council meeting.  The decisions made at that meeting are pertinent here.  They are as follows:

 

1.   That Council advise its Clarence Regional Library partner Councils that is will consider entering into a new Draft Library Agreement conditional upon the Agreement being tied to the four year delivery program in the IPR legislation.

 

2.   That Council advise its Clarence Regional Library partner Councils that the contributory library funding for Clarence Regional Library for 2011/12 should be set at a per capita increase of 10%.

 

3.   That the Mayors and General Managers of the three Clarence Regional Library Councils have discussions regarding the level of service to be provided by the Clarence Regional Library as soon as possible.

 

4.   That Council write to Mr Andrew Stoner MP, Member for Oxley and the Premier seeking a commitment from the Opposition to increased State funding of Public Libraries.

 

These resolutions have now been actioned. 

 

In regard to Resolution No 3 above, a meeting between the Clarence Valley, Bellingen and Nambucca Shire Council Mayors and General Managers was held on Friday 28 January 2011 at the CRL Headquarters in Grafton.  Nambucca Shire Council’s Director Environment and Planning, and Manager Community and Cultural Services were also in attendance together with other staff from Bellingen and Clarence Valley Councils.  A record of the meeting is being prepared by the CRL Executive Officer and was not available at the time of writing this report however in brief the meeting heard an overview of CRL operations and the Strategic Plan, and then discussed the proposed Library Agreement and Council contributions. 

 

There were three key areas of discussion:

 

1.   Should the concept of involving Coffs Harbour City Council in a regional arrangement be re-visited?

 

It was agreed that this should be pursued but it was acknowledged that it may or may not be feasible or desirable for any or all of the parties, and would take some time to fully investigate.

 

2.   The length of the library agreement.

 

It was agreed that a longer term agreement was desirable – expiring 30 June 2017.

 

Note:  The longer-term arrangement should not pose a problem because should an alliance with Coffs Harbour be negotiated prior to 2017 as a new agreement would be necessary anyway.

 

3.   What level of Council contribution did the Mayors and General Managers think their Council could support?

 

All agreed that it is desirable to set a level of contribution that each Council can support into the future and that is built into the Library Agreement.  This allows for all the parties to forward plan and streamlines the annual (library) budget processes at each Council.  Further it avoids a potential breakdown of the Agreement should the different Councils decide to contribute a different amount to the CRL in that year’s budget. 

 

There was considerable discussion about the competing needs and demands for funds at each Council although all acknowledged the value of library services.  Further it was generally acknowledged that a contribution of 10% per capita was not sustainable and that perhaps the rate peg plus 2% might be a figure that all could commit to.

 

The quarterly Clarence Regional Library (Advisory) Committee meeting was held Friday 4 February 2011.  The Committee was presented with a draft Library Agreement (circularised) and an officer’s recommendation “That the proposed draft new Clarence Regional Library Service Agreement be endorsed by the CRL Committee for adoption by the Executive Council.”

 

Note:  The current Agreement expires 1 November 2011.

 

In brief, the outcome after much debate and strong representation by the Nambucca Shire Council delegates in accordance with Council’s 3 February resolutions, the recommendation was endorsed by the Committee and the draft Agreement will be presented to Clarence Valley Council for adoption – most likely at its 15 March meeting.  Furthermore, the Committee endorsed that the draft agreement include Council contributions of the rate peg plus 6% at a minimum of 8%.  The Nambucca Shire Council delegates voted against this decision.

 

There was also endorsement of a longer term Agreement, expiring 30 June 2017 and not 2013 as per the draft.  This would meet Nambucca Shire Council’s request that it be tied to the four year delivery program in the IPR.  Further, it would allow for development of a new agreement by the new Councils following the local government elections of September 2016.

 

Notwithstanding the decisions/advice by the CRL Committee to Clarence Valley Council, each Council will need to make its own decision as to whether to sign the Agreement and also what level of contribution should be included.  In regard to the latter, there has been some headway following the meeting of the partner Councils’ General Managers and Mayors.  It appears the main difference between the outcomes of their discussions and the views of the majority of the advisory Committee is the level of contribution.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

Director Environment and Planning

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental sustainability issues identified.

 

Social

 

There are considerable social and education benefits from well functioning and modern libraries.

 

Economic

 

Nothing identified.

 

Risk

 

Nothing identified.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

A key issue addressed by this report is managing increasing library costs in future budgets and the attempt to set an affordable and sustainable contribution from the CRL partner councils.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nothing required.

 

 

 

CIRCULARISED DOCUMENTS – 26748/2010 AND 3193/2011

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


General Purpose Committee

16 February 2011

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.1    SF629              160211         Tree Removal/Prunning Application - 8 Hibiscus Drive, Valla Beach

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Noel Chapman, Manager Civil Works         

 

Summary:

 

Council has received an application for the removal of two gum trees adjacent to 8 Hibiscus Drive, Valla Beach.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the application for the removal of two gum trees adjacent to 8 Hibiscus Drive, Valla Beach be refused as the trees appear reasonably healthy.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1        Adopt the recommendation

2        Approve removal of the trees

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The application is for the removal of two gum trees from the road reserve adjacent to No 8 Hibiscus Drive, Valla Beach.  A copy of the application is attached.

 

The application is summerised as follows:

 

Mr Michael Cannon of 25 The Glen, Hyland Park has issues with two trees on the road reserve outside a property he owns at 8 Hibiscus Drive, Valla Beach.  There is concern about the dropping of branches, litter and there is also concern that people or property may be injured if the trees are not removed.

 

Council’s Parks and Reserves Supervisor has inspected the trees and has reported as follows:

 

“The trees appear reasonably healthy, very little die-back.  Evidence of some branch drop and excessive leaf litter in gutters.

 

Council’s Policy for tree removal states:

 

“The General Manager has delegated authority as follows:

 

33.1      Authorised the removal of trees on Council owned or controlled land which are considered by the General Manager to be dying, dead, or dangerous or which could have a detrimental effect on Council’s utilities or adjoining private property.

 

          Trees that do no fit into this category are referred to Council”.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

·              Parks and Reserves Supervisor

 

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Removal of the trees will have an impact on the streetscape.

 

Social

 

The applicant has expressed concern at the possibility of branches dropping on his property.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic issues as a result of this report.

 

Risk

 

Although the trees are reasonably healthy they are prone to branch drop.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Council allocates funds within the budget for the removal of dangerous trees.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Funds are available in current budget

 

Attachments:

1View

17087/2010 - Application for tree removal - M Cannon

 

2View

3111/2011 - Photos of trees - 8 Hibiscus Drive, Valla Beach

 

  


General Purpose Committee - 16 February 2011

Tree Removal/Prunning Application - 8 Hibiscus Drive, Valla Beach

 

 


General Purpose Committee - 16 February 2011

Tree Removal/Prunning Application - 8 Hibiscus Drive, Valla Beach

 



 


General Purpose Committee

16 February 2011

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.2    SF1131            160211         Review of Landslip Remediation Proposals - Nambucca Heads

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Noel Chapman, Manager Civil Works         

 

Summary:

 

The geology of Nambucca Shire is such that landslips will always be a possibility and will occur randomly.  Some, such as slips at Jason Cottages and Doyle Lane, have developed over many years and remain uncontrolled. 

 

Others such as Ellis Avenue, Foreshore Close and the footpath on Riverside Drive are more recent slips.

 

Another category comprises areas where signs of stress are evident and these include sections of Riverside Drive, Lower Parkes Street and Little Beach, Scotts Head.

 

Over the past few years Council has engaged the services of Consultants Douglas Partners to undertake studies for the Identification and Risk Analysis of potential slip sites in Nambucca Heads.  GHD and Coffey Partners have been engaged to undertake geotechnical investigation and remediation options for existing slips.

 

Council has made an allocation of $350,000 for a Landslip Program in 2010/2011 plus a revote of $354,000 from 2009/10 and further allocations will be required in successive budgets to complete the Program.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1          That Council adopt the following Nambucca Heads landslips rectification priorities for inclusion in the Management Plan:

 

            a Jason Cottages                                 $507,000

            b Doyle Lane                                       $125,000

            c Domain D – Riverside Drive              $445,000

            d Lower Parkes Street                         $173,000

            e Foreshore Close                               to be determined.

 

2        That Council authorise construction of items (a) and (b) above using funds allocated in the 2010/2011 budget.

 

3        That Council consider an allocation of $10,000 per annum be made for minor works in the 2011/2012 budget.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

·              Adopt the recommendation

·              Adopt different priorities

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

There are three categories of landslips identification within the Nambucca Shire Council area with the main focus being on Nambucca Heads.  The three categories are Long Term Existing Landslips, Recent Landslips and Potential Landslips.

 

Information for each category is as follows:

 


Long Term Existing Landslips

 

Jason Cottages

 

The landslip originally occurred up to 20 years ago and is having a direct impact on private property including building structures.

 

Design prepared by GHD

Estimated Construction Contract                        $470,000

Geotechnical Supervision                                   $  27,000

Traffic Control                                                   $  10,000

                                                                       $507,000

Doyle Lane

 

This landslip originally occurred up to 20 years ago and has been progressively slipping ever since.

 

GHD have prepared a design and construction specification for two options being short term soil, nail and shotcrete to upper slope only and a Long Term option to construct a 2:1 fill batter to the lower section.

 

The crest of the landslip is immediately adjacent to private property with potential to impact on paving and building structures.

 

Estimated cost of Short Term Solution                $125,000

Estimated cost of Long Term Solution                 To be considered in long term Forward Plan

 

 

Recent Landslips

 

Ellis Avenue

 

Landslips in this area have occurred over the past 10 years with one being repaired in approximately 1999.

 

Further slippage has occurred and GHD have prepared a design and construction specification for soil nailing and shotcrete.

 

There has been some impact on private property but no issues for building structures at this stage.

 

Estimated Cost                                                 $100,000

 

Foreshore Close

 

Landslip occurred during 2009 flood event. The landslip had a direct impact on private property and garden structures.  Further slippage would encroach closer to the house.  The RTA has denied a flood damage claim. 

 

GHD have undertaken preliminary investigations and provided quotations for:

 

Investigate design options                                  $45,130

Design & Specification for adopted option            $26,925

Construction costs                                            To be discussed after detailed design

 

 


Domain D – Riverside Drive

 

This relates to the actual failure of a section adjacent to Riverside Drive and verifies the concern of the embankment along the length of Riverside Drive between Bellwood and the Visitor Information Centre as reported by GHD.

 

GHD has prepared options assessment and recommended a preferred solution.

 

Preliminary construction estimate                       $405,000

Detail design and specification                           $  40,000

                                                                       $445,000

 

Little Beach

 

Minor cracking is evident between the footpath and kerb and gutter.

 

Requires detailed geotechnical investigation and design.

 

Preliminary estimate                                         $  80,000

 

Quotations are being sought for the investigation and design.

 

 

Potential Landscapes

 

Lower Parkes Street

 

This is a narrow section of road adjacent to a high and steep cliff falling into Wellington Drive.  This area is heavily overgrown but there is evidence of slippage and the guard fencing is badly deteriorated.

 

Access to the properties on Lower Parkes Street is difficult and dangerous.

 

Coffey Partners have undertaken preliminary investigations.

 

Detailed design                                                 $   8,000

Estimated construction cost                              $165,000

 

Douglas Partners have prepared a Specific Identification and Risk Evaluation report and a copy is circularised.

 

In order to facilitate a rectification and prevention program Council needs to establish a set of priorities.  It is considered that landslips that have affected or could affect private property and structures be given highest priority.

 

In addition to the major works consideration should also be given to an allocation of funds to address the issues identified in the Douglas Partners report.  A sum of $10,000 per annum would allow signage and minor fencing works to be carried out.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

·           Consultants

·           Director Engineering Services

·           General Manager

 

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Landslips can result in pollution of waterways and loss of vegetation.

 

Social

 

Landslips can impact on private property and result in severe stress for residents.

 

The Foreshore Close landslip impacted directly on a motor vehicle and driver.  There is further potential for this impact.

 

Economic

 

Private property impacted by a landslip can be devalued.

 

Risk

 

Failure to remediate landslips can lead to further damage to private property, persons and public infrastructure.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Revote from 2009/2010                                 $354,100

Allocation in 2010/2011                                 $350,000

Expenditure to date                                      $  45,000

Funds available                                            $659,000

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Working and/or loan funds.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

 - CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - Douglas Partners Specific Identification and Risk Evaluation Report - TRIM 3352/2011

 

  


General Purpose Committee

16 February 2011

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Review of Landslip Remediation Proposals - Nambucca Heads

 

 

 

CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - Douglas Partners Specific Identification and Risk Evaluation Report - TRIM 3352/2011

 

  Pages