NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

16 January 2013

 

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

 

Our Vision

Nambucca Valley ~ Living at its best.

 

Our? Mission Statement

 

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

 

Our Values in Delivery

?             Effective leadership

?             Strategic direction

?             Sustainability of infrastructure and assets

?             Community involvement and enhancement through partnerships with Council

?             Enhancement and protection of the environment

?             Maximising business and employment opportunities through promotion of economic development

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

?             Actively pursuing resource sharing opportunities

 

Council Meetings:? Overview and Proceedings

 

Council meetings are held on the first and third Thursday of each month commencing at 5.30 pm.? Council meetings are held in the Council Chamber at Council's Administration Centre?44 Princess Street, Macksville.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Council allows not more than two (2) members of the public per meeting to address it on matters not listed in the agenda provided the request is received before publication of the agenda and the subject of the address is disclosed and recorded on the agenda.

 

Speakers should address issues and refrain from making personal attacks or derogatory remarks.? You must treat others with respect at all times.

 

Meeting Agenda

 

These are available from the Council's Administration Building, the Regional Libraries in Macksville and Nambucca Heads as well as Council?s website: www.nambucca.nsw.gov.au


 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

 

Acknowledgement of Country??????? ? (Mayor)

 

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

 

AGENDA?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

 

Time

Description

Where

OS/CC

08.30 am

9.12? Restriction on Access - Sandpiper Drive, Scotts Head

On-site

9.30 am

Morning Tea

 

 

 

1??????? APOLOGIES

2??????? PRAYER

3??????? DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4??????? CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ? Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 December 2012

5??????? NOTICES OF MOTION

5.1???? Notice of Motion - Modification of Local Environmental Plans (LEP) for Rural Lands (SF1786).......................................................................................... 7

5.2???? Notice of Motion - Number of River Studies over last 25 Years (SF1496)...... 9

5.3???? Notice of Motion - Development Applications Exceeding $1million (SF608). 10

5.4???? Notice of Motion - Tree Removal (SF629).................................................. 11 ?

6??????? PUBLIC FORUM

7??????? ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE ??

8??????? QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

9??????? General Manager Report

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

9.2???? Transfer of Ownership of the Nambucca Heads Senior Citizens Centre from Council to the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc..................................... 21

9.3???? Bellingen-Bowraville Road........................................................................ 38

9.4???? Annual Workers Compensation and Work Health and Safety Performance Report...................................................................................................... 56

9.5???? Grant Application Status Report ............................................................... 59

9.6???? Nambucca LEP Amendment No 8 Secondary Dwellings in Rural Zones...... 62

9.7???? Planning Proposal - Nambucca LEP Amendment no. 12 Exceptions to Minimum Lot Sizes for Certain Rural Subdivisions..................................... 65

9.8???? Amendments to the LEP Approval Process and reviews of rezoning decisions................................................................................................................ 70

9.9???? Beach Access Improvement Plan - Progress Report.................................. 74

9.10?? Grassy Park - Flying Fox Plan of Management ......................................... 78

9.11?? Update on the Upgrade of the Pacific Highway - Warrell Creek to Urunga... 81

9.12?? Sandpiper Drive, Scotts Head - Restriction on Access............................... 84

9.13?? Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into the 2012 Local Government Elections.................................................................................................. 89

9.14?? Request to Acquire a Small Section of Gordon Park, Nambucca Heads.... 113

10????? Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

10.1?? Annual Report for 2011-2012 for Rural Financial Counselling Service - NSW Northern Region..................................................................................... 116

10.2?? Minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee held 27 November 2012...................................................................................... 120

10.3?? Schedule of Council Public Meetings....................................................... 128

10.4?? Coronation Park Committee of Management - Minutes of Annual General Meeting - 21 November 2012.................................................................. 129

10.5?? EJ Biffin Playing Fields Committee of Management AGM - 29 October 2012 - Minutes.................................................................................................. 137

10.6?? Valla Public Hall Committee of Management AGM - 28 August 2012 - Minutes.............................................................................................................. 150

10.7?? Healthy Communities Project.................................................................. 161

10.8?? Nambucca Shire Libraries - Progress Report........................................... 163

10.9?? Establishment of new Local Land Services Authority................................ 166

10.10 Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 1-31 December 2012...................................... 171

10.11 September 2012 Budget Review.............................................................. 174

10.12 Six (6) Monthly Progress Report 2012/16 Delivery Program 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2012...................................................................................... 178

10.13 Investment Report to 31 December 2012................................................. 181

11????? Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

11.1?? Naming the new beach area in Ferry Street Macksville............................ 187

11.2?? Nambucca District Water Supply Steering Committee Meeting ? 5 December 2012....................................................................................................... 191

11.3?? Water consumption charges for Committees of Management, Clubs and other not for profit organisations...................................................................... 197

11.4?? Telemetry System Upgrade ? Impact on Bowraville Off River Storage Project.............................................................................................................. 200

11.5?? Bowraville Sewage Treatment Plant ? Fee offer for design and documentation of a constructed wetland......................................................................... 215

11.6?? Mid North Weight of Loads Group - Half Yearly Meeting - 5 November 2012.............................................................................................................. 218 ???

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

12.1?? Bowraville Sewage Treatment Plant - Fee Offer for Design and Documentation of a Constructed Wetland

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

 

12.2?? Bellingen - Bowraville Road - Submission from Bellingen Shire Council

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

 

12.3?? Nambucca Heads Senior Citizens Centre - Negotiations with U3A

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

??

??????????? a???? Questions raised by Councillors at 8 above

 

?????? i???????? MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING

?????? ii??????? PUBLIC VERBAL REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL

??? TO CLOSE

?????? iii?????? CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS

?????????????????? iv?????? DEAL WITH MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING

13????? MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

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


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

???????? (name)

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

Council?s Email Address ? council@nambucca.nsw.gov.au

 

Council?s Facsimile Number ? (02) 6568 2201

 

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

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

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

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

???


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.1???? SF959????????????? 160113??????? Notice of Motion - Modification of Local Environmental Plans (LEP) for Rural Lands (SF1786)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Brian Finlayson, Councillor ????????

 

Summary:

 

As things stand at the moment building entitlement attaching to rural lands is far from easy to identify.? Landowners should be able to know quickly and simply whether their holding or sections of it have building entitlements.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

Nambucca Shire Council?s LEP be modified to allow easier and more certain identification of building entitlements attaching to rural lands where parcels under consideration exceed the minimum lot size to support a building entitlement.

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

As things stand at the moment building entitlement attaching to rural lands is far from easy to identify.? Landowners should be able to know quickly and simply whether their holding or sections of it have building entitlements.? Consider the following examples each in an area where the minimum lot size for a dwelling is 40 hectares (100 acres):

 

1??????? A landowner owns a parcel of land comprising three portions each exceeding 100 acres.? He lives in a house on one of those portions and then sells the other two off.? Do each of the portions sold have a building entitlement?? Does it make any difference if the house was never consented to by Council (even if it was built at a time where consent was not required)?? What is the position with contributions?

 

2??????? A landowner owns a parcel of land comprising three portions, each of which has an area of 55 acres.? There is a house on one of those lots.? The landowner sells two of those lots to a purchaser who has thus acquired over 100 acres (minimum lot size for building entitlement 100 acres).? The original house now sits on a lot comprising 55 acres.? Does the new parcel acquired by the purchaser have a building entitlement?? What is the position in respect of contributions?

 

3a????? A landowner owns a parcel of land comprising three portions each having an area of 55 acres thus totalling 165 acres.? No house has ever been built on this parcel.? The land owner dies and his executors sell each of the three blocks to separate purchasers.? Do any of these portions have a building entitlement and if so, which one?

 

3b????? Assume for the purpose of illustration that 50 years ago there was a house on one of those lots above but it burned down and was never rebuilt.? Will this make any difference to the situation, and if so, what?

 

3c????? A neighbour of the landowner owns a parcel of land comprising two portions, one of fifty acres and the other 40 acres.? His house sits on the forty acre block.? He buys one of the 55 acre portions then goes off to town and lists the 50 acre and newly acquired 55 acre block for sale together.? The agent sees that the total area exceeds 100 acres and advertises the parcel as having a building entitlement.? The S149 (1) certificate attached to any contract will not say anything about building entitlement except that he land is within the zone where the minimum lot size for building entitlement is 100 acres.

 

3d????? Assume that the parcel being sold in the example above has a building entitlement and Council attaches a condition of approval of a building application that the applicant consolidate the two lots into one lot (specifically to prevent any more sales which will reduce the parcel size to less than 100 acres).? The new owner says in response ?I have no intention of doing that and you don?t have the power to make me.? If you persist with this I?ll drag you off to court and force you to withdraw that condition?.? What is Council?s response and even if Council does have the power, is that response reasonable and in the public interest?

 

The situation seems to be that in at least one of these examples a building entitlement might arise and that may be governed by circumstances that existed in 1958.? In other cases it doesn?t notwithstanding that there are lot sizes exceeding 100 acres.? The situation requires clarification and certainty.

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.2???? SF1817??????????? 160113??????? Notice of Motion - Number of River Studies over last 25 Years (SF1496)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Brian Finlayson, Councillor ????????

 

Summary:

 

The Notice of Motion seeks information only at this stage.? There appears to have been a huge number of River studies over the last 25 years or so which involved a great deal of work by staff and direct financial contribution of ratepayers.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council be provided with a history setting out:

 

a??????? the number and nature of reports (excluding those relating to the construction of the proposed dam) carried out in respect of the Nambucca River and riparian zones during the twenty five (25) year period ending 30 June 2012 which report were either commissioned by Council or into which Council had input either by direct financial contribution or staff time;

 

b?????? a brief statement as to the circumstances that triggered the preparation of the report;

 

c??????? a brief statement as to the use to which each report has been put (eg when the contents of each report were last referred to).

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Notice of Motion seeks information only at this stage.? There appears to have been a huge number of River studies over the last 25 years or so which involved a great deal of work by staff and direct financial contribution of ratepayers.? When the information is available it will be possible to make a decision as to what further studies need to be carried out and who should pay for them.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.3???? RF275????????????? 160113??????? Notice of Motion - Development Applications Exceeding $1million (SF608)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Brian Finlayson, Councillor ????????

 

Summary:

 

The proposal is not an invitation to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to interfere in the approval process.? It is however, in the community interest that some applicants be encouraged to pursue their applications and those applicants would be made aware that there may be substantial community support for what they are attempting to do.? There may be other circumstances where applicants may need to be told that their applications need to be modified to gain community support.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That upon receipt of any Development Application where the value or cost of the development will or is likely to exceed the sum of $1million, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are to be notified on the application.

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The proposal is not an invitation to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to interfere in the approval process.? It is however, in the community interest that some applicants be encouraged to pursue their applications and those applicants would be made aware that there may be substantial community support for what they are attempting to do.? There may be other circumstances where applicants may need to be told that their applications need to be modified to gain community support.

 

In some circumstances it may be improper for Council staff to pass these comments on to applicants and it is considered that this should be a political rather than an administrative option.? In some circumstances where staff are required to adopt a professional and aloof attitude some applicants may get an incorrect message that their proposal is not supported.? If made aware of the applications the Mayor and Deputy Mayor have an option of approaching the applicant and if appropriate encouraging an applicant to pursue a proposal.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.4???? SF1817??????????? 160113??????? Notice of Motion - Tree Removal (SF629)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Bob Morrison, Councillor ????????

 

Summary:

 

That the Assistant General Manager or his designated Staff member be authorised in future to review and remove trees within the Shire if required without a resolution by Councillors providing that such actions conform to one or more of the 6 D principles below.?? The principles are:

 

Trees that are:

 

1??????? Dead

2??????? Dying

3??????? Diseased

4??????? Dangerous

5??????? Destructive

6??????? Disadvantageous

 

The decision regarding trees that are considered disadvantageous (6 above) is a discretionary decision and must be justified in the light of the principles laid down in Public Sector Agencies Fact Sheet No 4. NSW Ombudsman - Discretionary Powers (attached).

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the Assistant General Manager Engineering Services or his designated Staff member be authorised in future to review and remove trees within the Shire if required without a resolution by Council providing that such actions conform to one or more of the 6 D principles below.? The principles are:

 

Trees that are:

 

1??????? Dead

2??????? Dying

3??????? Diseased

4??????? Dangerous

5??????? Destructive

6??????? Disadvantageous

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Justification for the Motion

 

a????????? This will satisfy Council's legal obligations in protection of life and property in the most timely and cost efficient way.

b????????? Council staff are better placed and trained to make the decision than possibly any Councillor in this field.

c????????? It will save Council staff time by not having to prepare the documentation for meetings and for time spent in meetings talking about such a matter.

d????????? It detracts from Council staffs? professionalism if they cannot make a simple decision on a routine maintenance matter.

e????????? As a principle, it is totally wrong for Councillors to Micro Manage the decisions of Council staff in what is routinely a Council staff operational maintenance matter.

 


Manex comment

 

The suggested criteria would need to be incorporated in the review of the Tree Maintenance and Removal Application Policy (refer to outstanding actions and reports).

 

 

Attachments:

1View

33710/2012 - NSW Ombudsman - Discretionary Powers Fact Sheet No 4

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

Notice of Motion - Tree Removal (SF629)

 

??? ?


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

General Manager

ITEM 9.1???? SF1120??????????? 160113??????? Outstanding Actions and Reports

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

 

 

No

FILE

NO

COUNCIL

MEETING

SUMMARY OF MATTER

ACTION

BY

STATUS

 

MARCH 2011

1

DA2010/234

17/3/11

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

 

GM

Brief to be prepared and new floodplain study to be undertaken during 2011.

RTA has now engaged Consultants to prepare a new full and comprehensive flood study which will be provided to Council upon completion. At this time Council will be able to proceed to complete a new Flood Plain Risk Management Plan incorporates a revised matrix.

DEP advised meeting arranged with RTA.

Draft flood study likely to be presented to Council May/June 2012.

Re the delay, Council?s Strategic Planner has followed up the RMS.

Staff meeting with Consultants on Wednesday 18/10/12.

 

JUNE 2011

2

SF841

2/06/2011

Council write to the RTA requesting they design the new Nambucca River bridge at Macksville to provide 62m between the main channel piers and ensure the bridge is tall enough to allow yachts to pass under at maximum high tide.

 

AGMCCS

Letter sent 8 June 2011.

No response as at 6 December 2011.

Further letter sent 10 January 2012.

No formal response, however RMS have verbally advised that a formal response will be with Council prior to the end of May 2012

DEP to follow up with RMS.

To be discussed further with RMS.

Further letter sent 4 January 2013.

JULY 2011

3

SF1031

21/7/2011

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

 

GM

Policy under revision and to be reported to future meeting.? Also the State Government policy has recently changed.

 

Awaiting finilasation of Nambucca River Flood Studies

 


 

OCTOBER 2011

4

SF1595

20/10/2011

Council review its Tree Maintenance and Removal Application Policy asap, to provide greater clarity with regard to application assessments

 

AGMES

January GPC

Draft policy to be provided to Councillors at the end of January for comment and report to March GPC.

 

Further work being undertaken on the policy emanating from the resolutions of Council?s meeting 2/2/12. Draft policy will now be provided to Councillors for comment at end of February.

Due to natural disasters deferred to May 2012.

Deferred until   October following the election of the new Council and to be included in Tree Register? Item No 11 below. Deferred to November 2012.

 

 

Memo to be provided to Councillors with Policy procedures for comment in accordance with Policy direction ? February 2013

5

SF1460

17/11/2011

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

 

AGMCCS

Farmland criteria to be revised prior to the issuing of the 2012/13 rates.

 

Change in Rates staff meant that there has not been the opportunity to review the criteria.? To be reported in 2012/2013.

 

 

 

JANUARY 2012

6

SF742

19/01/2012

Council prepare a draft brochure to demonstrate land slip risk and tips for minimising risk.

 

GM

Aim to have completed by June 2012.

Existing information brochures have been sourced.

Small item in rates newsletter.? Grants Officer to prepare brochure.

 

FEBRUARY 2012

7

GB2/12

02/02/2012

Appropriate sized nesting boxes be place in trees in close proximity to the Cabbage Gum site (Link Road)

AGMES

20 nesting boxes organised and will be installed once they have been received; two advanced trees ordered and will be planted.?

Nesting boxes have now been delivered and will be installed shortly.

 

MARCH 2012

 

8

SF1743

15/03/2012

The tree register be referred back to the DES so that he may prepare a further report and recommendation to Council on a proposal which addresses historic, senescent or publicly significant trees on public land in urban areas.

 

AGMES

Report will be presented to Council in August 2012.

 

To incorporate outstanding action No 5 above.

 

Deferred until October following Council elections.

Deferred until November 2012.

 

 

Memo to be provided to Councillors with Policy procedures for comment in accordance with Policy direction ? February 2013

 

9

SF1714

11/04/2012

Council receive a report setting out the number of rural blocks which front sealed roads but do not have a building entitlement.

 

GM

Deferred to June 2012.

Investigations to commence when Strategic Planner returns from leave in August.

Investigations underway.

 

 

 


 

JUNE 2012

10

SF399

26/7/2012

Council to consider ?loss? of $191,545 in FAG income in September quarter budget review.

 

GM

Report in November 2012.? September QBR now deferred.? Refer report to Council?s meeting on 29 November.? Further deferred.

AUGUST 2012

11

SF96

15/08/2012

Council develop a policy in relation to the erection of signs on public land.

 

AGMES

A draft policy will be developed for Council in November 2012

 

 

Memo to be provided to Councillors with Policy procedures for comment in accordance with Policy direction ? February 2013

SEPTEMBER 2012

12

DA2012/093

27/09/2012

Council develop a Management Plan for Lions Park as soon as possible.

 

AGMES

Report in December 2012

 

Deferred to February 2013 subject to outcomes of stakeholder meeting

 

13

SF84

27/09/2012

Council write to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services & others advising that a formal written explanation has not been forthcoming on the RFS line items ?other support? , ?insurances? and why RFS budgets are not provided to Council by 28 February in accordance with the service level agreement.?? Council also advise that it doesn?t accept paying for the GRN which is not available in the Nambucca Valley.

 

AGMES

Letter sent 5 October 2012.

 

Acknowledgement of receipt of letter received.

OCTOBER 2012

14

SF688

10/10/2012

Council receive a report to establish a rainwater tank rebate under its water fund and that the provisions of the existing rebate scheme be reviewed to achieve a higher take up rate.

 

AGMES

Report to February 2013 meeting

15

SF544

10/10/2012

That a draft Section 94A contributions plan be submitted to Council no later than early 2013 to enable a draft works schedule to be advertised with the draft 2013/2014 Operational Plan.

 

GM

Report in January 2013

 

 

16

SF1185

10/10/2012

Naming of beach area off Ferry Street be deferred due to an undertaking that there be a meeting with the various stakeholders.

AGMES

Meeting to be arranged with stakeholders ? report deferred to February 2013

17

DA2012/069

25/10/2012

Council to seek full external funding for independent traffic study for Pacific Highway Upper Warrell Creek Road Intersection

MBD/

G&CO

Investigations underway

18

SF1676

25/10/2012

Capital works variations to be included in September 2012 Budget Review

 

 

AGM-

Budget Review underway

See report in business paper

 

NOVEMBER 2012

19

PRF54

29/11/2012

Council does not proceed with any management plan for the Gumma (Boulton?s Crossing) Reserve until there has been a meeting with NPWS and the Dept. of Lands.? Also that a report come to Council on how the land came to be transferred.

 

GM

Meeting scheduled for 9 January.? Report to meeting on 31 January 2013.

20

SF430

29/11/2012

Council write to the Dept. asking whether they will seek a refund of the grant money paid if no Plan of Management for Flying Foxes at Grassy Park is adopted or if a Plan different to that recommended is adopted.

 

GM

Letter sent 5 December 2012.

21

PRF49

29/11/2012

That the outcome of the investigations to identify the reason/s for the excessive water consumption at Macksville Park be notified to Councillors.

 

AGMES

March 2013

22

PRF49

29/11/2012

That a report be submitted to Council on the possibility of Committees of Management, Clubs etc who currently do not pay for water consumption being charged for water consumption.

 

AGMES

March 2013

23

SF29

29/11/2012

Representatives of Clarence Valley Council be requested to meet with representatives of this Council to discuss the distribution of the assets and liabilities of the CRL.

 

GM

Letter sent 5 December 2012


 

DECEMBER 2012

24

SF382

12/12/2012

Scotts Head Caravan Park ? new concept plan ? to be exhibited and reported to Council.

GM

Anticipate reporting 28 February 2013

25

SF688

12/12/2012

Council receive a report on the progress of Environmental Levy projects with the quarterly budget review.

GM

First report to be provided for the December 2012 budget review

26

SF688

12/12/2012

Council to consider a position of Natural Resources Officer in the 2013/14 Environmental Levy Program

GM

To be reported with draft Delivery Program (budget) for 2013/14

27

SF1460

12/12/2012

That Council commence preparing a S508A application for the 2014/15 financial year so that by late 2013 Council is prepared to lodge an application

AGMCCS

Program for reviews of IPR plans and community consultation to be reported on

28

SF1460

12/12/2012

That financial workshops be held with Councillors and staff in parallel with the preparation of the 2013/14 budget to identify and review service levels, review the CSP and determine to what extent SRV?s are to be sought in future years

AGMCCS

Workshops to be held in March, April, May 2013

 

Report in March 2013 on program on the 508a Application

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.2???? SF600????????????? 160113??????? Transfer of Ownership of the Nambucca Heads Senior Citizens Centre from Council to the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc.

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

At Council?s meeting on 10 October 2012 it was resolved:

 

?that Council approach the Nambucca Senior Citizens Centre with a view to arranging a meeting to discuss a possible partnership with U3A and a mutually agreeable arrangement for sharing of the facility.? Further, that the opportunity for transfer of the building from Council ownership to the Senior Citizens Centre Committee also be discussed.?

 

Council?s Delivery Program indicates that Council has to determine how it will reduce its services to a level which is financially sustainable.? One of the measures that may help reduce Council?s expenditure on infrastructure is identified as:

 

????????????? transfer Senior Citizens Centres to Incorporated Committees

 

The transfer of the building to the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc. will remove maintenance costs as well as the depreciation expense from Council?s accounts.? Council can still provide support to the Club through its Grants Officer and Donations Policy.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council offer to transfer ownership of the Nambucca Senior Citizens Centre to the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc. with Council meeting all legal costs and any stamp duty which may be applicable.? Further that the Club be requested to indicate its agreement or otherwise to this offer within 60 days.

 

2??????? That the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc. be advised of the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 in relation to exempting the property from the payment of rates.

 

3??????? In the event that the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc. agree to the offer in Recommendation 1, that Council proceed with a planning proposal for the reclassification of the land from community to operational and undertake the required public notice and public hearing.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can opt to transfer the property to the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc. or retain ownership of the property.

 

In theory Council could also proceed with a planning proposal for the reclassification of the land from community to operational without identifying a transferee.? This would potentially allow the Council to transfer the property to an entity other than the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc.? This is not recommended as the Club has more equity in the premises than Council.? It would also make the reclassification problematic as Council would not be able to identify its purpose in reclassifying the land.

 

The report indicates the reasons for the recommendation to transfer ownership of the property to the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc.

 


DISCUSSION:

 

At Council?s meeting on 10 October 2012 it was resolved;

 

?that Council approach the Nambucca Senior Citizens Centre with a view to arranging a meeting to discuss a possible partnership with U3A and a mutually agreeable arrangement for sharing of the facility.? Further, that the opportunity for transfer of the building from Council ownership to the Senior Citizens Centre Committee also be discussed.?

 

The General Manager met with the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc. on 25 October 2012 to discuss the use of their centre by U3A and also to discuss the transfer of the building from Council ownership.? The Senior Citizens Club has extensive records of the arrangements which were put in place between Council and the Club to acquire the centre and these were subsequently supplied to Council.

 

The Mayor and General Manager then met with representatives of the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc. and U3A on 16 November 2012.? The meeting was conducted in good faith and seemed positive in terms of a resolution in relation to the use of the building by U3A.

 

However subsequently U3A put forward a formal proposal for the hire of the building for 4 days per week for 1 year but the offer was rejected by the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc. as being inadequate.? But in addition to that the Nambucca Senior Citizens Committee met on 20 November and decided to conclude their association with U3A.? A resolution was passed by the Committee of Management and the members that all property and equipment of U3A be removed by 3 December 2012 plus all keys belonging to Nambucca Seniors be returned to the Secretary by this date.? The details of the offer reported to the General Manager are in a closed report.

 

There would seem to be no further action that Council can take in relation to the disagreement over the rental of the premises.? Council has appointed the Nambucca Senior Citizens as a Section 355 Committee of Management with delegated powers to, ?undertake and regulate the casual hiring of premises and grounds?.? In addition, the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc. can demonstrate substantial equity in the premises having funded most of the acquisition and subsequent extensions.

 

This report concerns the second part of Council?s resolution being the opportunity to transfer ownership from Council to the Senior Citizens Club.

 

History of the Nambucca Senior Citizens Centre

 

The history of the acquisition of the building from the Senior Citizens records is attached.

 

As the records indicate, initially it was proposed that crown land in Nambucca Heads be provided as a site for the construction of a senior citizens centre.? The Government Gazette of 18 July 1986 identified land for the provision of a community centre off Riverside Drive.? There is evidence of subsequent negotiations whereby Autumn Lodge (now Nambucca Valley Care) would build and maintain the centre but which would be operated by the Senior Citizens Club.? For whatever reason, this proposal did not proceed.? The land was incorporated into the Riverside Gardens development which is now owned by Nambucca Valley Care.

 

The Nambucca Senior Citizens Club continued with their fund raising and following a report to Council on 21 July 1994, it was resolved to acquire the property at No. 11 Kent Street (Part Lot 2 DP 330678) with the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc. funding $141,000 of the required $221,000 to acquire the property and extend the building.? Therefore, notwithstanding Council ownership of the property, the Senior Citizens Club can demonstrate it has more equity in the property than Council.

 

The resolution did not include the classification of the property as community or operational pursuant to the Local Government Act 1993 so by default it is classified as community land.

 

At the meeting with representatives of the Senior Citizens Club on 25 October 2012 there was general support for the transfer of the property from Council to the Club.? The Senior Citizens representatives did request advice as to whether the property, if transferred into their ownership, would be subject to the payment of rates.

 

Liability for Rating

 

Section 556 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides the following exemptions from the payment of rates, other than water supply and sewerage charges.

556   What land is exempt from all rates, other than water supply special rates and sewerage special rates?

(1)  The following land is exempt from all rates, other than water supply special rates and sewerage special rates:

(a)  land that is a public place,

(b)  land used for a public reserve and vested in the Crown, a public body or trustees,

(c)  land used for a common and vested in the Crown, a public body or trustees,

(d)  land used for a public cemetery and vested in the Crown, a public body or trustees,

(e)  land used solely for a free public library and vested in the Crown, a public body or trustees,

(f)  land acquired under an environmental planning instrument for the public purpose specified in the instrument and not leased for private purposes,

(g)  land that is held under a lease from the Crown for private purposes and is the subject of a mineral claim granted under Division 4 of Part 9 of the Mining Act 1992 and that the council has declared is not rateable,

(h)  land that belongs to a public benevolent institution or public charity and is used or occupied by the institution or charity for the purposes of the institution or charity,

(i)  land that belongs to a public hospital ?

 

From 3 December 2012, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) is responsible for determining Public Benevolent Institution (PBI) status. The ACNC registers organisations as charities, including particular types of charities such as Public Benevolent Institutions. The Australian Taxation Office accepts that an organisation is a PBI if it is registered by the ACNC as a PBI.

 

The following Factsheet from the ACNC?s website indicates the criteria used to assess applications for registration as a public benevolent institution.

 

Factsheet: What is a public benevolent institution?

A public benevolent institution (PBI) is a type of charity that can register with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC). Public benevolent institutions (like health promotion charities) can apply for charity tax concessions and may be eligible for deductible gift recipient (DGR) status with the Australian Tax Office (ATO). If you want to be a DGR under the public benevolent institution category, your charity must first be registered as a public benevolent institution with the ACNC and satisfy other requirements of the ATO.

 

This factsheet explains what a public benevolent institution is. It sets out the key characteristics, but your organisation may have other characteristics that may still make it a public benevolent institution.

 

Some of the words used may seem old-fashioned, but they are still used in charity law, which has developed over hundreds of years. We have tried to explain them.

What is a public benevolent institution?

The meaning of public benevolent institution has been developed by law made by judges and parliament (such as the ACNC Act). These organisations are recognised by the ACNC and ATO as a type of charity.

 

The specific legal meaning of public benevolent institution is 'a charitable institution that provides direct benevolent relief to people in need'.

 

Examples of public benevolent institutions include some disability support services, aged care services and low rental or subsidised housing for people in need.

Is my charity a public benevolent institution?

Your charity may be a public benevolent institution if it:

?????? meets the legal meaning of charity

?????? is an institution

?????? provides direct benevolent relief as its main purpose

?????? provides that relief to people in need.

Is my charity an institution?

An institution is an 'establishment, organisation or association, instituted for the promotion of some object, especially objects of public utility, or that are religious, charitable or educational.

 

To be an institution your charity must be not be merely a fund. It must do more than just distribute funds to other organisations or individuals, or simply make property available for others (as a fund may do). It must have its own activities or engage others to undertake activities on its behalf.

 

To show that your charity is an institution you need evidence of the activities your charity undertakes, for example, details of programs that it runs or staff hours.

 

Your charity may need to have a separately identifiable structure to be an institution, but it does not need to have a particular legal structure to fit the definition. However, its size and permanence are
also relevant.

Does my charity provide direct relief?

Direct relief means that the benefit is provided directly to people who need it. The organisation can provide this itself through its own staff and volunteers doing the work, or through others acting on its behalf.

 

Some examples include medical clinics treating people who are sick, accommodation services providing accommodation to people who are experiencing homelessness and emergency services rescuing people
in danger.

Does my charity provide benevolent relief?

Benevolent relief includes working for the relief of poverty, sickness, disability, destitution, suffering, misfortune or helplessness.

 

The degree of suffering or distress is also important and your charity only meets the definition if the need it tries to meet is:

????????????? significant enough (and the circumstances difficult enough) to arouse compassion in people in the community, and

????????????? beyond the suffering experienced as part of ordinary daily life.

Your charity does not have to provide material help. The need relieved also does not have to be financial hardship or caused by poverty, but can be other needs. For example, a charity that provides education and activities to disadvantaged young people that help them gain skills and self-confidence in life may be a public benevolent institution.

 

As long as a charity's main purpose is benevolent, it can also have other non-benevolent purposes that
are incidental.

Who does my charity have to provide direct benevolent relief to?

The relief provided must only be for people. Your charity must also show that it works for a section of the community that clearly needs help, in other words 'people in need'.

 

'Public' refers to who your charity works for. The benefit can be for a section of the community (as long as it is needy) and does not have to be for the benefit of the community as a whole.

 

An example may be a charity that works for the promotion of Aboriginal culture. If it can show that the community it works for is in need of assistance, it can be a public benevolent institution.

 

Therefore to achieve a rating exemption the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc. must lodge an application with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) for a determination that they are a public benevolent institution or public charity.? Council cannot of itself exempt properties from the payment of rates unless the exemption meets the requirements of the Local Government Act.

 

Conclusion

 

Whilst the property at 11 Kent Street is currently in good repair, it is an older timber building and will require proportionately more maintenance than a newer brick building on a concrete slab.? Also notwithstanding that Council is the registered owner of the property, the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc. can demonstrate they have more equity in the property than Council.? This may make it more problematic, at least from a political/moral perspective, to direct the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc. in relation to the use of the property.? Indeed there is no evidence that in the 19 years since the establishment of the Senior Citizens Centre that Council has provided any direction as to the use of the property.

 

Council?s Delivery Program indicates that Council has to determine how it will reduce its services to a level which is financially sustainable.? One of the measures that may help reduce Council?s expenditure on infrastructure is identified as:

 

????????????? transfer Senior Citizens Centres to incorporated committees

 

The transfer of the building to the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc. will remove maintenance costs as well as the depreciation expense from Council?s accounts.? Council can still provide support to the Club through its Grants Officer and Donations Policy.

 

The property will need to be reclassified as operational land before it can be transferred to the Club.? This is a laborious process even when there is no community opposition.? The reclassification must be undertaken by way of a planning proposal (local environmental plan) and the Council must conduct a public hearing into the reclassification regardless of whether or not it receives any public submissions.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc. and U3A.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 


Social

 

There are no social implications as there will be no change to the management of the Senior Citizens Centre.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no identified risks.? If Council was to retain ownership of the building there will be on-going costs in relation to periodic inspections for building fire safety and pests, insurance, as well as required maintenance such as painting and over time more significant capital expenditure for renewing the building.? As an example the Council spent $22,000 in the 2011/2012 year on repainting the whole building.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The transfer of the building will remove maintenance and depreciation costs from Council?s future budgets.

 

There will be a ?one off? cost in transferring ownership of the building.? The cost will depend on whether or not stamp duty is payable on the transfer.? If stamp duty is not payable then the costs of the transfer should be less than $5,000.? If stamp duty is payable then the cost will be in the vicinity of $14,000 based on an estimated property valuation of $300,000.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

28786/2012 - Copies of documents - Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc.

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

Transfer of Ownership of the Nambucca Heads Senior Citizens Centre from Council to the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc.

 



Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.3???? RF275????????????? 160113??????? Bellingen-Bowraville Road

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council has received the a letter from Roads and Maritime Services advising that the restoration of the southern section of Bellingen-Bowraville road is not supported by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) unless work is undertaken to mitigate the risk of future land slips simultaneously.? Council would need to source the funding for this mitigation work which would need to consider:

 

????????????? Drainage upgrades at all gullies, including engineered ?causeways? to better control the flow of water over the road.

????????????? Drainage capacity upgrades with improved down slope scour protection arrangements.

????????????? All drains near gullies would need to be lined.

????????????? Road shoulders in locations prone to scour would need to be ?armoured?.

????????????? Undertaking upslope improvement works including tree cleaning and a range of rock bolting, soil nailing and shotcrete works.

 

The funding which Council would need to source to undertake the specified mitigation work would run to many millions of dollars.

 

Bellingen Shire Council has accepted a tender for the restoration of the northern end of the Bellingen ? Bowraville Road for the sum of $2,992,088.? The original indicative cost for the northern section provided by GHD was $5.9m with a 30% contingency of $6.6m with a 50% contingency.? Council had been advised by the RMS that $10m had been allocated to the repair of the northern section of the road.

 

Given the very favourable outcome of this tender, it is reasonable to question whether the $16m estimated for the southern section is an over estimate.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1.?????? That Roads and Maritime Services be requested to further investigate the cost of the restoration of the southern section of the Bellingen-Bowraville Road based on the lower than anticipated tender price for the northern section restoration.

 

2.?????? That Roads and Maritime Services be reminded that the Bellingen-Bowraville Road was a Regional Road up until 5 June 2009 and as such they bear some responsibility for funding the ?betterment? arising out of the natural disasters in February and March 2009.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are many options.

 

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) have requested that Council formally respond to their offer concerning the restoration of the southern section of the road.? The RMS has indicated that if Council decides not to agree to the required ?betterment? so as to restore the road, then the RMS would commit up to $1 million towards environmental restoration works along the southern section of the road, as agreed with the National Parks and Wildlife Service.? The recommendation, by again deferring the decision to enable further representations, will further defer the offer of environmental restoration work.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Bellingen to Bowraville Road was originally constructed as a bridle trail in the 1880?s to link the two towns.? It became a road around 1901.? The road was originally constructed for horse traffic and was progressively widened in the 1900s to cater for larger motor vehicle traffic.

 

During major rain events in February and March 2009, two zones of the Bellingen-Bowraville Road suffered major damage due to landslides and related scouring of embankments.? The road has been closed to traffic ever since these events.? The southern section of the landslide damage in the Shire of Nambucca encompassed Bowra Mountain and Bowraville Nature Reserve and was impacted by 32 landslides within 3.5km.? The road is either buried or completely blocked at many locations.

 

The northern zone of landslide damage occurred near Dyers Mountain above the southern section of Spicketts Creek where up to 10 landslides occurred within a 0.8km.? Roads and Maritime Services have provided funding for the repair and restoration of this section of road.

 

In between the two landslide damage zones (northern and southern) in the Spicketts Creek Valley are a number of properties within the Shire of Nambucca.? However their only access is from the Bellingen Shire.

 

Council has received the attached letter from Roads and Maritime Services advising that the restoration of the southern section of road is not supported by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) unless work is undertaken to mitigate the risk of future land slips simultaneously.? Council would need to source the funding for this mitigation work which would need to consider:

 

????????????? Drainage upgrades at all gullies, including engineered ?causeways? to better control the flow of water over the road.

????????????? Drainage capacity upgrades with improved down slope scour protection arrangements.

????????????? All drains near gullies would need to be lined.

????????????? Road shoulders in locations prone to scour would need to be ?armoured?.

????????????? Undertaking upslope improvement works including tree cleaning and a range of rock bolting, soil nailing and shotcrete works.

 

The funding which Council would need to source to undertake the specified mitigation work would run to many millions of dollars.? The Roads and Maritime Services are aware that the cost of the mitigation works is well beyond Council?s budget.? The only potential funding source would seem to be grant funding from the Commonwealth Government.? There are no known Commonwealth grant programs available for such mitigation work.

 

The response is unsatisfactory as it is contrary to the adopted Natural Disaster funding arrangements and is also contrary to the findings of a Value Management Workshop conducted on 14 December 2010.? The determination of the Value Management Workshop that the road should be reinstated was also supported by the Member for Oxley (then in Opposition) in a media release issued in January 2011 (attached).

 

The Natural Disaster funding arrangements are set out on the RMS website.

 

The flood/storm event which caused the damage to the Bellingen/Bowraville Road was a declared Natural Disaster.

 

The funding arrangements provide that for a Natural Disaster assistance will be provided for the reinstatement of local roads and bridges at 75% of the assessed cost up to $116,000 and 100% thereafter.

 

The funding arrangements state that;

 

?The fundamental principle is the restoration or replacement of roads and bridges, damaged as a direct result of an eligible event, to the equivalent of their pre-damage standard or service level?.

 

Given the cost of reinstating the road, the Council also agreed to the conduct of a Value Management Workshop organised by Roads and Maritime Services.? This was held on 14 December 2010.? The Value Management Workshop determined that the best option was to restore both the Northern and Southern zones of damage to the road (Option 1).? The advantages and disadvantages of this option were listed as:

 

?Advantages

?????? All weather road is re-opened for residents and through traffic

?????? Emergency access and escape for residents in both directions

?????? Restores links to key fire trails

?????? Provides the previous connectivity links (cultural, social, economic etc)

?????? Provides future development, growth and tourism potential

?????? Preferred option of the community (community questionnaires)

?????? Greater economic advantage to the region than Options 2, 3 and 4.

 

Disadvantages

?????? Technically difficult

?????? Long time to carry out works

?????? Major disruptions to traffic in the northern zone during construction

?????? Expensive?

 

At Council?s meeting on 30 August 2012 it was resolved as follows:

 

1??????? That Council forward the letter from the Roads and Maritime Services to the Bowraville and District Chamber of Commerce; the Bellingen Chamber of Commerce; Bellingen Shire Council; the Bellingen (Coffs Coast) Tourism Association; Nambucca Valley Tourism; as well as the residents of the Spicketts Creek area located with the Shire of Nambucca seeking their comments and suggestions.

 

2??????? That the matter be reported to a Council meeting in October 2012 including any comments and suggestions received from the groups and people listed in recommendation 1.

 

3??????? That Council write to the Minister expressing its disappointment and seeking justification for the decision.

 

This report has been delayed due to the time taken to get some responses as well as other business.

 

Council has now received responses from Bellingen Shire Council, Nambucca Valley Tourism and three residents directly affected by the road closure.? The responses are attached.? The response from Bellingen Council is a confidential report as it contains confidential tender information.

 

A copy of a response to the Member for Oxley as a consequence of representations to the Minister for Roads and Ports is also attached.

 

It should be noted that Bellingen Shire Council has accepted a tender for the restoration of the northern end of the Bellingen ? Bowraville Road for the sum of $2,992,088.? The original indicative cost for the northern section provided by GHD was $5.9m with a 30% contingency of $6.6m with a 50% contingency.? Council had been advised by the RMS that $10m had been allocated to the repair of the northern section of the road.

 

Given the very favourable outcome of this tender, it is reasonable to question whether the $16m estimated for the southern section is an over estimate.

 

If for example, a tender for the southern section came in at half that original cost estimate (as the northern section did), the whole road could be reinstated for $11m, not the $22m originally estimated.? And the RMS has already made provision for an expenditure of $10m.

 

It should also be noted that up until 5 June 2009, the road was classified as a Regional Road for which the then RTA had responsibility to provide funding assistance to Council.? The natural disasters which damaged the road occurred in February and March 2009.? As such the RTA are equally liable for the betterment they now seek to impose on Council.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with Bellingen Shire Council, Nambucca Valley Tourism, and affected residents.? The matter was discussed at Manex and it was noted that the road was a Regional Road up until an announcement by the then RTA on 5 June 2009.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The major implication for the environment concerns the further deferral of environmental restoration works.?

The RMS has indicated that if Council decides not to agree to the required ?betterment? so as to restore the road, then the RMS would commit up to $1 million towards environmental restoration works along the southern section of the road, as agreed with the National Parks and Wildlife Service.?

 

Social

 

The adverse social impacts arising from the closure of the road have been previously reported.? They have also been documented in a Value Management process.

 

Economic

 

The adverse economic impacts arising from the closure of the road have been previously reported.? They have also been documented in a Value Management process.

 

Risk

 

There are no particular risks.? Further deferral of a decision will defer the RMS commitment of up to $1m towards environmental restoration works.? However nearly 4 years have elapsed since the landslides and several more months is unlikely to make a significant difference in terms of the risks to the environment.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

At this stage there is no budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

21873/2012 - RMS response regarding Bowraville - Bellingen Road

0 Pages

2View

21954/2012 - Media Release from Andrew Stoner MP

0 Pages

3View

33247/2012 - Nambucca Valley Tourism - submission on Bellingen Road

0 Pages

4View

32762/2012 - Submission from Helen Marges and David Wallin

0 Pages

5View

32719/2012 - Submission from Guy Mitchell

0 Pages

6View

29960/2012 - Minister for Roads response to the Hon. Andrew Stoner

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

Bellingen-Bowraville Road

 



Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

Bellingen-Bowraville Road

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

Bellingen-Bowraville Road

 

 

1st October 2012

 

Mr Michael Coulter

General Manager

Nambucca Shire Council

 

Dear Michael Coulter

We appeal to you to use your full support to assist the people of the Nambucca Valley and Bellingen to once again enjoy the use of the Bowraville to Bellingen Road as soon? as possible.? Not rebuilding this road is severely impacting on the township of Bowraville.

 

In these economic times it is important for tourists and locals in our area to be able to access this important route. It?s closure is effecting? tourism in the area as this is a popular tourist route which enable tourists to enjoy the many assets and businesses of both Bowraville and Bellingen in one enjoyable and now well missed? trip.? This negatively? impacts both the local residents and businesses.

 

With the next summer promoted as being a very high bushfire season there is an increased level of risk because of the lack of access.

 

Surely this important issue which is impacting on the daily lives of many people needs addressing.

Thanking you

 

Eleonora Snart

Secretary Nambucca Valley Tourism Association.


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

Bellingen-Bowraville Road

 

From:Helen[SMTP:helen@malibells.com.au]

To:Michael Coulter[SMTP:Michael.Coulter@nambucca.nsw.gov.au]

Cc:Mayor[SMTP:mayor@nambucca.nsw.gov.au]

Received-Date:20120919

Received-Time:2:02:36 AM

Sent-Date:20120919

Sent-Time:12:50:44 AM

Subject:Re: Repairs to Bellingen Road

 

Hello Michael and Rhonda,

 

I have finally tried to sit down and nut out a response to the RMS letter, but I have to admit that I feel "lost for words".

 

Here is an attempt at "something". Use it, or part of it  if you wish, otherwise put it in the trash can!

 

 

 

To Whom It May Concern, 

 

I still have memories of the meeting held in Bowraville Theatre when asked the representatives of the RMS present if they could look me in the eye and give me a direct answer to a very simple question regarding the chances of having the road repaired given that the estimated cost given then was in in the vicinity of $30million. The reply was that we must endure the "process" of assessment, which as we all know then resulted in a RMS Value Management Workshop. 

 

I recall one of my first questions at the VMW ??" isn't it clear from the outset that the only value for $$$$ spent, is investing in the reopening of the whole of the road, so that tourists, locals, communities, recreation groups etc could all benefit from the investment repairing a regional rural  infrastructure that had existed since the early 1900's?"  I recall commenting that "one does not have to have a degree in economics to see that spending $10million on a handful of residents in Spicketts Creek, equates to a ridiculous amount of money per head of population set to benefit!"  Once again, I was told that it was necessary to sit out "the process".  

 

At the end of the lengthy process of value management, my earlier statement was proven ?.. yes, it was found that indeed the best value for money was to "reinstate the whole of the road". 

 

Months later, the RMS announce  $10million (later changed to $6.75Million) to be spent on repairs to the "northern zone" landslips, with a promise to review the southern sone after the northern zone is repaired.  

Now ?. we are informed that the RMS have sent a letter to councils with totally unrealistic demands that unless council commits millions of dollars from within its own budget, to put works in place to prevent future "Natural Disasters" from damaging the road, the RMS will proceed to close the road. This to me is a rather "dumb" request.  If only we could prevent Natural Disasters from happening, then we wouldn't need Natural Disaster funding! 

 

I hate to be a sceptic, but in my heart, I could have bet my whole life's savings that the result was always going to be the above. If only the RMS could have been forthright from the start instead of leading us all on a lengthy road of "process without progress". 

 

I do ponder over how many $$$$$ have been spent in getting to this point, but I don't need to ponder the length of time gone by ?. we are all to well aware of the fact that the Natural Disaster occurred on the 31st March 2009, and that todays date is 19th September 2012! Three and a half years of "paperwork" ?.. that must surely equate in dollar terms to a substantial amount of money spent on  creating documents that at the end of three and a half years get put in the TRASH! If only those same dollars could have assisted to prop up the businesses of the local people most directly affected by this natural disaster event. 

 

Having so far waited three and a half years, we now have the good news that the tender process for repairs to the north are underway with BSC preparing to  an announce  the successful tender shortly after its council meeting on 3rd October 2012. 

 

Following the announcement we can all breath a sigh of relief ?? work should finally commence in 2013 (by then 4 years will have gone by) ?.. and by the end of 2013/early 2014 (work is estimated to take up to 52 weeks) ?we will happily be driving on a more secure road. 

(NB: by then nearly 5 years will have clocked up). 

 

For us, being accommodation providers to tourists and travellers, we look forward to 2014 when we can offer a safer, more secure journey to Malibells, AND we look forward to reaching the "end of the process" in order for our business to start making progress. 

 

The bigger picture? I am saddened that the RMS suffer "tunnel vision" where the dollars are the all important factor overriding the needs of Regional Australian Communities in having the infrastructure necessary:

* for being able to provide access for emergency vehicles in responding to life threatening situations, 

* for future economic growth and development, 

* for linking rural communities

* for tourism 

* for historical and cultural importance

etc. etc. 

 

It is disheartening to know through experience, that community consultation is a mere "process", it is disheartening to know that departments such as the RMS can ignore their own process outcomes, and it is disheartening to know that at the end of the day money is all that matters! 

 

I am both proud and lucky to be of the mould that my health, my family, my friends and my community are what matters most. 

 

I am also glad that part of my community is Nambucca Council. Without doubt, it is a council that clearly works for the people they represent, and I am very grateful of its continued effort in supporting the community's right to have infrastructure lost as a result of a Natural Disaster, reinstated.  

 

As such, I am confident in giving Nambucca Council support  for whatever their own "community consultation" in the light of the recent letter issued to them from the RMS, outcome is. 

 

Regards,

Helen Marges

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 30/08/2012, at 8:11 AM, Michael Coulter <HYPERLINK "mailto:michael.coulter@nambucca.nsw.gov.au"michael.coulter@nambucca.nsw.gov.au> wrote:

 

 

David

 

We will be consulting with yourself, other property owners, Bellingen Shire Council and the respective tourism associations and chambers of commerce in relation to the advice we have received from the RMS. 

 

We will do this before we formally respond to them.

 

In answer to your questions:

 

1.  At our last meeting with the RMS there was no indication they had carried out any further work since the GHD report

 

2.  The RMS have said they will spend up to $1m in environmental remediation work

 

If you haven't already seen it please find attached a copy of the report to be considered by the Council meeting tonight.  I've also attached a copy of the letter from the RMS.

 

Regards

 

Michael Coulter

General Manager

Nambucca Shire Council

PO Box 177 Macksville NSW 2447

Direct: (02) 6568 0200

Mobile: 0409 153 788

Web: HYPERLINK "http://www.nambucca.nsw.gov.au/"www.nambucca.nsw.gov.au

Nambucca Valley ~ Living at its best

 

 

  _____  

 

From: Irene and David Wallin [mailto:treeferns@HYPERLINK "http://westnet.com.au"westnet.com.au]

Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2012 7:56 AM

To: Mayor; Michael Coulter

Cc: Helen; Alinda Rose

Subject: repairs to Bellingen Road

 

 

Hi Rhonda and Michael

 

I heard the news item on ABC local radio that RMS will not release the Natural Disaster funding for the southern section of the Bellingen Road until the risk of future land slips is solved.

 

You have a Council meeting today.

 

A number of points

 

Has RMS carried out further work since the GHD report and the Value Management workshop in 2010?

 

The GHD report did not raise concern about future landslips.

 

GHD also stated that if the road was not repaired there was a responsibility to carry out remedial work - this cost was included in the report and in the estimates for Natural Disaster funding.

 

The Value Managment workshop was concerned about safety for people living on the road in case of fire - there is no alternative escape route if the road is not fixed.

 

There is a legal responsibilty to fix up the mess where the road passes through the oldest  Nature Reserve in the state.

 

Of course the Deputy Premier, Andrew Stoner,  promised the road would be repaired in the run up to the last State election, which goes back to the first point - has any further geological  work been carried out since the GHD report?

 

For the long term, The Bellingen road is important for tourism, especially if tourists are to be encouraged to leave the new super Pacific Highway, when it gets built. Would you divert to Bowraville if it is a dead end?

 

Equally, is it likely that visitors to Bellingen will go to Bowraville if there is not a tourist road to get there?

 

It occurs to me that the RMS argument could apply to the Waterfal way between Bellingen and Dorrigo, and you may be happy that is not your problem.

 

I note that the RTA officially handed over the Bellingen road to the local council three months after the damage occured.

 

I am pleased that you will seek opinions from local stakeholders - it would be useful to check the number of property owners around Spicketts Creek and Brierfield who pay rates to Nambucca Shire Couincil and cannot now gain acces to the shire.

 

regards

 

David Wallin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------------------------Safe Stamp-----------------------------------

Your Anti-virus Service scanned this email. It is safe from known viruses.

For more information regarding this service, please contact your service provider.

 

DISCLAIMER This message is intended solely for the addressee. It is confidential and may be legally privileged. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. Unauthorised use is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or distribution of the message , or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, except for the purpose of the delivery to the addressee is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this e-mail has been sent to you by mistake. Please immediately contact the sender if this e-mail is incomplete or illegible or if you have received it in error. Thank you.

<Bellingen-Bowraville Road.DOC><Mayor - RMS response regarding restoration of Bowraville - Bellingen Road.TIF>

 

 

-------------------------------Safe Stamp-----------------------------------

Your Anti-virus Service scanned this email. It is safe from known viruses.

For more information regarding this service, please contact your service provider.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

Bellingen-Bowraville Road

 

From:Guy Mitchell[SMTP:guy@mitchell.name]

To:Michael Coulter[SMTP:Michael.Coulter@nambucca.nsw.gov.au]

Received-Date:20121026

Received-Time:4:30:38 AM

Sent-Date:20121026

Sent-Time:4:30:25 AM

Subject:Re: Closure of the Bellingen-Bowraville Road

 

From: Guy Mitchell

 

Ref: RF275

 

 

Dear Michael

 

Sorry about the delay in responding to your letter, I only just received it.

 

I strongly agree that the southern section of the Bowraville Road needs to be repaired. My land is located at Missabotti, which is accessed from the small road off Bowraville Road just metres from where Bowraville Road becomes impassable at the southern section.

 

The southern section of the Bowraville Road is most definitely needed for a myriad of reasons. It?s used by residents for day to day living and an escape route out of the area in case of fire or other disaster. It?s also used to facilitate tourism in the area and businesses for their livelihood.

 

I believe the road would receive a lot more traffic and use if it was sealed, this would open the area up to even more tourism and commerce. However, as it is I consider it to be an essential public asset, if it wasn?t it would?ve fallen into disuse and disrepair decades ago.

 

Many people have moved into the area of Spicketts Creek and Missabotti on the basis of the Bowraville Road going through to Bowraville, and this ongoing issue has certainly affected the appeal, land values and attraction of the area to the detriment.

 

Although the road has withstood the test of time for over 100 years, I don?t think restoring it to its previous state will be sufficient. I think it needs to be repaired to withstand future storms, which are likely to be more frequent.

 

Best regards

 

Guy Mitchell

 

Business Manager

 

Linksoft Solutions

 

M: 0405 186 824

 

 

-------------------------------Safe Stamp-----------------------------------

Your Anti-virus Service scanned this email. It is safe from known viruses.

For more information regarding this service, please contact your service provider.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

Bellingen-Bowraville Road

 





Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.4???? SF1668??????????? 160113??????? Annual Workers Compensation and Work Health and Safety Performance Report

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Joanne Hudson, Manager Human Resources ????????

 

Summary:

 

Each year StateCover Mutual Ltd reports to Council on its workers compensation and work health and safety (WHS) performance against relevant benchmarks.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note its workers compensation and work health and safety performance for 2011/12 as reported by StateCover.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Not applicable as the report is for information only.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Each year StateCover Mutual Ltd reports to Council on its workers compensation and work health and safety performance against relevant benchmarks.

 

J??? Average Rate

 

A key benchmark for the measurement of Council?s Workers Compensation performance is the premium rate paid by Council compared to the average rate of the industry and/or group of Councils. This is largely based on claims experience of an individual Council and the claims experience of the industry. Council?s rate is below both the StateCover average and the DLG Group average:

 

Group

Average Premium Rate

Council

3.61%

StateCover Average

3.69%

DLG Group Average

3.98%

 

 

L??? Lost Time Injuries

 

The frequency of work injuries is an important indicator of Work Health and Safety performance. Council?s injury rate (ie lost time injuries per 100 employees) is above both the StateCover average and DLG Group average:

 

 

Group

No. Lost Time Injuries / 100 employees

Council

4.67%

StateCover Average

4.14%

DLG Group Average

3.70%

 


J?? Injury Reporting

 

Early reporting together with early intervention are universally acknowledged drivers of good claims results. Council?s injury reporting performance (and compliance with the legislation) exceeded both the StateCover average and DLG Group Average.

 

 

Group

Injuries reported in 2 business days

Council

83.33%

StateCover Average

80.09%

DLG Group Average

76.38%

 

 

L??? WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY Self Audits

 

StateCover provides Member Councils with an annual Work Health and Safety self-audit to assist them in assessing their Work Health and Safety performance. Council?s audit score is below the average for StateCover and the DLG Group.

 

 

Group

Average

Council

59.30%

StateCover Average

66.80%

DLG Group Average

62.40%

 

 

J?? Work Health and Safety Financial Incentives

 

To encourage Councils to focus on improving current Work Health and Safety practices, StateCover provides an annual financial incentive of 0.24% of Council?s wages provided Council completes the following three key performance indictors:

 

1??????? Completion of the Work Health and Safety Self Audit and action plan

2??????? Independent verification of Council?s answers to the Audit questions

3??????? Receipt of completed wages declaration for the 2011/12 premium period within the statutory period

 

Council satisfactorily completed these KPI?s and received an incentive payment of $22,075.13 on 13 December 2012.

 

J?? Workers Compensation ? Performance Incentive Payment

 

StateCover introduced a new program in June 2012 to encourage a reduction in the number of signification workers compensation claims ie claims greater than 7 consecutive days compensation paid.

 

The program provides an incentive payment equivalent to 2% of Council?s actual 2011/12 premium and is available to member who achieve either a reduction in significant claims and/or zero significant claims.

 

Based on Council?s claims performance for 2011/12 compared to 2010/11, we were eligible to receive the payment which amounted to $6,561.14 and was paid on 6 November 2012.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

None

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Not applicable

 

Social

 

Not applicable

 

Economic

 

Not applicable

 

Risk

 

Not applicable

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Council received $28,636.27 in incentive payments.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

General Manager

ITEM 9.5???? SF1120??????????? 160113??????? Grant Application Status Report

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Colleen Henry, Grants Officer ????????

 

Summary:

 

This report provides an overview of grant applications and their status.

 

 

RecommendationS:

 

That the list of grant applications and their status to 20 December 2012 be received.

 

 

Successful grant applications (not yet acquitted):

Grant and date of approval

Funding Amount

Amount Council

Description

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water etc

 

$1 million

NA

Detailed design for off river water storage

Transport for NSW

Better Boating Program

Closed 29 July 2011

$47,734

$47,734****

 

Scotts Head Boat Ramp ? all-season facility

Department of Health and Ageing

Closed 19 August 2011

$566,430

NA

Healthy Communities Initiative Phase 3

?Live Healthy Nambucca?

Department of Sport and Recreation Facilities Grant

Closed 15 April 2011

1. $480

2. $4761

 

 

NA

1. Table Tennis Tables for Nambucca Heads Table Tennis Club (NHTTC), under the auspice of Nambucca Shire Council

2. Bowraville Cricket Club Nets and Pitch

Community Arts Support Program

Closed 10 February 2012

$1,000

NA

Unkya CoM to contribute some funds

Creation of mosaic artwork ?The Harmony Tree? for Unkya Reserve

Office of Communities

Community Building Partnership Program

Closed 31 October 2011

$19,745

$19,745****

Creation of a sand lagoon and other playground equipment, and installation of a composting toilet at Unkya Reserve.

Clean Energy Future ? Biodiversity Fund

 

Closed January 2012

$455,000 over six years

$30,000 over six years

?(From existing budget)

Invasive species control on Cliffs and High Conservation areas on the Coastal Fringe of the Nambucca Valley ? Funds will be used to manage invasive species including Bitou Bush and Lantana within the Coastal Reserve System, along 8.2km of coastline. The project will enhance the biodiversity of a large tract of connected coastal habitat and build capacity of the local community to protect and enhance the natural environment.

Your Community Heritage Grant

Telling the Tale of Talarm ? 150 years of settlement

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

Closed November 2011

$9,000

NA

In-kind contribution from Talarm CoM

Collection of oral histories encompassing the descendants of pioneers and newcomers. Future grant application will be made to publish a book written from the information and photos and other documents collected.

Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal ? Flood Fund

Closed 24 February 2012

$5,000

NA

?

Storage shed for storing VBCA equipment.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

No closing date

 

$10 million

TBC

Off-river water storage (subject to a number of conditions including detailed plans, relevant approvals, Council funding, confirmation of final project costs.

Indigenous Sport and Active Recreation Program Prime Minister and Cabinet

Closed 9 March 2012

$338,478 requested but only

$226,059 received

NA

Three-year program contracting Ritchie Donovan to continue to deliver Sport and Well-Being/Sports Facilitation program at Buz Brazel Oval. The full amount was not received, however it is sufficient to contract Mr Donovan over three years

 

NSW Govt ? Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme (LIRS)

Closed 26 March 2012

 

4% interest rate subsidy

Loan repayment

Council will receive an interest rate subsidy of 4% for the construction of three bridges (Touts, Lavertys & Eungai Creek) which have combined value of $1.314 million.

Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority -

NRM Implementation projects

Closed 15 June 2012

$70,000

$22,500

in-kind

Nambucca Shire Beaches Access Ways ? Prioritisation and construction of at least three beach access ways as part of the implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Plan.

Office of Environment and Heritage NSW

Closed 28 February 2012

$60,000

$40,000*

 

Nambucca Shire Beaches Access Ways ? Prioritisation and construction of beach access ways as part of the implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Plan.

Office of Environment and Heritage NSW

Closed 28 February 2012

$80,000

$40,000**

Gumma Reserve Water Management Regime assessment, planning and implementation of water management regime at Gumma to meet wetland improvement and water quality management objectives.

Royal Australian Heritage Society Historical Grant

Closed 20 July 2012

$1,500

(partial grant only)

NA

Publication of the history of Talarm from the oral histories which are being collected through a Commonwealth grant.

Revitalising Regional Libraries

Closed 19 November 2012

$16,000

NA

Funding to address some of the gaps in the Library collection.

Mid North Coast Cancer Council

Closed 9 November 2012

$5,000

In-kind (labour)

Funding to purchase 49 non-smoking area signs for placement throughout the Shire?s facilities.

 

SUCCESSFUL APPLICATIONS IN THIS PERIOD:

 

Grant and Date of Notice

Amount

Amount - Council

Description

Department of Veterans? Affairs

Saluting Their Service

Closed

$2,489

N/A

Creation of Honour Board in Utungun Hall to commemorate servicemen and women in the District

Total year to date

$13,570,198

 

 


Applications made but not yet determined:

 

Funding Body

Amount

Amount - Council

Project Name

Office of Communities ? Sport and Recreation Participation and Facility Grant

Closed 3 September 2012

$50,000

$50,000****

Rebuilding/renewal of Macksville Skate Park.

Office of Communities

Community Building Partnership Program

Closed 30 October 2012

$26,000

$26,000 (From Healthy Communities Initiative)

Build an outdoor exercise hub in Macksville, as part of revitalisation activities

Regional Development Australia Fund

Round 3 (Small Communities)

Round 4 (Infrastructure)

Closed 6 December

 

 

$500,000

$1m

 

 

NA

Some s94 funds

 

 

Extension to Bowraville Theatre

Upper Warrell Creek Road Improvements

 

*??????? The Draft Environmental Levy Fund, which Council considered in October 2011, identifies $40,000 for the implementation of actions from the Nambucca Coastal Zone Management Plan.

**?????? From the Environmental Levy Fund.

***???? From the Committee of Management?s account; income from camping fees

****??? From s.94 funds

 

Unsuccessful applications in this period:

 

Funding Body

Amount

Amount - Council

Project Name

Office of Communities NSW ? Youth Opportunities

Closed 6 August 2012

$38,600

In kind

Tools to Turn Dreams to Reality ? Creating a community sk8 park. (Youth development activities focused on re-designing Macksville Skate Park)

Local Government and Shires Association Age-Friendly Community Grant

Closed 16 November 2012

 

$24,000

NA

Implement Macks 05 and Macks 02 (recommendations from the PAMP) to complete two footpaths.

Crown Lands ? Public Reserves Management Fund

Closed 31 July 2012

$146,000

$10,000***

Boulton?s Crossing Reserve:

Consultancy to identify best waste management system and implementation of report recommendations

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.6???? SF1786??????????? 160113??????? Nambucca LEP Amendment No 8 Secondary Dwellings in Rural Zones

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Grant Nelson, Strategic Planner ????????

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to advise Council that Nambucca LEP amendment no. 8 Secondary Dwellings has been approved.

 

The amendment will allow secondary dwellings (granny flats) to be permissible with consent on rural zoned land and it became effective on the 14 December 2012.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1 ?????? That the information be noted.

 

2??????? That a media release be prepared.

 

3??????? That a fact sheet be prepared and made available on Councils website.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Nil

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Secondary Dwellings were introduced into the NSW Planning System as a way of promoting alternative forms of affordable housing (Granny Flats).? To achieve this, secondary dwelling provisions were written into the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing and the Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan.?

 

This amendment addressed two (2) matters that related specifically to secondary dwellings. The first part relates to the size of the secondary dwelling, the second part will allow secondary dwellings to be constructed in Rural Zones.

 

Part 1 size of secondary Dwellings

 

When initially made the Nambucca LEP 2010 contained provisions which allowed secondary dwellings to be constructed to 50% of the size of the primary dwelling. Changes to the standard instrument effected these provisions.

 

To achieve the intent of the original secondary dwelling provisions, (to allow granny flat type developments) and to provide an alternative form of low cost accommodation within the Shire, this planning proposal maintains that secondary dwellings may be constructed to 50% of the size of the primary dwelling in areas where they are permissible.

 

Part 2 Secondary Dwellings in Rural Zones

 

This part has resulted in secondary dwellings being a permissible use in rural areas. This presents a? significant change to the historic availability of dwelling types in the shire and the north coast in general. It provides the following potential benefits as identified in the Planning Proposal.

 

?????????? With one of the coast?s fastest growing ageing populations it will provide affordable alternative accommodation for ageing rural property owners who need assistance to manage properties, but wish to retain rural lifestyle.

 

?????????? It will also provide an affordable retirement solution where rural property owners may be priced out of the coastal village market.

 

?????????? It will allow older community members to ?age in place?.

 

?????????? Secondary dwellings provide space for additional family members or provide additional low cost accommodation for other persons.

 

?????????? It will allow for generational farm transition.

 

?????????? With an identified ageing population it is important to create as many opportunities as possible for young persons to reside in the area and contribute to the service needs of older generations. The rural secondary dwelling provides an attractive option for young persons attempting to find low cost rental accommodation.

 

?????????? Provides an opportunity to supplement income by renting out the second dwelling.

 

?????????? Provides an opportunity for seasonal accommodation for farm workers. Particularly where the scale of the agricultural pursuit does not warrant a rural workers dwelling. Which may be the case local growers market and produce providers.

 

?????????? The provision of secondary dwellings as an additional form of residential accommodation within a single title may assist in preventing widespread and unnecessary subdivision on larger allotments.

 

?????????? Second dwellings are likely to encourage legitimate occupation of granny flats in rural areas and decrease the number of illegal occupations of rural structures which present resource draining regulatory issues.

 

?????????? Council will gain contributions from structures which may otherwise be occupied illegally without Council knowledge.

 

?????????? Provides an alternative option to attached dual occupancies on rural land. Rural land holders may find one development type is more suited to their needs.

 

It is expected that any issues with individual applications can be managed through the development application process. As noted within the risk section of this report, the implementation of this land use will be monitored and any potential issues may be addressed in a future amendment to the DCP 2010.

 

Councils Strategic Planner can provide a copy of the Planning Proposal on request if required.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Nil

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The environmental social and economic impacts of the LEP amendment were addressed in detail within the planning proposal and will not be reiterated in this part of the report.

 

Social

 

The environmental social and economic impacts of the LEP amendment were addressed in detail within the planning proposal and will not be reiterated in this part of the report

 

Economic

 

The environmental social and economic impacts of the LEP amendment were addressed in detail within the planning proposal and will not be reiterated in this part of the report

 

Risk

 

Council has previously resolved to review this LEP amendment and how the LEP amendment is being implemented after a 6-12 month period. If it is deemed necessary at the end of this period Council may implement changes to DCP 2010 to further control this type of development. Such controls may include the following as highlighted in the Planning Proposal:

 

????????????? A separate access for secondary dwelling is not permitted;

????????????? A Secondary Dwelling must be located no greater than X distance from the primary dwelling;

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Nil

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.7???? SF1786??????????? 160113??????? Planning Proposal - Nambucca LEP Amendment no. 12 Exceptions to Minimum Lot Sizes for Certain Rural Subdivisions

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Grant Nelson, Strategic Planner ????????

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the results of the exhibition of Planning Proposal no. 12 to the Nambucca LEP 2010, and request Council resolve to proceed with the amendment.

 

The amendment provides exceptions to minimum lot sizes for certain rural subdivisions. Essentially the amendment will allow an established/approved use (not being a dwelling) to be subdivided from a rural block of land despite any lot size provisions.

 

 

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????????? That pursuant to Clause 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the Planning Proposal, associated documents and submissions be forwarded to Department of Planning and Infrastructure requesting that they seek the making of the Plan by the Minister.

 

2????????? That those persons/agencies who made submissions be advised of Council's decision.

 

3????????? That a fact sheet be prepared and advertised on Council?s website.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may resolve not to proceed with the amendment.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council resolved to pursue this amendment in July 2012. Essentially the amendment allows rural land to be subdivided below the minimum lot size where Council is satisfied the use of the land after the subdivision will be for an approved use other than residential accommodation. An example may be the subdivision of a petrol station, shop or school from a rural lot.

 

The proposed clause as exhibited is presented below:

 

4.2A ??? Exceptions to minimum lot sizes for certain rural subdivisions

 

1????????? The objective of this clause is to enable the subdivision of land in rural areas to create lots of an appropriate size to meet the needs of permissible uses other than for the purpose of dwelling houses or dual occupancies.

2????????? Land in a zone to which Clause 4.2 applies may, with development consent, be subdivided to create a lot of a size that is less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land, where the consent authority is satisfied that the use of the land after the subdivision will be the same use permitted under the existing development consent for the land (other than for the purpose of a dwelling house or a dual occupancy).

3????????? Development consent must not be granted for the subdivision of land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

a??????? the subdivision will not adversely affect the use of the surrounding land for agriculture, and

b??????? the subdivision is necessary for the ongoing operation of the permissible use, and

c??????? the subdivision will not increase rural land use conflict in the locality, and

d??????? the subdivision is appropriate having regard to the natural and physical constraints affecting the land.

 

Historically such clauses were common in NSW LEP?s and an equivalent clause was present in the Nambucca LEP 1995.? As the clause was not part of the standard instrument template the Department of Planning did not allow its inclusion in the Nambucca LEP 2010.

 

The DoP has reconsidered their position on these types of subdivision and Council received a gateway determination in regards to this matter on the 24 August 2012. As part of the Gateway requirements Council was required to consult with the NSW Rural Fire Service and exhibit the proposal for 14 days.

 

????????????? A response from the NSW Rural Fire Service was received on the 25 October 2012 and no objections have been raised;

????????????? The planning proposal was exhibited from 8 November 2012 to 26 November 2012. During this period one (1) submission [attachment 1] was received requesting clarification of the planning proposal. The matter was discussed directly with this person and no further issues were raised.

 

As no further issues have been raised it is recommended the amendment proceed as proposed.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

NIL

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

This proposal amendment will not affect the way environmental issues are addressed in the Development application process.

 

Social

 

This proposal amendment will not affect the way social issues are addressed in the Development application process.

 

Economic

 

The proposal will not place any economic burden on Council. It will remove an unnecessary LEP amendment phase for some development applications ? ensuring sustainable use of Council and developer resources.

 

Risk

 

NIL

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

NIL

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

NIL

 

Attachments:

1View

31195/2012 - Request for additional information and clarification on proposed LEP Amendment 12 and for extension of closing date for submissions - D McDiarmid

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

Planning Proposal - Nambucca LEP Amendment no. 12 Exceptions to Minimum Lot Sizes for Certain Rural Subdivisions

 


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.8???? SF1541??????????? 160113??????? Amendments to the LEP Approval Process and reviews of rezoning decisions

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Grant Nelson, Strategic Planner ????????

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of recent changes to the process involved in making LEP Amendments and also recommend amendments to the fees and charges related to proponent initiated LEP Amendments as proposed in the report.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????????? That Council note the information provided.

 

2????????????? That Council increase its fees in relation to applications to undertake rezoning/ LEP Amendments. The fees be increased in accordance with the fee structure presented in the discussion part of this report. The increase in fees be exhibited as required by the Local Government Act prior to the adoption of the 2013/14 fees and charges.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may choose not to support in principle changes to fees and charges for exhibition

 

DISCUSSION:

 

On the 2 November 2012 two (2) changes were put in place under part 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The first was to delegate the making of some Local Environmental Plans back to Councils which has been previously reported to Council.

 

The second change allows for some independent reviews of some Council and departmental decisions made during the LEP amendment or plan making process.

 

As part of the second change the department has formalise two (2) administrative review processes which are the following:

 

 

1??? Pre-gateway reviews ? may be requested by a proponent/landholder when a Council has notified the applicant that the request to prepared the planning proposal is not supported, or? Council has failed to indicate it supports for the proposal within 90 days of the request being made.

 

Should Council determine not to support the proposal an applicant has 40 days to lodge a request for a review, or if Council fails to determine the proposal the applicant can lodge a review request any time after the 90 days has expired.

 

The review would be undertaken by the Joint Regional Planning Panel or the Planning Assessment Commission and is subject to fees. $5000 for an initial eligibility review and additional $15000 should the Department believe the review may proceed. If the Director General is appointed the Relevant Planning Authority an additional $25,000 would be required from the proponent.

 

2??? Gateway Reviews ? A Council or proponent may request the Minister (or delegate) to alter a gateway determination, when a gateway determination is made that indicates:

 

?????? the planning proposal should not proceed

 

?????? the planning proposal should be re-submitted to the gateway; or

 

?????? imposes requirements (other than consultation requirements) or makes variations to the proposal that the Council or proponent think should be reconsidered.

 

If it is determined that the proposal is not to proceed the Council or proponent has 40 days after the gateway determination to request a review. Or if conditions are imposed at the Gateway only 14 days are available to notify the department of the intention to formally lodge a review of the gateway determination. The planning assessment commission will be the body that assesses the request for the review and provides advice to the Minister for final determination. It is understood no fee is charged for a gateway determination review.

 

It is noted the guidelines for preparing LEP Amendments and Planning Proposal have been amended to incorporate these changes and future planning proposal prepared by Council or proponents will need to be in accordance with the new guidelines.

 

Attached is a frequently asked questions paper regarding the amendments [attachment]

 

For further information please visit the Department of Planning and Infrastructures website at:

 

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/LocalPlanning/GatewayProcess/tabid/291/language/en-AU/Default.aspx

 

Fees and Charges LEP Amendment and Rezoning

 

A review of other north Coast Councils shows the following fees are applicable to proponent initiated LEP amendments. These fees are compared to Nambucca Shire Councils fees in this table.

 

Local Government Area

Application fee

Other fees

 

Minor

Major

In all cases other fees may include cost of preparing specialist studies.

Nambucca

$1623

$1623 for public hearing

Bellingen

$774.00

 

Kempsey

$3,500 (minor)

$12,000 (major stage 1 + 2)

$1000 for public hearing

Port Macquarie Hastings

$8,031 (minor stages 1-3)

$15,343 (major stages 1-3 for sites less than or equal to 5HA) greater fee for larger sites

Additional fees for research and enquiry responses site and site inspections based on an hourly staff rate.

Coffs Harbour

$20,000 (minimum stages 1-6) if Council does not prepare or review the planning proposal.

The cost can be much greater and varies depending Council preparation/review of the proposal also the number of submission received and other factors.

Ballina

$5,000

$7,500

Hourly rate of GM and staff.

Clarence Valley

$3,108 for the first 20 hours then $130/hour after this period

 

 

 

The process of amending LEP?s has changed a number times in the last several years due to planning reforms. To incorporate amended processes and reporting requirements and to create some consistency with other North Coast Councils it is recommended Council endorse an increase in the fees and charges for rezoning applications for the 2013/14 financial year. The proposed fee structure allows for the staged payment of fees where some LEP amendments may not progress beyond a gateway determination or specialist studies may indicate a proposed amendment is not appropriate. The proposed structure is presented below.

 

 

Planning Proposal and Local Environmental Plan Amendments

Minor Amendments ? Amendments not requiring support studies for Council review*

Stage 1

Lodgement/Commencement fee including initial investigation, report to Council. Report to Department of planning (gateway determination).

$2,000

Stage 2 (payment if approved at gateway)

Exhibition; notification; report to Council (review of exhibition) and final report to Department of Planning??

$2,000 (additional $1623 for public hearing)

 

 

Major Amendments ? Amendments where support studies are required*

Stage 1

Lodgement/Commencement fee including initial investigation, report to Council. Report to Department of planning (gateway determination).

$2,000

Stage 2 (payment if approved at gateway)

Preparation review of support studies; consultation with agencies; and reports to Council and Department of Planning as required

$3,500

Stage 3

Exhibition; notification; report to Council (review of exhibition) and final report to Department of Planning??

$2,500 (additional $1623 for public hearing).

Note: External consultancy fees and Council coordination costs (for example studies to accompany planning proposals) will be by quotation ? full cost to be borne by proponent or as agreed by Council.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Nil

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Nil

 

Social

 

Nil

 


Economic

 

The proposed increases to fees and charges will provide a more equitable costing to the resources required to follow legislative processes and requirements of LEP Amendments.

 

Risk

 

Nil

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Nil

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.9???? SF1799??????????? 160113??????? Beach Access Improvement Plan - Progress Report

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Grant Nelson, Strategic Planner ????????

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on the Beach Access Improvement Program and obtain Council?s in principle endorsement of actions identified in the Plan.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council endorse the circulated plan for implementation.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may choose identify other alternative areas for priority consideration.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council received grant funding from the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority. Combined with levy funds Council has approximately $150,000 to apply to the beach access improvement program. The primary objective of the funding is to improve a minimum of three (3) beach accesses across the shire and undertake some weed management/ rehabilitation.

 

Note: An additional $20,000 (OEH funds) from this program will be directed to the improvement of access to Main Beach Nambucca Heads (including an additional $50,000 levy funds).

 

In order to determine the current condition of each of the beach accesses Council staff have undertaken an audit of the majority of beach accesses in the shire and gathered information regarding the condition and functionality of the material and accesses.

 

This information was to form the basis for the recommendations to present to stakeholders at workshops held at Council on the 5 December 2012.

 

Three (3) workshops were conducted, one for each of Scotts Head, Nambucca Heads and Valla Beach. The workshops were facilitated by Councils Grants and Contributions Officer. Council?s Strategic Planner and OEH (representative Mr John Schmidt) provided advice on the condition and potential actions at each access. Organisations from the different localities were invited to send attendees and in-total 10 community representatives made themselves available to discuss the Beach Accesses related to their area of interest and offered thoughts and advice on what may best benefit the community.

 

As highlighted at each workshop the available funds would not be able to implement all the proposed actions, but the plan would be held in place to target future funding rounds. Due to this funding constraint nearing the conclusion of each workshop each group was requested to prioritise three (3) actions or improvements within their respective localities which are identified below.

?

Scotts Head

 

1??????? Scotts Head Surfclub to Little Beach (access presently failed)

2??????? Scotts Head shower at ramp access to Scotts Head Beach (nearest surfclub);

3??????? West Street Access Scotts Head (near bowling club ? previously failed newly repaired, but still a major public area which could benefit from improvements);

 


Nambucca Heads

 

1??????? repairing failed walkways at Shelly Beach

2??????? Improvements at Swimming Creek

3??????? Not separate project for Nambucca main beach access.

 

Valla Beach

 

1????????????? Improvements at the seaward side of the footbridge at Valla Beach;

2??????? Improvements to Robert Lowden Reserve walkway including shower;

3??????? Repair failed access at Middle Valla.

4??????? Gregory street shower/ stormwater and restoration of embankment.

 

?????????? Weed management/ rehabilitation will be undertaken as required in areas fingeing the access paths.

 

Notes from each workshop were used contribute to the preparation of recommendation plans for each of the localities which are circulated with this report. It is recommended Council endorse the recommendations report for implementation.

 

The implementation component of this project will commence by targeting the priority actions identified through the community workshops. Costings of proposed works will be developed to determine what priority actions can be undertaken as part of this project. In the first instance costing will be determined for improvements to the priorities identified by community consultation although it is noted some of the action may be cost prohibitive and will need to be addressed in future rounds of funding.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Various community groups and organisations. Additional consultation and discussion with interest parties/stakeholders will continue through the implementation of the project.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The improvement/embellishment of priority beach access will guide pedestrians to appropriately managed and maintained areas and assist in limiting unnecessary access to sensitive environments.

 

Social

 

The improvement of accesses in priority locations will provide safe and reliable access for pedestrian onto our beaches

 

Economic

 

The improvement/embellishment of accesses to our beaches one of our greatest tourist attractions, will provide improved facilities for tourists visiting the shire and assist in encouraging return visits.

 

Risk

 

Nil, the plan is an operational plan, many of the accesses identified as priorities in this plan are no longer functional and require immediate attention.

 

The program needs to comply with the requirements of the grant funding agreements.?

 


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

As stated in the body of this report the funds are a combination of grant funds ($110,000) and environmental levy funds ($40,000). The program needs to meet the requirements of the grant the funding.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Environmental levy, however as stated previously only some of the actions will be able to be implemented through this round of funding. Future grants and levy contributions could continue the program.

 

Attachments:

1View

?- CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - Beach Access Improvement Program Maps

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

Beach Access Improvement Plan - Progress Report

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Beach Access Improvement Plan - Progress Report

 

 

 

CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - Beach Access Improvement Program Maps

 

??Pages

 


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.10?? SF430????????????? 160113??????? Grassy Park - Flying Fox Plan of Management

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Jacqui Ashby, Environmental Resource Officer; Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

At Council?s meeting on the 13 June 2012, it was resolved:

 

1????????? That Council advise the affected residents that submissions of alternate suggestions for the proposed Flying Fox Plan of Management should be with Council by 16 July 2012.

 

2????????? Further, that residents may continue to submit submissions to amend the Flying Fox Plan of Management after that date provided that all proposals are within the relevant legislative framework and that Council will agree to review the adopted Plan following their receipt.

 

3????????? That Council write as a matter of urgency to the Deputy Premier and the appropriate Minister asking whether there are any other appropriate alternatives which could be included in a Plan of Management if and when adopted.

 

A further report was presented to Council?s meeting on 26 July 2012 and it was resolved:

 

1????????? That the matter be deferred to an onsite inspection at Bowraville, specifically to look at trees, the species and where they have been planted.

 

2????????? That the State Government be asked to develop a State wide policy to address the issue of flying foxes in NSW and in particular their impact on urban communities.

 

On the 15 August 2012 an onsite meeting was conducted by all available Councillors, concerned residents of Bowraville, Council staff, Landcare staff and a representative of GeoLink. At the meeting it was resolved:

 

1.???????? That following the inspection on 15 August 2012 there be a further report to Council which considers all suggestions put forward at the inspection and responses from residents.

 

At Council's meeting on the 10 October 2012, it was further resolved:

 

1??????? That the Plan of Management be modified to reflect the fact that the buffer zone is not intended to provide flying fox roosting habitat and as such any vegetation that attracts roosting flying fox will be removed.

 

2??????? That subject to the Office of Environment and Heritage providing written endorsement of the interpretation of the Plan of Management as reflected in (1) above, the Plan of Management be reconsidered.

 

At Council's meeting on the 29 November 2012, it was further resolved:

 

1??????? That Council write to the Department asking whether they will seek a refund of the grant money paid if no Plan of Management for Flying Foxes at Grassy Park is adopted or if a Plan different to that recommended is adopted.

 

Advice has now been received from Coffs Harbour City Council that is the lead Council in the Our Living Coast Program in regards to Item 1 above reconfirming that no refund of funds will be sort from Coffs Harbour City Council or the NSW Environmental Trust.

 

 

 

 


 

Recommendation:

 

That the Grassy Park Flying Fox Plan of Management be endorsed.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can decide not to adopt the Plan of Management.? This will likely reduce or eliminate Council?s chances of attracting further grant monies to extend the weed removal and maintain the work which has already been done.? However it is not known what, if any, grant monies might be available.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The following recaps on a number of key points relating to the Plan of Management and the subsequent resolutions for clarification.? These are:

 

?????????? The plan of management cost $12 000

?????????? Weeding and revegetation of the area from 2008 to 2012 has cost $38 000 ($28 000 OLC funding rest Environmental Levy)

?????????? No funds have to be given back to the NSW Environmental Trust or Coffs Harbour City Council

?????????? Weeding is being maintained to reduce the weed seed bank to promote native species along the riparian zone to help maintain integrity of the river bank

?????????? Buffer zone was installed to protect the nearest residents from the noise of a full capacity camp

?????????? Prior to 2008 the buffer area was over run with weed species that the flying foxes roosted in

?????????? The buffer area has been confirmed by OEH that it is to remain a buffer zone and can be worked in, this area will not become habitat and therefore cannot be protected for the flying fox

?????????? The area adjacent to the buffer zone on the river side (core camp) is protected land and cannot be touched in the same manner of the buffer zone, carefully planned sections of that area have to be weeded in a timed and seasonal manner.

?????????? To get further state or federal funding to continue to maintain the area as it is now, the plan of management has to be adopted by Council

?????????? The PoM sets out the ways to reduce the spread of weeds and how to manage the area (excluding the Buffer zone) as a protected habitat which is necessary under the licence conditions imposed by OEH on Council, and alleviate the pressure on residents from the camp.

?????????? Flying Fox camps near residential areas are now getting more common due to habitat destruction of their traditional roosting areas and destruction of their food sources, thus Grey-headed Flying-foxes (GHFF) are protected under state and federal legislation (Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999) and therefore cannot be moved on, killed or have their habitat destroyed unless under strict licence.

?????????? Grassy Park is a known and mapped Grey-headed Flying Fox maternity camp as per OEH mapping of strategic GHFF camps and roost areas in NSW.

?????????? There are publications available about managing flying foxes in residential areas.? All literature acknowledges the importance of flying fox for biodiversity.? They are high order seed carriers dispersing native vegetation seeds across large areas.? This ensures the survival of those plant species.

?????????? For works to continue in Grassy Park, funding must be sort as the allocated OLC funds have been used up and the OLC project has now been completed. Funding opportunities favour projects that have an adopted plan of managements for rehabilitation works.

?????????? If external funding cannot be sort it is possible that Grassy park will once again return to the weed jungle it was five years ago.

?????????? Other sources of funding, if the plan of Management is not adopted, will be through the Environmental Levy, a costing last year by Landcare for a 6 year biodiversity funding grant was $260 000 for 6 years. This will include weeding, replanting and contractor maintenance and watering over the next 6 years to fully protect residents from the camp if it once again grows to full capacity.

 

In all of the debate about the Plan of Management, the point should not be lost that the process which Council has gone through in the removal of weeds and the preparation of a plan of management has coincided with the flying fox leaving the Grassy Park camp.? It is not known whether this is a temporary or permanent phenomenon but regardless it should not be forgotten that the process has achieved an outcome which has rarely happened in other instances of conflict between flying fox camps and residents on the NSW North Coast.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Mayor and all Councillors

Director Environment and Planning

General Manager

GeoLink

Nambucca Valley Landcare Inc

Coffs Harbour City Council

Bellingen Shire Council

Billy Roberts (Flying Fox specialist)

Office Environment and Heritage

The community of Bowraville

Friends of Grassy Park Bushcare Group (FROG)

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Grassy Park houses a Flying Fox Camp, more than likely due to its proximity to the limited food supply in the surrounding areas and perhaps the lights of the adjoining residential area.? Managing the camp within all relevant legislation is difficult due to the many requirements and restrictions that apply.

 

Social

The intent of the works done and planned is to alleviate the difficulties of living near a large camp. The PoM helps set out the works to be done.

 

Economic

 

If the conflict between the residents and the camp is not alleviated, then there is potential for economic loss.

 

Risk

 

Council is faced with irreconcilable conflict between the requirements of the current legislation and the views of many of its residents.

 

If Council does not adopt the Plan of Management its chances of achieving grant funding to undertake further weed removal or to maintain the work which has already been done will be diminished.? It is unknown what the likelihood of receiving grant funds in the future will be.

 

However there would seem to be no identifiable risk in Council adopted the Plan of Management.? It has already been confirmed that any vegetation in the buffer zone can be removed if it becomes a habitat for flying fox.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Any variation for the PoM will be from the environmental levy

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.11?? SF734????????????? 160113??????? Update on the Upgrade of the Pacific Highway - Warrell Creek to Urunga

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

On 21 December 2012 the RMS announced that Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd have been selected as the preferred tenderer for the design and construction of the Nambucca Heads to Urunga upgrade.

 

The RMS proposed to put the Warrell Creek to Nambucca Heads upgrade to tender in late 2013 with construction to commence by mid 2014, ie about 12 months behind the Nambucca Heads to Urunga upgrade.

 

Both sections of highway upgrade are scheduled to be completed by 2016.

 

As the most important business and lifestyle decisions in response to the relocation of the highway will be made by the community and not by Council, it is suggested that Council arrange a seminar on the implications of the upgrade of the Pacific Highway for the Nambucca Valley.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That the update information from Roads and Maritime Services on the Pacific Highway Warrell Creek to Urunga upgrade be received.

 

2??????? That Council undertake a seminar on the implications of the upgrade of the Pacific Highway for the Nambucca Valley and that a further report come to Council on proposed speakers, a budget and the availability or otherwise of funding from Industry and Investment.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The report is for information.

 

Council can lobby the RMS about any aspect of the Pacific Highway upgrade.? However the period for community consultation has concluded and project approvals are now in place.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The RMS provided a briefing on the Pacific Highway upgrade at a meeting of the Macksville and District Chamber of Commerce on 26 November 2012.

 

The RMS representative advised that the tender for the construction of the section of highway between Nambucca Heads and Urunga had been advertised with construction scheduled to commence by mid 2013.

 

On 21 December 2012 the RMS announced that Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd have been selected as the preferred tenderer for the design and construction of the Nambucca Heads to Urunga upgrade.? This is further good news for the community, with the expectation that one of the Valley?s largest manufacturers, Australian Precast Solutions, can be expected to benefit from the contract awarded to its parent company, Abigroup.

 

It was also advised that the RMS proposed to put the Warrell Creek to Nambucca Heads upgrade to tender in late 2013 with construction to commence by mid 2014, ie about 12 months behind the Nambucca Heads to Urunga upgrade.

 

Both of these sections of highway upgrade were described as priority two works with both scheduled for completion by 2016.

 

The Chamber of Commerce expressed the view that there should be an interchange to the north of Macksville in addition to the planned interchange at Bald Hill Road.? The RMS representative advised that the siting of interchanges involved weighing up the competing considerations of accessibility, safety and cost.? Bald Hill Road had been selected as the interchange location because of its proximity to the town, the hospital and the industrial area.? Notwithstanding, emergency services will be able to access the new upgraded highway from a locked gate off Old Coast Road.

 

There was discussion about the provision of adequate signage on the highway upgrade to advise of the services available in the by-passed towns.? The RMS advised that they would provide signage consistent with the TASAC sign guidelines.

 

There was also discussion about ?handing over? the existing Pacific Highway to Council and particularly the Macksville bridge.? It was acknowledged by the RMS that there was a need for further consultation with Council.? The Mayor indicated that Council could not afford to accept responsibility for assets like the Macksville Bridge.

 

In general it is pleasing to see the RMS committed to and confident of achieving the previously announced timetable of having the highway upgrade completed by 2016, at least through this local government area.

 

The community now has a definite time line to plan for the relocation of the highway.

 

The relocation of the highway will have economic, social and environmental implications.? It is timely that Council engage with the community to consider those implications and in particular how it might minimise the adverse consequences and maximise new opportunities.

 

There are a number of ways in which the Council may engage with the community about the implications of the Pacific Highway upgrade.

 

Kempsey Shire Council recently completed the Kempsey Corridor Master Plan being a comprehensive strategic document that establishes the guidelines for the future direction of infrastructure provision, service and development along the South Kempsey to Frederickton corridor.? The Master Plan aims to establish an urban design model for the corridor, with particular emphasis on the villages of South Kempsey and Frederickton and the town centre of Kempsey.

 

An alternative approach could be to engage some high profile speakers with economic, social and environmental backgrounds as a means of attracting a large audience to an afternoon/evening seminar on the future of our community, post highway upgrade.? The speakers would provide different perspectives on what they perceive to be the risks and opportunities.? A suggested contributor is the noted KPMG demographer, Bernard Salt.? Council could seek funding for the seminar from NSW Industry and Investment and could also make a contribution from unallocated Environmental Levy funding.

 

As the most important business and lifestyle decisions in response to the relocation of the highway will be made by the community and not by Council, it is suggested that a seminar occupying an afternoon and evening may achieve more community engagement than a Master Plan or similar focusing on Council?s role.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Assistant General Manager ? Corporate and Community Services and Council?s Grants and Contribution Planner.

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The environmental impacts of the highway upgrade have been previously reported on.? It is suggested that these be covered in the proposed seminar.

 

Social

 

There are social impacts.? Again it is suggested that these be covered in the proposed seminar.

 

Economic

 

There are significant economic impacts arising out of the displacement of employment which relies on passing trade.? Equally there will be opportunities for new employment.

 

Risk

 

Council has a leadership role in the community and does need to be proactive in engaging the community in the very significant economic, social and environmental changes which will arise out of the highway?s relocation.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

At this stage there is no budgetary impact.? However the proposed seminar will require a budget and will need to be included in a quarterly budget review.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.12?? SF643????????????? 160113??????? Sandpiper Drive, Scotts Head - Restriction on Access

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council has received complaints about street parking preventing emergency vehicle access in a section of Sandpiper Drive being a shareway between two cul de sac heads.? The complainant has sought the implementation of ?No Parking? restrictions on one side of the street to improve access.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council consult with property owners in the section of Sandpiper Drive between the two cul de sac heads as to whether they are supportive of the installation of ?No Parking? restrictions on one side of the street and that there be a further report to Council on the outcome of that consultation.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The Council can opt to take no action; to consult with other property owners in relation to installing ?No Parking? restrictions; or to resolve to support ?No Parking? restrictions and refer the matter to the Local Traffic Committee for their endorsement.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received a complaint about cars parking in a section of Sandpiper Drive in Scotts Head making it impossible for long wheel based vehicles to enter the driveway of No. 36A Sandpiper Drive.? The particular concern is that emergency vehicles such as a fire truck would be unable to access the property in an emergency.

 

The section of Sandpiper Drive was designed in accordance with the Auspec standards for subdivision road works.? The standards provide for a shareway between 2 cul de sac heads to be constructed with a carriageway width of 3.5m ? 5.0m.? The Sandpiper Drive shareway has been constructed to the maximum width allowing for parking on one side of the street whilst leaving a clear 3m for other vehicles to pass.

 

The use of the shareway was one approach to traffic calming, being to control vehicle speeds and discourage through traffic when the street is eventually connected to Scotts Head Road.

 

The property owner disputes the Auspec standards and quotes a NSW Fire Brigade Policy requiring a minimum width of 4m should be provided for general appliance access.

 

The NSW Fire Brigades Guidelines for Emergency Vehicle Access Policy No. 4 provides as follows:

 

?Along straight carriageway sections, a minimum width of 4m should be provided for general appliance access, and a minimum of width of 6m for aerial appliance access?.

 

There is a similar discrepancy between the Auspec standards and NSW Fire Brigade standards in relation to the turning circle for cul-de-sacs.? Auspec requires a minimum radius of 8.5m whilst the Fire Brigade seek a 12m radius.

 

The parking and access issue seems most acute during the Christmas/New Year period when there is additional street parking.

 

Essentially to better achieve the outcome of unobstructed emergency access to accord with the preference of the NSW Fire and Rescue would require the signposting of ?No Parking? on one side of Sandpiper Drive between the two cul-de-sacs.? This approach is supported by the property owner.

 

The purpose of this report is to provide background to a proposed site inspection to be undertaken on 16 January.

 

If Council wishes to consider installing ?No Parking? on one side of this section of Sandpiper Drive as sought by the property owner, it is recommended that there be consultation with all property owners in this section of the street and the matter be further considered following that consultation.?

 

Council will also need to consult with and obtain the endorsement of the Local Traffic Committee to ?No Parking? in the section of the street.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Council staff have received representations from a property owner.

 

The Mayor has received representations from a property owner.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There may be objections from other property owners in relation to the loss of street parking.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

It is difficult to evaluate the risk in relation to emergency vehicle access.? Whilst emergency services obviously prefer to be able to get as close to the scene of an incident as possible, this is not always possible for a variety of reasons, battle axe lots being one.? In relation to fire emergencies, there is a statutory standard for the placement of fire hydrants along a street, so that whilst a fire tender may not be able to get next to the property, they can tap the hydrant with a hose which will reach the property.? Notwithstanding, the extra time required for emergency personnel to access the property, to tap hydrants, and to roll out hose does increase risk to life and property.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.


 

Attachments:

1View

193/2013 - Sandpiper Drive Map

0 Pages

2View

215/2013 - Map of Scotts Head

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

Sandpiper Drive, Scotts Head - Restriction on Access

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

Sandpiper Drive, Scotts Head - Restriction on Access

 


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.13?? SF1668??????????? 160113??????? Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into the 2012 Local Government Elections

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

The Parliament of NSW Committee on Electoral Matters will examine matters relating to the 2012 Local Government elections including their cost and possible legislative changes to improve the efficiency of the election processes and remove any barriers to candidate participation.

 

It is recommended that the Committee on Electoral Matters be requested to carefully investigate the potential for compulsory ?postal? voting at NSW council elections in lieu of ?attendance? voting as a means of reducing the cost of elections and that this include reviewing the practice of the Victorian Electoral Commission.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

The Committee on Electoral Matters be requested to carefully investigate the potential for compulsory ?postal? voting at NSW council elections in lieu of ?attendance? voting as a means of reducing the cost of elections and that this include reviewing the practice of the Victorian Electoral Commission.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There is no restriction on the matters which Council may put to the Committee on Electoral Matters.? It is suggested that any recommendations or comments which may be put to the Committee come within the terms of reference.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received the attached letter from the Parliament of NSW Committee on Electoral Matters.

 

The Committee will examine matters relating to the 2012 Local Government elections including their cost and possible legislative changes to improve the efficiency of the election processes and remove any barriers to candidate participation.

 

The terms of reference is to inquire into and report on the September 2012 Local Government elections with particular reference to:

 

(a)???? the costs of the election;

(b)???? the experience of councils that conducted their own elections;

(c)???? possible legislative changes to improve the efficiency of and participation in Local Government elections

(d)???? non-residential voting in Local Government elections;

(e)???? the impact of requirements under the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 on participation by candidates in Local Government elections and possible legislative changes to remove any barriers to participation; and

(f)????? any other related matter.

 

The Committee is to report on the outcome of its inquiry by 30 June 2013.

 

Submissions are requested by Friday 8 February 2013.

 

The budget estimate which the Electoral Commissioner provided to Council in June 2012 was $114,856 plus GST.? This essentially equates to the 2008 election cost with CPI indexation.? The Electoral Commissioner?s letter (attached) indicates that Councils are not charged for the maintenance of the electoral roll nor for the capital equipment (mainly IT systems) required to run elections.

 

The nature of NSW elections have changed over the years with the introduction of ?above the line? voting; pre-poll voting for those who will not be in their local government area on election day and finally with additional accounting and disclosure obligations under the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981.? Equally because of the fairly labour intensive nature of elections their cost has proportionately increased.

 

This report primarily concerns the management of cost for local government elections and not the impact of requirements under the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981.? Councillors will have first hand experience of the latter and it is suggested that any concerns they have with the Act be either added to the resolution or be the subject of separate submission direct to the Parliament of NSW.

 

The cost of conducting an election is not only the cost to Council but also the cost to candidates, their friends and families for the time in attending pre-poll voting centres and polling places and finally to the community who also have to travel to a polling place.

 

Whilst the system of requiring voters to generally cast their ballot in front of an election official minimises the potential for fraud or manipulation, it does come at a significant cost.

 

There are other systems of voting which can substantially reduce the cost of elections, albeit with increased risks.

 

For example in Victoria, local elections can be conducted by postal voting or attendance voting.? Each council chooses the method that will be used.? However in most cases, Victorian councils use postal voting.? The electoral rolls close 57 days before election day, nominations close 32 days before election day and then 17-19 days before election day ballot packs are distributed via post to every enrolled person in a random order over three days.? No more than 35% of the ballot packs can be distributed on any one day.? Ballot papers must then be returned by post so as to be received by the electoral commission no later than 6pm on the day before election day.

 

The cost savings of a postal voting system to Council, the candidates and the community would be substantial.? There would be a significant reduction in the staffing required; the cost of hiring venues, providing voting booths and all of the other costs associated with ?attendance? voting.

 

It is beyond the resources of this Council to quantify the potential cost savings and also to investigate the problems, if any, which arise out of the Victorian system of postal voting at council elections.? However the fact that the Councils have the choice of either ?postal? voting or ?attendance? voting, and that most choose ?postal? voting suggests they are satisfied with the trade-off between cost savings and risk.

 

There is also the more general debate as to whether voting should be compulsory and in the alternative whether it should be compulsory for all three levels of government.? This may also potentially reduce cost, however it is a fundamentally different approach to current practice.

 

It is recommended that the Committee on Electoral Matters be requested to carefully investigate the potential for compulsory ?postal? voting at NSW council elections in lieu of ?attendance? voting as a means? of reducing the cost of elections and that this include reviewing the practice of the Victorian Electoral Commission.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The matters discussed in the report were raised with the Returning Officer for the 2012 election.

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Compulsory ?postal? voting will have less environmental impact (transport, use of resources etc) than ?attendance? voting.

 

Social

 

It is unknown how the public would receive a change in voting arrangements.? Given the increasing popularity of pre-poll voting it is likely that the public would be receptive to any new arrangements which make voting more convenient.? More convenient arrangements for voting may also mean higher participation with fewer people being fined for not voting.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

The risk issues are discussed in the report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The report concerns a submission to an Inquiry.? There is no budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

100/2013 - Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry

0 Pages

2View

13669/2012 - Nambucca Budget Estimates for September 2012 Election

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into the 2012 Local Government Elections

 






















Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

General Manager

ITEM 9.14?? SF734????????????? 160113??????? Request to Acquire a Small Section of Gordon Park, Nambucca Heads

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

At Council?s meeting on 12 December 2012 it was resolved to defer this matter to provide the Leckies? with the opportunity to come back with a further proposition to show a revised area proposed to be acquired.

 

A revised plan has now been submitted which indicates the proposed acquisition of approximately 170 square metres compared to the 290 square metres in the original proposal.

 

The revised plan is a circularised document to Councillors.

 

Council needs to decide whether or not to support the request, this being a necessary precursor to the Crown Lands Division considering a formal application.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council resolve in accordance with one of the listed options.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? That Council support the revised application to acquire a small section of Gordon Park and advise the Crown Lands Division accordingly.

 

2??????? That Council not support the revised application to acquire a small section of Gordon Park.

 

3??????? That Council request the applicant to submit a survey plan for the additional land; for a surveyor to place corner pegs for the additional land; and then for Council to advertise the application for public comment.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council considered an application to acquire a small section of Gordon Park at its meeting on 12 December 2012.

 

It was resolved as follows:

 

?That the matter be deferred to provide the Leckies with the opportunity to come back with a further proposition to show the revised area proposed to be acquired.?

 

The applicant has now responded as follows:

 

?Dear Mr Coulter

 

Thank you for your letter of 14 December 2012.

 

Attached is the revised area that Clint and I seek to acquire.

 

The boundaries are roughly:

 

South ? 11m

East ? 16.6m

 

North ? 10m

 

It is important to note that the revised area (approximately 170 square metres) is some 40% smaller than the original application and does not include the large trees, in particular, it does not include the Norfolk Pines.

 

We ask that the matter be considered at the meeting on 16 January 2013 and take this opportunity to thank the Councillors for their consideration and understanding to date.

 

Kind Regards

 

Kelli Leckie?

 

The revised plan is a circularised document to Councillors.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the applicants and a site inspection which was attended by a number of members of the public.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The land contains a number of trees which provide a backdrop to Gordon Park and provide effective screening of the development in Nelson Street.

 

Social

 

There may be some community objection to the conversion of public open space for private purposes.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic issues.

 

Risk

 

The applicants have stated that the acquisition of the land is necessary to stabilise their property by preventing soil creep/land slip originating on the adjoining Crown land.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The proceeds of the sale of the land would go to the State Government, not Council.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

?- CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - Revised Plan (Trim? 368/2013)

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

Request to Acquire a Small Section of Gordon Park, Nambucca Heads

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Request to Acquire a Small Section of Gordon Park, Nambucca Heads

 

 

 

CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - Revised Plan (Trim? 368/2013)

 

??Pages

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.1?? SF852????????????? 160113??????? Annual Report for 2011-2012 for Rural Financial Counselling Service - NSW Northern Region

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The Rural Financial Counselling Service NSW was established in 1992 to foster sustainable economic development in the rural sector. The service includes financial counselling to assist people in rural industries to deal with the stresses of natural and economic change.

 

Nambucca Shire Council has been an active supporter of the service via a small budget allocation to assist with the operation of the service and in recognition of the importance of our rural sector. Mr Terry Pearce, the current Rural Financial Counsellor is based in Macksville, with offices in Matilda Street. The office covers the region from Halfway Creek (north of Woolgoolga) to Port Macquarie.

 

Council is now in receipt of the 2011-12 Northern Region Annual Report which provides information on outcomes, numbers of clients, issues dealt with, and other information of interest to Council.

 

The Service thanks Council for its continued support.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the availability of the 2011-12 Annual Report for Rural Financial Counselling Services NSW ? Northern Region, and the key issues dealt with by the Service?s Macksville office.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

No options are being presented as the report is for information.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The report to the AGM from Mr Terry Pearce, (Rural Financial Counsellor based in Macksville) is attached.?

 

A hard copy of the full report is available from the author of this report, Ms Hutchinson.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Rural Financial Counsellor

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Nothing identified.

 

Social

 

Nothing identified.

 


Economic

 

Nothing identified resulting from this report, however a viable rural economy is the main rationale for continuing to support this service.

 

Risk

 

Nothing identified.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

An allocation of $3,800 is included in Council?s 2012-2013 budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nothing required.

 

Attachments:

1View

33332/2012 - Extract from 2011-2012 Annual Report

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

Annual Report for 2011-2012 for Rural Financial Counselling Service - NSW Northern Region

 



Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.2?? SF1719??????????? 160113??????? Minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee held 27 November 2012

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Attached for Council?s information and endorsement are the minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting which was held Tuesday 27 November 2012.

 

The minutes contain 6 recommendations as follows:

 

1.?? That the items of correspondence in and out be noted, with particular notation of the response from Woolworths confirming that an accessible toilet is available for supermarket staff and customers of the Macksville store.

 

2.?? That the Committee supports in principle the concept of developing a ?Fun in the Park? plan which will focus on improving access for children with disabilities to key Council children?s playgrounds.

 

3.?? That the ?How to Resize Your Text? approach used by Bellingen Shire Council for its website be adopted by Nambucca Shire Council, and ensuring that that the link to the information can be made highly visible.?

 

4.?? The Access committee recommend Council and the Local Traffic Committee endorse the installation of one additional Disabled Parking Bay with required access area in the Winifred Street Car Park Macksville, with the loss of 2 regular parking bays.

 

5.?? That a letter is written to the Macksville Caltex Service Station suggesting a ?watch for pedestrian? sign be placed at the entrance and exit points.

 

6.?? Follow up with the Ranger about the number of trading tables and A-frames sprouting up over the Christmas period on Bowra Street Nambucca Heads and obstructing pedestrian flow, and to request that permits for these are monitored.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That the items of correspondence in and out be noted, with particular notation of the response from Woolworths confirming that an accessible toilet is available for supermarket staff and customers of the Macksville store.

 

2??????? That Council supports in principle the concept of developing a ?Fun in the Park? plan which will focus on improving access for children with disabilities to key Council children?s playgrounds.

 

3??????? That the ?How to Resize Your Text? approach used by Bellingen Shire Council for its website be adopted by Nambucca Shire Council, and that that the link to the information be made highly visible.?

 

4??????? The Council and the Local Traffic Committee endorse the installation of one additional Disabled Parking Bay with shared area (adjacent to the accessible toilet) in the Winifred Street Car Park Macksville, and that the installation of bike racks along the toilet northern wall be considered.

 

5??????? That a letter is written to the Macksville Caltex Service Station suggesting a ?watch for pedestrians? sign be placed at the entrance and exit points.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1???????????? Endorse the minutes and associated recommendations

2???????????? Endorse the minutes with different recommendations

3???????????? Not endorse the minutes

Note:? in regard to the Winifred Street car park, various options have been presented in the body of the report, however the status quo is not a viable option as it would continue the non-compliance with current legislation.? Further, it is not possible to reconfigure the door without a major renovation to the toilet.?

 

DISCUSSION:

 

1.???????? Correspondence and Toilets at Woolworths Macksville

 

Over the past few months, the matter of access to toilets at Woolworths Supermarket in Macksville has been discussed and correspondence exchanged between Council and Woolworths Property Management.? The response from Woolworths tabled at the November meeting clearly acknowledged that an accessible toilet is available for paying customers of the supermarket but also mentioned the need for improved signage at the southern entrance to Macksville to direct the general public as to the location of toilet facilities in the town.? The Committee discussed the Macksville Lions Park sign at the southern entrance to Macksville and noted that the Lions Park toilets (when constructed again) are not necessarily the best or closest option.?? The Committee supports Council?s request for an additional sign, for services in the CBD, possibly near the gateway to town which is further south, and await the response from the Roads and Maritime Services.

 

2.???????? ?Fun In the Park? ? using play as therapy for children with special needs

 

Ms Jan Wekesa from Nambucca Valley Early Intervention service provided details about ?Fun in the Park? and its many positive aspects.? This approach provides parents with ideas to assist them in constructive play with children, particularly children with disabilities.?

 

A decrease in program funding, and limited and costly access to therapy and facilities pose a number of challenges to parents of children with additional needs.? ?Fun in the Park? can provide a number of benefits for families as well as foster better understanding in the community of children with additional needs.

 

Two children?s playgrounds, Partridge Street Macksville and Bellwood Park Nambucca Heads will initially be considered for ?Fun in the Park?.? Some concerns around safety were raised and risks will be assessed as needed.? The project may be as simple as signposting at key parks or may involve applying for funding for new equipment.? At this stage, to progress this concept, an audit of the children?s playgrounds and cost estimates will be provided, and discussions will continue between Council and the Early Intervention service.

 

3.???????? Council?s Website

 

This matter is fairly straightforward.? The suggested approach will rectify the current problem which allows a user of the website to increase the size of text however as they do, it becomes illegible.

 

4.???????? Winifred Street Car park, Macksville

 

During recent renovations of the Winifred Street toilet block it was noted that the outward opening door of the accessible toilet (north wall) could have its full opening operation inhibited by a vehicle parking in the adjacent parking bay, some half a metre away.? The arrangement therefore does not comply with Australian standards regarding circulation space and further is potentially discriminating.

 

In a nutshell, resolution of the matter requires that additional space be available outside the accessible toilet door to allow for a person in a wheelchair to enter/exit the toilet.? There are a few options to rectify the problem however the solution is likely to result in the loss of one parking space.?

 

Option 1:? ?? Designate the space next to the toilet block no parking. (Loss = 1 car parking space)

Option 2:? ?? Designate the space next to the toilet block a ?shared area? and the next space an accessible ?????????? (disability) parking space.? (Loss = 2 regular car parking spaces; Gain = 1 disability space ???????????? which can be used by people with vehicle mounted devices; and compliance with standards.)

Option 3:? ?? Designate an area of some 1100mm out from the toilet block for bicycle parking, the existing ?????????????? space next to the toilet block a ?shared area? and the next space an accessible (disability) ??????????? parking space.? (Loss = 2 regular carparks; Gain = 1 disability space which can be used by people with vehicle mounted devices, compliance with standards, and designated bicycle parking in the centre of town.)

 

Note:? Under AS 2890.6, a ?shared area? is an area adjacent to a dedicated space provided for access or egress to or from a parked vehicle and which may be shared with any other purpose that does not involve other than transitory obstruction of the area, eg a walkway, a vehicular aisle, dual use with another adjacent dedicated space.

 

Option 3 is supported by this report as it provides the most ?wins?.?

 

Advances in technology mean that more vehicles are being fitted with vehicle mounted equipment for loading and unloading wheelchairs.? Vehicles equipped with ramps or platform hoists either at the side or rear of the vehicle allow for wheelchair-bound passengers or drivers to enter or leave the vehicle in their wheelchair.? Few if any other accessible spaces in Macksville CBD allow for this as most spaces are kerbside and a driver who uses a wheelchair would have to unload in traffic.? In the Winifred Street car park, drivers can nose-in or rear-in park which allows for the car parking space and ?shared area to be used by drivers or passengers in wheelchairs.? Further, there are no overhead obstructions to impede roof-mounted wheelchairs.?

 

After complying with the relevant standards for parking bay width, there is a small area left which could be installed with racks for bicycles provided they were parked outside the ?shared area?.? At least 2 bikes will fit, possibly 3 depending on the configuration.? Efforts (unsuccessful) have been previously made to find a suitable site for parking bikes at a central location in Macksville as many people cycle down town for shopping or leisure.? Bicycle parking would also discourage the space being used to dump trolleys, although Foodworks staff appear diligent in removing trolleys from the car park.?

 

On a more general level, with the ageing population comes increases in numbers of people with disabilities and therefore an increased demand for accessible parking.? The two spaces at the bottom of the ramp next to Foodworks are highly used due to their proximity to the ramp and the centre of town and Council has received requests for additional accessible parking in Macksville.

 

Note:? Amongst other legislation and policies, consideration of the matter is to be guided by Australian Standard 2890.6:2009 Off-street parking for People with Disabilities which governs parking space dimensions and design; the Disability Discrimination Act which requires people to not discriminate; and Australian Standard 1428.1 which requires minimum widths and spaces for people to manoeuvre a wheelchair.?

 

5.???????? Caltex Service Station, Macksville

 

The Committee discussed the high volume of pedestrians, the close proximity of the aged care residential facility, the high volume of trucks and other vehicles navigating the traffic when turning on and off the highway, and the number of ?near misses? at the entry and exit points of the Caltex service station.

 

6.???????? Trading Tables and A-frame Signs

 

This request has been sent to the relevant Council Manager as it is deemed operational and does not require a formal recommendation of Council.

 

 


CONSULTATION:

 

Manager Technical Services

Area Health and Building Surveyor


 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Nothing identified

 

Social

 

Having accessible businesses and a business centre has been shown to bring social and economic advantages as people with disabilities choose to shop and socialise where access is good.?

 

Economic

 

As above

 

Risk

 

Discriminating against people with disabilities is unlawful and Council should actively work to minimise risk of complaint or punitive action by eliminating barriers to access.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There would be a small cost for installation of bicycle racks and to re-mark one line.? The former could be a matter for budget consideration; the latter could be catered for in existing budget allocations.?

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nothing identified at this stage.

 

Attachments:

1View

30598/2012 - Minutes - Access Committee - 27 November 2012

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

Minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee held 27 November 2012

 

PRESENT

 

Cr Anne Smyth

Dr Dorothy Secomb

Mr Keith Davis

Ms Alba Sky

Lee-anne Funnell

Mr Les Small

Jan Wekesa (Nambucca Valley Early Childhood Intervention Service)

 

APOLOGIES

 

Ms Coral Hutchinson

Ms Margaret Hutchinson

Cr Elaine South

Ms Fiona Henwood

Mrs Shirley Holmes

Mr Peter Shales

 

 

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

 

ITEM 3.1???? SF1719????????????? 271112???? Confirmation of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting held 25 September 2012

RESOLVED: (SECOMB/SKY)

 

That the Committee confirm the minutes of the meeting held 23 October 2012.

 

 

 

ITEM 3.2???? SF1719????????????? 271112???? Report on Business Arising from the Previous Meeting held 23 October 2012

RESOLVED: (SKY/SECOMB)

 

That the matters arising from previous minutes which included progress on the Mobility Map and Brochure, the application for funding for PAMP projects and the hand-over of beach wheelchair be noted.

 

 

 

ITEM 3.3???? SF1719????????????? 271112???? Report on Correspondence to Access Committee meeting 27 November 2012

ReCOMMENDATION: (secomb/SKY)

 

That the items of correspondence in and out be noted, with particular notation of the response from Woolworths confirming that an accessible toilet is available for supermarket staff and customers of the Macksville store.

 

 

 

ITEM 3.4???? SF1719????????????? 271112???? Report on General Business to Access Committee meeting 27 November 2012

ReCOMMENDATION: (davis/FUNNELL)

 

That the Committee supports in principle the concept of developing a ?Fun in the Park? plan which will focus on improving access for children with disabilities to key Council children?s playgrounds.

 

Recommendation: (smyth/davis)

 

That the ?How to Resize Your Text? approach used by Bellingen Shire Council for its website be adopted by Nambucca Shire Council, and ensuring that that the link to the information can be made highly visible.?

 

Recommendation: (secomb/sky)

 

The Access committee recommend Council and the Local Traffic Committee endorse the installation of one additional Disabled Parking Bay with required access area in the Winifred Street Car Park Macksville with the loss of 2 regular parking bays.

 

ReCOMMENDATION: (secomb/sky)

 

That a letter is written to the Macksville Caltex Service Station suggesting a ?watch for pedestrian? sign be placed at the entrance and exit points.

 

The Committee discussed the high volume of pedestrians, the close proximity of the aged care residential facility, the high volume of trucks and other vehicles navigating the traffic when turning on and off the highway, and the number of ?near misses? at the entry and exit points of the Caltex service station.

 

ReCOMMENDATION: (secomb/DAVIS)

 

Follow up with the Ranger about the number of trading tables and A-frames sprouting up over the Christmas period on Bowra Street Nambucca Heads and obstructing pedestrian flow, and to request that permits for these are monitored.

 

The following matter was also noted without a formal motion:

 

Access to the RSL Nambucca Heads toilets on level 2 is difficult; the steps have poor lighting and a steep gradient.? Patrons are encouraged to approach and express their concerns direct to RSL staff.

 

???

 

NEXT MEETING DATE

 

The next meeting will be held on 22 January 2013 commencing at 2.00 pm, unless a quorum is unlikely due to the holidays.

 

 

CLOSURE

 

There being no further business the Chairperson then closed the meeting the time being 4.00 pm.?

 

 

 

 

Anne Smyth

(ACTING CHAIRPERSON)


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.3?? SF251????????????? 160113??????? Schedule of Council Public Meetings

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Monika Schuhmacher, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

The following is a schedule of dates for public Council meetings.? The meeting dates may change from to time and this will be recorded in the next available report to Council.

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

 

 

MEETING

DATE

VENUE

COMMENCING

Ordinary Council Meeting

16/01/2013

Council Chambers

8.30 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

31/01/2013

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

Water Supply Steering Committee

06/02/2013

Leave Council Chambers at 10.15 am for Bowraville site

10.45 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

13/02/2013

Council Chambers

8.30 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

28/02/2013

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

Water Supply Steering Committee

06/03/2013

Leave Council Chambers at 10.15 am for Bowraville site

10.45 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

13/03/2013

Council Chambers

8.30 AM

Water Supply Steering Committee

06/03/2013

Leave Council Chambers at 10.15 am for Bowraville site

10.45 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

28/03/2013

Burrapine Hall

5.30 PM

Water Supply Steering Committee

03/04/2013

Leave Council Chambers at 10.15 am for Bowraville site

10.45 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

10/04/2013

Council Chambers

8.30 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

24/04/2013

Valla Rural Hall

5.30 PM

Water Supply Steering Committee

01/05/2013

Leave Council Chambers at 10.15 am for Bowraville site

10.45 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

15/05/2013

Council Chambers

8.30 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

30/05/2013

Nambucca Entertainment Centre

5.30 PM

Water Supply Steering Committee

05/06/2013

Leave Council Chambers at 10.15 am for Bowraville site

10.45 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

12/06/2013

Council Chambers

8.30 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

27/06/2013

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.4?? SF307????????????? 160113??????? Coronation Park Committee of Management - Minutes of Annual General Meeting - 21 November 2012

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Monika Schuhmacher, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

The report acknowledges the Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the Coronation Park Committee of Management and the new Committee.? Copies of the Minutes of this meeting are attached and the Financial Statement are enclosed.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse the Minutes of the Committee of Management for Coronation Park?s Annual General Meeting held on 21 November 2012 and thank the outgoing Committee for their work in the past twelve months.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no real options.? Council needs voluntary Committees of Management to manage recreation and community facilities across the Nambucca Valley.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Annual General Meeting of Coronation Park?s Committee of Management was held on Sunday 21 November 2012.

 

The Committee of Management for 2012/2013 comprises:

 

???????? President?????????????????????? Trevor Keast

???????? Vice President??????????????? Richard Ellis

???????? Secretary?????????????????????? Dave Frost

???????? Treasurer?????????????????????? Robyn Kennedy

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There was no consultation.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

There are no economic implications.

 


Risk

 

This report poses no risk to Council.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no financial implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There are no implications for working funds.

 




 


Attachments:

1View

32024/2012 - Coronation Park - AGM Minutes - 21 November 2012

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

Coronation Park Committee of Management - Minutes of Annual General Meeting - 21 November 2012

 



Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.5?? SF300????????????? 160113??????? EJ Biffin Playing Fields Committee of Management AGM - 29 October 2012 - Minutes

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Monika Schuhmacher, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

The report acknowledges the Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the EJ Biffin Playing Fields Committee of Management and the new Committee.? Copies of the Minutes of this meeting and the Financial Statement are attached.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse the Minutes of the Committee of Management for EJ Biffin Playing Fields annual general Meeting held on 29 October 2012 and thank the outgoing Committee for their work in the past twelve months.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no real options.? Council needs voluntary Committees of Management to manage recreation and community facilities across the Nambucca Valley.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Annual general Meeting of the EJ Biffin Playing Fields? Committee of Management was held on Monday 29 October 2012.

 

The Committee of Management for 2012/2013 comprises:

 

???????? President???????????????????????????????? Trevor Keast

???????? Minute Secretary???????????????????? to be notified

???????? Treasurer??????????????????????????????? Carmen Hall

???????? Booking Officer??????????????????????? Trevor Keast

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There was no consultation.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.


Risk

 

This report poses no risk to Council.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no financial implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There are no implications for working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

32035/2012 - Minutes of AGM 29 October 2012

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

EJ Biffin Playing Fields Committee of Management AGM - 29 October 2012 - Minutes

 


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.6?? SF343????????????? 160113??????? Valla Public Hall Committee of Management AGM - 28 August 2012 - Minutes

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Monika Schuhmacher, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

The report acknowledges the Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the Valla Public Hall Committee of Management, which was held on 24 August 2011, and the new Committee.? Copies of the Minutes of this meeting and the Financial Statement are attached.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse the Minutes of the Committee of Management for the Valla Public Hall?s Annual General Meeting held on 28 August 2012 and thank the outgoing Committee for their work in the past twelve months.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no real options.? Council needs voluntary Committees of Management to manage recreation and community facilities across the Nambucca Valley.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Annual General Meeting of the Valla Public Hall?s Committee of Management was held on Tuesday 28 August 2012.

 

The Committee of Management for 2012/2013 comprises:

 

???????? President?????????????????????? Ron Henderson

???????? Vice President??????????????? Brian Pade

???????? Secretary?????????????????????? Sarah Pade

???????? Treasurer?????????????????????? Peter Trisley

???????? Booking Officer????????????? Anne Pade

???????? Committee Members????? Liz Henderson; Barry Pade; Jan Pade; Betty Trisley; Ray Schrieber;

?????????????????????????????????????????????? Lyndall Townend; Mal Peters and Lorraine (?)

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There was no consultation.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 


Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

This report poses no risk to Council.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no financial implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There are no implications for working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

30298/2012 - Minutes - Annual General Meeting - 28 August 2012

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

Valla Public Hall Committee of Management AGM - 28 August 2012 - Minutes

 










Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.7?? SF1719??????????? 160113??????? Healthy Communities Project

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Najjia Hadzic, Healthy Communities Coordinator ????????

 

Summary:

 

This report updates Council on the Healthy Living Nambucca project funded by the Australian Government under the Healthy Communities Initiative.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That the progress and success to date of the Healthy Communities Project be noted

 

2??????? That NSC proactively seek additional funding and grants to support the continuation of Healthy Living in the Nambucca.? This supports item 3.3 in the current NSC Strategic Plan.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? To adopt the progress report and proactively seek additional funding to support the continuation of ???? Healthy Living in the Nambucca Shire.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Nambucca Shire Council received a grant from the Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) under the Healthy Communities Initiative to deliver a range of programs to improve the health and well being of people in the Nambucca Shire. ?The aim is to reduce the prevalence of overweight and obesity in the community and maximise the number of at risk individuals participating in physical activity and healthy eating programs.? The target group for the project includes unemployed people, part-time and casual workers, seniors, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.? The project aims to increase awareness of the importance of physical activity and healthy eating, and increase access and availability of healthy lifestyle programs.

 

To date, Council has signed 13 contracts with local organisations including YMCA Macksville Memorial Aquatic Centre, the Valley Gym, Nambucca Valley Community Services Council, Macksville Physiotherapy and Pilates, Foley Fitness, Bowraville Central School, and Ngambaga Bindarry Girrwaa Community Services, to deliver a range of healthy lifestyle programs and options.? The community partnerships with local groups and government agencies such as NSW Health, have been invaluable in maintaining a genuine focus on health and wellbeing of the community.

 

There are a range of exercise classes including the national programs, Heartmoves and Beat It, being offered for the first time in the Nambucca Shire.? There are healthy cooking programs, community garden workshops, and information days.? The programs started in June 2012 and will run until the end of 2013.? All the program details are available on Council?s website and through the distribution of brochures, which are regularly updated.

 

Over 200 people have participated in the programs to date, and the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.? A majority of participants have said that classes have been extremely beneficial to them, and in some cases a positive influence on their families, and hope that the programs will continue.? The programs are offered at low or no cost, making them accessible and enabling a great number of people to participate in the activities who otherwise might not.? A comprehensive Healthy Communities report, including program evaluations and financial audit, has been successfully completed and submitted to DoHA.? Initially the contract between DoHA and the Council for the project was until June 2013, however DoHA extended all local government projects until June 2014 without consultation and without an increase in funding.? Council staff have undertaken significant budget and program adjustments and now have a revised budget and program which will cover the new period with the original and agreed funding.

As well as direct programs, the project will deliver the Healthy Spaces and Places training to relevant Council staff and interested Councillors.? The training aims to understand the link between health and the built environment and how to build local capacity.? The training was developed by the Planning Institute of Australia in collaboration with the Heart Foundation of Australia and the Australian Local Government Association.? It offers valuable professional development and learning, and has been well received by a number of Councils.? Approaching the training with some practical application may well be useful and positive if the practical focus is on; for example Macksville: reinvigorating and sustaining the town beyond the redirection of the highway.

 

In addition, the project includes the installation of outdoor adult exercise equipment at two sites, Nambucca Heads and Macksville.? The exercise stations will be freely accessible by community members.? Discussion about selection of equipment, placement, installation and maintenance has commenced with Council staff and will be followed by consultation with local community groups and the wider community.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Manager Community and Cultural Services

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

The outdoor exercise equipment will add value and improve the built environment of the Nambucca Shire.

 

Social

The project has provided an opportunity for Council to engage with local organisations and businesses to deliver a range of healthy living options and healthy lifestyle programs to community members, which is both socially and economically beneficial to the community.? This aligns with NSC Strategic Plan Item 3.3.

 

Economic

Nambucca Shire Council has received a grant of $566,000 from the Department of Health and Ageing under the Healthy Communities Initiative.? This is a substantial injection of funds to the Nambucca Shire to assist with reducing the risk and prevalence of obesity and support the health and well being of the community.? Most of the funds are directed towards businesses and community organisations for the implementation of healthy lifestyle programs.

 

Risk

Minimal ? The contracts between Nambucca Shire Council and the program providers ensure adequate insurance coverage and risk management in the delivery of programs.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no impact financially on Council as the project is fully funded.

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

Nil impact

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

Fully funded Nil

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.8?? SF624????????????? 160113??????? Nambucca Shire Libraries - Progress Report

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Tracey Ross, Senior Librarian ????????

 

Summary:

 

This report will update Council on the progress of the Nambucca Shire Council Libraries in the period since we have become a ?stand alone? library service.? As part of this report it was specifically requested that a review of staffing requirements be undertaken.? The Libraries are currently in a period of establishment and consolidation of new and existing functions however staffing arrangements, current workloads and skills sets have been considered by the Senior Librarian.? As a result of these initial considerations it is recommended that staffing resources, number of staff and allocated budget, remain at the current level.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That the Council note the progress report for the Nambucca Shire Council Libraries and that future reporting will form part of reporting in accordance with Council?s Delivery Program and Operational Plan and annual reporting to the State Library of NSW.

 

2??????? That Council agree to maintain the current staffing level and budgeted salary funding for the Libraries.

 

Manex Comment:

 

Regardless of the merits of recommendation of No. 2 above, the staffing levels and budgeted salary funding for the Libraries should be finalised with the review of the Organisation Structure and with the consideration of the 2013/2014 budget, Manex recommend that the existing temporary arrangements continue until the Organisation Structure and 2013/2014 Budget has been finalised.? It is suggested the recommendation provide as follows:

 

2??????? That Council consider staffing levels and budgeted salary funding for the libraries in its 2013/2014 Operational Plan budget.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? That Council note the progress report and adopt the recommendations stated above.

2??????? That Council note the progress report and adopt different recommendations to those stated in this report.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Nambucca Shire Council Libraries (NSL) commenced separation from the Clarence Regional Library (CRL) on 1 November 2011, after which time we experienced a gradual withdrawal of management and support services. The Senior Librarian commenced in her position on 23 July 2012. To date it has been a period of establishing the ?behind the scenes? functions of a Library, functions previously performed for both the Nambucca Heads and Macksville Libraries by CRL. These functions specifically relate to the separation of the Library Management System (LMS) data from that of the CRL and the not inconsiderable task of ?housekeeping? in relation to:

 

?????????????? the Acquisitions module in particular to ensure that data reflects the NSL current orders only

?????????????? the establishment of Funds Control module data to ensure that financial commitments and expenditure on library materials is able to be reflected in and extracted from the LMS

?????????????? the ?clean-up? of Borrower records within the Circulation module to ensure that only NSL Borrower information is reflected and that preferred notification methods are functioning, eg SMS and email notification methods

?????????????? the establishment of web protocols within the Cataloguing Module to ensure interoperability with Libraries Australia cataloguing functions

 

Contrary to reports provided by CRL this has not been a straight forward process, nor has it been undertaken by the LMS vendor, Civica. There has been a substantial amount of work undertaken by the Senior Librarian in bedding down the LMS within the NSL.

 

During this period there has also been a great deal of work done in acquiring material for the Library collections. This material has filled some of the ?gaps? in the existing collection, developed as a result of the separation from the CRL, and also in regaining currency of the collection as a result of the lack of acquiring new materials in the six or so months during the separation period and in appointing the Senior Librarian. This has involved the establishment of contact with vendors of library materials, identification of materials to be acquired across the collection, the actual purchasing, end-processing and cataloguing of these new materials.

 

This work has been in addition to the normal daily functioning of the library service, with limited staff numbers and a very narrow skills base.? The Senior Librarian has been cognisant of the need to develop individual library staff skills, especially in areas such as acquisitions and cataloguing, during this period. The Senior Librarian is the only staff member with tertiary qualifications in Library and Information Management.

 

Staffing levels remain an area of concern. One permanent part-time Library Assistant, working a total of 12.5 hours per week plus 3 hours every fourth Saturday, resigned with effect 30 June 2012. This position has a budgeted salary cost of $21,500 per annum. To date these hours have been absorbed on a temporary basis by existing staff members, an arrangement that has allowed the Senior Librarian to assess existing skill sets against new workloads and functions. Whilst at this point of time it is not proposed that additional staff will be required for the libraries it is strongly advised that there is no reduction in staff numbers or staff hours and that the current distribution of hours be made permanent. The five permanent staff members, of which only the Senior Librarian works a full-time load, are now required to perform a number of functions that were previously delivered by CRL. Some of these functions are:

 

????????????? Budget management

????????????? Strategic planning of library services for the Nambucca Shire

????????????? Collection development and management

????????????? Acquisition of materials

????????????? Cataloguing of materials

????????????? End-processing of materials

????????????? Development and delivery of library programs and services.

 

The effects of this increase in workload for the permanent staff members will continue to be closely monitored during FY 2012/13 to ensure that the libraries continue to function at their current levels of service delivery without inflicting undue strain on staffing resources. The Nambucca Heads Library provides services to an average of 6,235 people per month (open 5.5 days per week) and Macksville Library provides services to 2,614 people per month (open 4 days per week). In the Council?s Community Satisfaction Survey conducted in 2010 the Libraries were rated of high importance with a high degree of satisfaction. It is essential that current staffing levels are maintained to ensure that this highly valued service is not diminished.

 

The Libraries have hosted a number of events in the period since the end of July 2012, these are:

 

?????????????? five workshops facilitated by ABC Open, 2 ?500 words ? Someone Who Shaped Me? blogging workshops and 3 ?Snapped? photography workshops (2 for adults and 1 for children during the school holiday break)

?????????????? a 6 week Gumbaynggirr Language Taster Course in association with the Muurrbay Aboriginal Language and Culture Cooperative

?????????????? a book launch for local South West Rocks author Desley Polmear of her first fiction work ?Unlocked Secrets?

?????????????? storytime and visits by several pre-schools, including Giiguy Gamambi, Eungai Creek, in addition to regular storytime sessions open to the general public

?????????????? Children?s Book Week, National Year of Reading events, Simultaneous Storytime and Summer Reading Club

 

The Senior Librarian attended a North East Zone Public Libraries NSW Library Managers meeting in September 2012 at which she met State Library representatives as well as Library managers throughout our region. This meeting is held on a bi-annual basis in addition to the ?Ordinary Meeting? which is attended by Library Managers and Council Representatives.

 

We have submitted two grant applications to the State Library of NSW, one for ?Revitalising Regional Libraries? ($16,000) and the other for a ?Let?s Read Big and Loud? Project for the acquisition of large print and audio book materials ($75,000). We will be notified during this calendar year as to the success of these grant applications.

 

The robustness of the budget continues to be tested as we acquire materials and monitor the adequacy of staffing levels.

 

Overall this has been a period of establishment and consolidation of both new and existing library functions.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Both the Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services and the Manager Community and Cultural Services have been consulted in the preparation of this report.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental issues associated with this report.

 

Social

 

There are no social issues associated with this report.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic issues associated with this report.

 

Risk

 

There are no risks associated with this report if current staff levels and budgets are maintained.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no proposed change to the current budget for the Nambucca Shire Council Libraries.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

As per the above, there is no proposed change to the current budget for the Nambucca Shire Council Libraries.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.9?? SF624????????????? 160113??????? Establishment of new Local Land Services Authority

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Greg Meyers, Assistant General Manager - Corporate and Community Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

The NSW Minister for Primary Industries and Minister for Small Business, Katrina Hodgkinson, announced the formation of Local Land Services (LLS). This new service will commence on 1 January 2014 and will be an amalgamation of the Catchment Management Authorities (CMA), Livestock Health & Pest Authorities (LHPA) and incorporate the Department of Primary Industry agricultural advisory services across NSW.

 

The Local Government and Shires Association have advised Councils of the consultation process currently underway and seek feedback as appropriate so they may formulate a combined submission and position on the establishment of the LLS across NSW.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council note the report on the establishment of the Local Land Services authority.

 

2??????? That Council determine if it wishes to make a submission to the LGSA on the matters outlined in their correspondence detailed in the body of this report.

 

3??????? That Council provide direction as to the matters it wishes to identify in a submission if it resolves to do so.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council has the option to either make a submission or not make a submission and just simply note the report on the establishment of the Local Land Services.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

With the announcement of the establishment of Local Land Services, the NSW Government have established a Stakeholder Reference Panel with representatives from LHPA, CMA, NSW Farmers, Greening Australia, Landcare NSW, DPI organisations and the Local Government & Shires Associations (LGSA). The LGSA is represented by Cr Ray Donald, President of the Shires Association of NSW.

 

The LGSA have written to Councils seeking feedback and comment and the content of their correspondence is detailed below as it outlines the new LLS, the actions thus far and the issues still to be considered. A copy of the proposed regional boundary map is attached.

 

Local Land Services are the new regional service delivery organisations that will replace Catchment Management Authorities, Livestock Health & Pest Authorities and incorporate Department of Primary Industry agricultural advisory services across NSW.

 

Local Land Services (LLS) will be regionally-based, semi-autonomous, statutory organisation, governed by locally elected and skills-based board members, delivering services for farmers and landowners. They are planned to begin operations in January 2014.

 

The NSW Government has established a Stakeholder Reference Panel to guide the development of Local Land Services. The Panel will consist of representatives from LHPA, CMA, NSW Farmers, Greening Australia, Landcare NSW, DPI organisations and the Local Government & Shires Associations. The LGSA is represented by Cr Ray Donald, President of the Shires Association of NSW.

 

In the coming months, the LLS Reference Panel will develop proposals on several key features of LLS - including boundaries, governance structures, funding frameworks and core functions. Proposals for each of these will be open for public comment.

 

LLS Boundaries

 

Last week, the LLS Reference Panel has released a set of draft regional boundaries for eleven (11) new organisations. A draft map is attached. Information on the rationale for the proposed boundaries is available on the NSW Government Have Your Say website at http://haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/locallandservices.