NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Meeting Agenda

 

These are available 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 - 31 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

 

1??????? APOLOGIES

2??????? PRAYER

3??????? DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4??????? CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ? Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 January 2013

5??????? NOTICES OF MOTION

5.1???? NOTICE OF MOTION????? Reforming Public Library Funding. 6 ?

6??????? DELEGATION/PUBLIC FORUM

11.1?? Attards Road, Congarinni North - Request for Maintenance 62

????????? Colin Haddick on behalf of Access to Lot 168 DP 755537 - Attards? Road

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........................................ 8

9.2???? Independent Local Government Review Panel update........ 13

9.3???? 2013 World Rally Championship - Request to Construct a Section of Road to link Simpsons Ridge Road with Lower Buccrabendinni Road....................................................... 29

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

10.1?? Schedule of Council Public Meetings................................. 32

10.2?? 2013/2014 Fees and Charges General Increase................ 33

10.3?? Loan Report 2012/2013.................................................... 35

10.4?? DEP Applications and Statistical Reports 2011-2012, And Certificates Received 2010-2012 (November 2012)............ 36

10.5?? DEP Applications and Statistical Reports 2011-2012, And Certificates Received 2010-2012 (December 2012)............ 38

10.6?? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 1-18 January 2013 40

10.7?? Contract Regulatory Officer's Report December 2012........ 43

10.8?? DA2012/111 Telecommunications Facility, 36 McKay Street, Macksville........................................................................ 44

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

11.1?? Attards Road, Congarinni North - Request for Maintenance?DELEGATION ................................................................ 62

11.2?? Capital Works Report - 1 October 2012 to 31 December 2012??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 67

11.3?? Adoption of Policies for Building in the vicinity of Sewers and Easements for Sewerage Water Supply and Stormwater.... 73

11.4?? Establishment of Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme to be paid through Water Fund......................................................... 88

11.5?? Resignation of the Nambucca State Emergency Services Local Controller - Leanne Cooper...................................... 91

11.6?? 2012 Local Government Graffiti Survey............................. 93 ???


 

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

12.1?? On Site Sewage Management Systems 5625 Pacific Highway, North Macksville

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (b) (g) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains a discussion in relation to the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer; AND the report contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

??

??????????? 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????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 31 January 2013

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.1???? SF1817??????????? 310113??????? NOTICE OF MOTION????? Reforming Public Library Funding

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Anne Smyth, Councillor ????????

 

Summary:

 

The funding system for public libraries in NSW is broken beyond repair, and within two years will become unsustainable, as grant funds either expire or are completely depleted by the necessity to meet recurrent funding needs due to population growth.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council write to the Minister for the Arts, the Hon George Souris M.P., through the Hon Andrew Stoner, Deputy Premier and Member for Oxley, calling upon the Government to implement the submission of the Library Council of NSW for the reform of the funding system for NSW public libraries.? The State Library is currently seeking State Government support for this funding increase and model change.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

That Council write to the Minister for the Arts, the Hon George Souris, MP, through the Hon Andrew Stoner, Deputy Premier and Member for Oxley.

 

Council could choose not to make representation through our local Member of Parliament.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The NSW State Government currently provides $26.5M annually to Local Government in support of public libraries.

The Library Act 1939 sets out that the Library Council of NSW advises the Minister for the Arts on matters of public library policy and administration, and the provision of assistance to local libraries.

In 2012 the Library Council commissioned the State Library of NSW to work with Local Government stakeholders on a comprehensive review of the efficacy, administration and level of State funding in support of public libraries. As a result of this review, key stakeholders NSW Metropolitan Public Libraries Association, Public Libraries NSW and the Local Government and Shires Association have unanimously agreed on a new approach to the State Government Public Library Grants and Subsidies recommended by the Library Council of NSW. This new approach is necessary to ensure that NSW Local Government Councils are able to continue to maintain and develop quality library services and ancillary services for the people of NSW.

 

Enabling communities:

There are 374 public libraries across NSW, operated by 151 local authorities. They operate as 99 services, some stand-alone and some through regional library agreements.

Over the past 10 years in NSW, visits to libraries have grown by 24% to almost 36 million per annum. In 2010/11, library membership numbers were 3.3 million people in NSW (or 46% of the NSW population). Loans of books and other materials have increased to almost 50 million per annum, and Internet usage in libraries continues to grow, with more than 2.7 million hours of Internet access provided by NSW public libraries in 2010/11 (State Library of NSW (2012) Public Library Statistics 2010-11).? Public libraries are thus a key resource for community well-being and the delivery of Government services.

The sustained growth in demand from the people of NSW demonstrates the need for library services, and has placed pressures on Local Governments which are endeavouring to meet the demand.


Transparent reform:

The Library Council of New South Wales recommends a fairer, simplified and more transparent method for the distribution of funds. The following principles for a new approach are recommended by the Library Council:

????? Establish a base level of funding for Councils with populations below 20,000 people (a safety net for small Councils).

????? Grant a modest increase in per capita allocations for all Councils to recognise cost movements since 1994

????? Address disadvantage transparently through the application of appropriate disability factors

????? Phase out anomalies in current allocations due to former Council amalgamations

????? Ensure sustainability by providing that no Council receives less recurrent funding than 2012/13

????? Build and maintain infrastructure via a substantial capital fund, entitled the Building Library Infrastructure Program.

 

A modest proposal:

The Library Council recommends that recurrent public library funding to Councils be modestly adjusted from the current $26.5M to $30M per annum from 2013/14 and indexed from the following year. This would be allocated as follows: 68% ($20.4M in 2013/14) to Councils by population with a base level of funding for Councils with fewer than 20,000 residents, 17% ($5.1M) to Councils by NSW Local Government Grants Commission (LGGC) disability factors to explicitly address disadvantage, and 15% ($4.5M) applied to Statewide Programs.

 

 

Capital Needs:

In addition, a Building Library Infrastructure Program of $30M per annum, for building and maintaining infrastructure, is recommended to replace the now defunct provision of grants from operating funds. This program will enable Councils to renew library buildings, systems, collections and equipment in regional, urban and growth areas. It is proposed that this be phased in, rising to $30M over the 4 years from 2013/14 and indexed thereafter.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Manager, Community and Cultural Services

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?????


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 31 January 2013

General Manager

ITEM 9.1???? SF959????????????? 310113??????? 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.

Funding for a Flood Risk Management Plan which would consider filling is included in the 2013/14 Environmental Levy program.

 

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.

Completed 18 January 2013.? Circulated to Councillors for information.

 

FEBRUARY 2012

7

GB2/12

02/02/2012

Appropriate sized nesting boxes be placed 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.

Nesting boxes were installed in December 2012, advanced trees still awaiting delivery.

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.

 

 

AUGUST 2012

 

10

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

 

11

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

 

 

12

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

 

13

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

 

14

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

 

Deferred to 14 February 2013.

 

 

15

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

 


 

NOVEMBER 2012

16

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.

17

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

18

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.? Telephoned on Monday 21 January 2013.

DECEMBER 2012

19

SF382

12/12/2012

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

 

GM

Anticipate reporting 28 February 2013

20

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

21

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

22

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.

 

Report to be presented to Council?s 13 February meeting

23

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


 

JANUARY 2013

24

SF959

16/01/2013

Council receive a report responding to questions and issues raised in a NoM and identify means of allowing easier and more certain identification of building entitlements attaching to rural land.

 

GM

Report March 2013

25

SF1817

16/01/2013

Council be provided with a history of the number & nature of reports concerning the Nambucca River & riparian zones prepared over the last 25 years and which involved council funding (cash or in-kind).? Report to identify the use of each report and any gaps in the information identified.

 

GM

Assistance being obtained from the Office of Environment & Heritage.? Report March 2013.

 

 

26

RF275

16/01/2013

Councillors to be notified of DA?s with a value or cost > $1m.

 

AGMCCS

On-going

27??????????

SF1817

16/01/2013

Council review its tree removal policy and incorporate suggestions contained in NoM ? the 6D principles.

 

AGMES

Report February 2013

28

SF734

16/01/2013

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

 

GM

Report March 2013

29

SF643

16/01/2013

Council consult with property owners in Sandpiper Drive (narrow section + to the East) as to whether they are supportive of the installation of ?no parking? restrictions (3 options).

 

AGMES

Report March 2013

30

SF643

16/01/2013

There be a brief report on the ability to re-subdivide lots without addressing the potential for street parking and egress issues.

 

AGMES

Report to be presented to Council in March 2013.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 31 January 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.2???? SF894????????????? 310113??????? Independent Local Government Review Panel update

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Council has been advised by the Independent Local Government Review Panel that they will be recommending substantial change to the existing system of local government in NSW.

 

There are many ?signposts? in their November 2012 discussion paper, ?Better, Stronger Local Government?, which indicate they will recommend fundamental changes to the way local government services are delivered to the community of the Nambucca Valley.? The options which have been canvassed are amalgamation, boundary changes, shared services and regional collaboration.

 

The Independent Local Government Review Panel is seeking Council?s response to their November 2012 Discussion Paper.

 

It is recommended that a submission be forwarded to the Independent Local Government Review Panel indicating that Nambucca Shire Council is interested in any shared services and regional collaboration models which will deliver economies or savings to our local community whilst retaining the local identity provided by its local governing body.?

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That a submission be forwarded to the Independent Local Government Review Panel indicating that Nambucca Shire Council is interested in any shared services and regional collaboration models which will deliver economies or savings to our local community whilst retaining the local identity provided by its local governing body.?

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can determine what, if any, submission to make to the Independent Local Government Review Panel.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received the attached update from the Independent Local Government Review Panel which outlines Stage 2 of the review process and opportunities for involvement.

 

The Panel has flagged that their vision cannot be achieved without substantial change to the existing system and that their paper, ?Better, Stronger Local Government? provides ?signposts? for the sort of change they consider necessary.? However at the same time they say that no decisions have been made.

 

In particular the Panel has suggested that Council may wish to comment on their ideas about:

 

????? the list of essential elements of an effective local government system

????? the preliminary list of factors informing the Panel?s assessment of local government boundaries

????? the findings of the recent Perth metropolitan review (for metropolitan councils)

 

This consultation round was referred to in a memo on 25 November 2012 (attached).

 

There are many indications or ?signposts? in the report that indicate the Panel will recommend significant change to the structure of NSW local government.? The following table was prepared by the General Manager, Kempsey Shire Council to indicate the high match between the report?s ?signposts? and the circumstances of councils on the Mid North Coast, particularly the smaller councils.? The table he presented to Kempsey Shire Council has been modified slightly to reflect the circumstances of this Council, the only difference being that this Council has a population of less than 20,000 people.

 

There is some subjectivity in the interpretation of the ?signposts? such as defining local identity and sense of place.? However the Panel?s November report is somewhat dismissive of the importance of these criteria, eg,

 

?Communities of Interest

 

????? There is still no definitive approach to the concept of ?communities of interest?, which can vary widely in their focus and extent.? Some are strongly place based, others are not, especially in metropolitan areas.

 

Local Identity and Sense of Place

 

????? Boundaries should reflect a sense of identity and place, including important historical and traditional values, and the extent of other social and economic interdependencies.? However, incorporating communities into larger LGAs does not necessarily destroy local identity and sense of community. (page 29)

 

It is a matter for Council whether it wishes to respond to the November 2012 paper, ?The Case for Sustainable Change?.? It has already responded to the initial consultation paper, ?Strengthening Your Community? and a copy of that submission is attached.? The Mayor and General Manager also participated in a MIDROC presentation to the Panel at a meeting in Coffs Harbour.

 

The Council has limited resources to investigate the cost/benefit of the different forms of consolidation identified in the report being amalgamation, boundary change, shared services and regional collaboration.? The Panel has indicated they are mainly interested in ?evidence? based submissions.? However there is also a risk that given the ?signposts? to change, not responding may indicate acceptance or disinterest.

 

It is recommended that a submission be forwarded to the Panel indicating that Nambucca Shire Council is interested in any shared services and regional collaboration models which will deliver economies or savings to our local community whilst retaining the local identity provided by its local governing body.

 

This approach is also consistent with the position of the Mayor of Bellingen Shire Council who was reported in the Guardian News on 10 January 2013 as hoping that, ?stronger alliances between councils and fair dinkum resource sharing?, will be part of the package handed down by the Panel later this year.

 

There is also value in Council enunciating its position as there is likely to be increasing media interest and speculation in the sector in the build up to the release of the next report in March.? Council should have a position to put to MIDROC Councils, the media and most importantly, its community.? By adopting a position, more pressure may be exerted on other Councils to come forward with their preferred positions.? An earlier and unified approach by MIDROC will give the constituent Councils more political authority to shape their future.? Conversely, there may be a significant risk in the old adage that ?disunity is death?.


 

SIGNPOSTS TO CHANGE ? NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

Indicator

High

Match

Moderate Match

Not Match

Population under 20,000

 

 

 

Population declining

 

 

 

Adjoin population under 20,000

 

 

 

Key transport infrastructure & destination points

 

 

 

60-90 minutes travel to boundary

 

 

 

Disruptive boundaries

 

 

 

Within two hours travel to boundary

 

 

 

Local identity and sense of place

 

 

Strategic capacity

 

 

 

Water utility consolidation

 

 

 

Adequate revenue base

 

 

 

Difficult terrain

 

 

 

 

(Table supplied courtesy of the General Manager, Kempsey Shire Council and modified for Nambucca Shire Council circumstances)

 

At the time of finalising the business paper, the attached media release was received.? The media release also makes it plain they will recommend, ?far reaching reforms? and in April will put forward, ?draft proposals for new regional arrangements and consolidation of councils where required?.? But it is still emphasised that no decisions have been made at this stage.

 


CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Mayor and the General Managers of Kempsey and Bellingen Shire Councils.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

At this stage there are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

At this stage there are no social implications, although as discussed in the report there is a substantial risk to our local identity and governance.

 

Economic

 

At this stage there are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are substantial risks for the future of the organisation and for local governance.

 

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

1796/2013 - Better, Stronger Local Government - letter to General Managers

0 Pages

2View

1797/2013 - Better, Stronger Local Government -The Case for Sustainable Change - Summary Discussion paper - January 2013

0 Pages

3View

31123/2012 - Memo to Councillors

0 Pages

4View

19227/2012 - Response To "Strengthening Your Community" Consultation Paper - response

0 Pages

5View

2071/2013 - Media Release - Local Government Review hits top gear - 23 Jan 2013

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 31 January 2013

Independent Local Government Review Panel update

 



Ordinary Council Meeting - 31 January 2013

Independent Local Government Review Panel update

 





Ordinary Council Meeting - 31 January 2013

Independent Local Government Review Panel update

 

M E M O R A N D U M

 

 

TO: ???????????????????????????? COUNCILLORS

??????????????????????????????????? ASSISTANT GM ENGINEERING SERVICES

??????????????????????????????????? ASSISTANT GM CORPORATE & COMMUNTY SERVICES

??????????????????????????????????? CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE??????

FROM:??????????????????????? GENERAL MANAGER

SUBJECT:????????????????? INDEPENDENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW PANEL

DATE:???????????????????????? 25 NOVEMBER 2012

FILE NO:???????????????????? SF894

 

 

On 22 November 2012 the Independent Local Government Review Panel issues its report identifying its preferred directions for changing NSW Local Government.? A copy of the report is attached.

 

It is apparent that the Panel will recommend significant changes to the structure and operational arrangements of local government in NSW.? A recommendation for either an amalgamation or a mandatory shared services arrangement would seem to be a distinct possibility for this council.

 

It would be appreciated if you could provide me with any comments you may have on the attached paper so that they may be reported to Council?s meeting on 16 January.? It would be appreciated if comments could be forwarded to me before the end of the year.

 

Some of the comments on the directions for change are listed below:

 

?The Panel will seek further evidence on the benefits and drawbacks of boundary changes in different circumstances.? It will formulate proposals for amalgamations, new regional entities and shared services as appropriate throughout NSW.? There is a case to consider significant consolidation of local government across the Sydney metropolitan area, and in other major urban centres, and some regional centres?. (page 5)

 

?The Panel sees considerable potential in enhancing the role and stature of mayors, as well as a need for further measures to improve working relations between councillors and General Managers, within a framework of checks and balances?. (page 5)

 

?Local government is the democratic representative of communities.? It is ?close to the people?.? It can lead communities.? It can be the voice of communities.? It can moderate between competing interests.? It can create places that make lives better.? However, some councils are so small and so captured by local interests that they seem incapable of taking a more strategic view.? To be an effective partner in the broader system of government, local government must be both truly local in the way it relates to communities, and have the ability to address problems and emerging issues at a larger scale?.? (page 10).

 

?? local government cannot expect increases in total state and federal funding and may well see a declining trend in specific purpose grants as regional development and climate change programs are wound back.? Making the best use of existing external funding and of local government?s own tax base ? rates ? will assume even greater importance?.? (page 14)

 

?The current regulatory focus in NSW is principally on viability because that is where immediate or practical risk lies.? However, many councils that are merely viable will not be strong and effective partners in the system of government, and may well become unviable as fiscal pressures mount?.? (page 16)

 

?Several studies have suggested a need to review the distribution of FAGS in order to direct more funds to councils and communities in greatest need of assistance?.? (page 17)

 

?Over the period 2001/2 to 2010/11 taxation revenue (rates) increased by 4.4% per annum in NSW compared to 8.0% in the other mainland states.? The fact that rates in those states have increased without a strong community backlash suggests that political sensitivities in NSW may be overstated.

 

The impact of this slow growth in rates is highlighted by the federal government?s 2008-09 Local Government National Report, which shows that average rates per capita in NSW were $120 or 22% less than the average of other states.? The difference amounted to ?revenue foregone? of around $850m for that year?.? (page 17)

 

?The Panel sees scope for further streamlining of rate-pegging, recognising in particular the importance of funding essential infrastructure.? It will also consider other aspects of rating, such as the valuation base, categories of rates, exemptions and concessions?.? (page 18)

 

?Better financial management must be a centerpiece of local government reform.? This requires, among other things, a greater effort to boost own source revenues ? especially rates; increased use of borrowing to fund long term assets (subject to the council?s financial position); more concerted efforts to control costs and expenditure; enhanced productivity; more strategic procurement practices; and resource sharing with other councils?.? (page 18)

 

?The Panel will be looking at how to develop much stronger frameworks and new entities for regional collaboration, advocacy and shared services, in order to increase local government?s strategic capacity and the scope and quality of service delivery?.? (page 22)

 

?The Panel will investigate the need for new local government structures ? to be used only where required ? at regional and sub-council levels?.? (page 23)

 

?The evidence suggests that NSW has too many local councils and that various forms of consolidation should be pursued to strengthen capacity and sustainability.?? (page 23)

 

?Coastal NSW and its immediate hinterland will continue to witness substantial population growth over the next 25 years, with some adjoining council areas becoming coastal conurbations.? Whilst most coastal councils are projected to have populations of 40,000 or more by mid-century, there may be a case for some mergers in order to facilitate improved urban and environmental management and to maximize strategic capacity.? Once again, enhanced regional collaboration and shared services would be essential complementary measures.

 

The Panel will formulate proposals for amalgamations and/or new regional entities and expanded shared services to build local government?s strategic capacity throughout NSW?.? (pages 27 and 28)

 

 

 

 

Michael Coulter


Ordinary Council Meeting - 31 January 2013

Independent Local Government Review Panel update

 

Enquiries to:???? Michael Coulter

Phone No:??????? 6568 0200

Email:?????????????? michael.coulter@nambucca.nsw.gov.au

Mobile:???????????? 0409 153 788

Our Ref:?????????? SF894

 

 

 

27 July 2012

 

 

 

Prof Graham Sansom

Chair

Independent Local Government Review Panel

CARE Locked Bag 3015

NOWRA?? NSW?? 2451

 

 

Dear Prof Sansom

 

RESPONSE TO ?STRENGTHENING YOUR COMMUNITY? CONSULTATION PAPER

 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Consultation Paper.

 

Nambucca Shire Council considered the Consultation Paper at its meeting on 26 July 2012 and in particular responses to the three listed questions.

 

Council?s responses to these questions are as follows:

 

1??????? What are the best aspects of local government in its current form?

 

???? Councillors and staff are accessible to residents

???? Residents have a real capacity to influence the decisions of their council

???? Decision making is more transparent than other levels of government

???? There is more accountability for decisions compared to other levels of government

 

2??????? What challenges will your community have to meet over the next 25 years?

 

???? Maintaining local infrastructure in a low socio-economic area

???? Balancing the need for economic development with environmental and social needs

???? Meeting the needs of an ageing population which is growing at a faster rate than the State average

???? Managing more unfunded mandates (cost shifting) from the other levels of government

 

3????????? What ?top five? changes should be made to local government to help you community?s future challenges?

 

???? Remove rate pegging

???? Remove the per capita floor on the financial assistance grants to provide funding to councils entirely on a needs basis


2

Prof Graham Sansom

Independent Local Government Review Panel

 

27 July 2012

 

???? Increase untied grant programs relative to tied grant programs

???? Remove at least 50% of the provisions of the Local Government and Regulations (what does it say about NSW Government that we have to be governed by 749 sections in the Local Government Act and a further 418 clauses in the Regulations?)

???? Return town planning powers to councils (you can?t be a place shaper without them)

 

By way of background information and justification for Council?s position, please find enclosed a copy of the report prepared by myself which the Council considered.

 

The Consultation Paper properly canvasses the role of local government and makes observations as to what is occurring in New South Wales as well as overseas.?

 

It is suggested there is a disjuncture between the historic and current roles of local government in New South Wales compared to the alternative ?aspirational? model suggested in the Consultation Paper.

 

The notion of a ?place shaper? requires that local government have a high level of authority and financial capacity.? This has not been the traditional model in New South Wales.? According to the Allan Report, the official view in State Government is that local councils are legally no more than State statutory corporations and as such they are not an autonomous tier of government even though elected by citizens.? State legislation such as the Councils Charter in the Local Government Act does not define local government?s role vis-a-vi other governments.? Nor is there an intergovernmental agreement to clarify this.? In terms of financial capacity, councils in New South Wales have been hampered by decades of rate pegging and a declining share of taxation revenue.

 

Indeed, if councils had the requisite authority and financial capacity to be a ?place shaper?, they would have the flexibility to determine their own preferred model rather that work within a particular model imposed by the State.? The language within the Consultation Paper suggests the Panel will continue the search for ?the model? rather than accepting that the differences between New South Wales councils are such that no one model will be optimal for all councils.

 

Council requests that the Panel carefully align aspirations for the role of local government with the highly regulated nature of our existence.

 

Council extends its best wishes to the Panel on undertaking this important and challenging review.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Michael Coulter

GENERAL MANAGER

 

MAC:ms

 

Enc?? Report to Council 26 July 2012


Ordinary Council Meeting - 31 January 2013

Independent Local Government Review Panel update

 



Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 31 January 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.3???? SF1797??????????? 310113??????? 2013 World Rally Championship - Request to Construct a Section of Road to link Simpsons Ridge Road with Lower Buccrabendinni Road

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The report is short.? A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council provide its approval to the upgrade of the unformed road between Simpsons Ridge Road and Hanging Rock Road as well as funding of $3,000.00 required by NSW Forests to undertake grading work.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can decline its approval to upgrade the road and also decline to provide funding for the upgrade work.

 

Note from General Manager

 

My preferred option is:

 

1.?????? Council provide its approval to the upgrade of the unformed road between Simpsons Ridge Road and Hanging Rock Road subject to property owners along the unformed section raising no objection.

 

2.?????? That Rally Australia be advised that unfortunately for financial reasons, Council is unable to commit funding towards the 2013 World Rally event and they will need to arrange for the funding of any required road upgrading, including for the section between Simpsons Ridge Road and Hanging Rock Road.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Coffs Coast World Rally will be held in the Nambucca Shire on 14th September 2013.

 

The event will commence in Coffs Harbour from 13th September and finish on the night of the 15th September 2013. The rally will be televised to an estimated global market of 150 countries with a media reach of 500 million people.

 

The planning for the event by Rally Australia is well underway from December 2012. The broader community consultation stage is being implemented in the Nambucca from 25th February 2013 with a community meeting being held in the Nambucca Shire Council Chambers from 5.30pm.

 

It is proposed that the Nambucca stage will be held on the Saturday with the refuel site once again being situated in Bowraville.

 

There is proposed to be a change in the physical layout of the race track. This change is intended as a ?unique point of difference in the world rally? by combining the Welshes track with the Graces track forming the longest track of rally road ever held in a world rally event.

 

The Manager Business Development has been informed by the General Manager that no council funds will be allocated to the 2013 World rally event.? This will mean that no community event will take place on Saturday 14th September in Bowraville as council funds would be required for traffic control, the event fencing in the main street, waste removal as well as the Manager?s time.

 

Marketing funds will be allocated by the Manager Business Development from his budget for tourism promotion, leveraging on the event to attract visitors and boost retail spending.

 

There has been a request from Rally Australia for Council to allocate funding to grade an existing unformed 2.8km section of Council road that links Simpsons Ridge Rd to Hanging Rock Rd.? Forests NSW has provided a quote of of $3,000.00 to do the grading works. The Manager Business Development has contacted State Forests who will be grading the majority of Hanging Rock Road and with approval from Council will continue the grading of the unformed section through to Simpson Ridge Rd.

 

Rally Australia, Community liaison Mr David Catchpole will conduct direct consultation with the affected rural residences in the Simpson Ridge and Hanging Rock Road area and will attend this Council meeting to field any questions concerning the event and the proposed road connection.

 

A submission has been lodged by Rally Australia with the international body FIA for the rally to be held on an annual basis form 2014, 2015 following this year event. Rally Australia is waiting on a response to the pending submission to confirm with the appropriate authorities.

 

The requirement of council to maintain the graded road into the future has been raised and needs to be addressed. If the FIA approve the World rally to be held in the Coffs Coast for the next 3 consecutive years from 2013 ? 2015 inclusive then it is likely that future grading will be required to maintain the track each year.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

????? Rally Australia

????? General Manager NSC

????? Assistant general Manager NSC

????? Council staff Manager Civil Works NSC

????? Senior Overseer NSC

????? Forest NSW

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Environmental issues will be assessed in the World Rally environmental impact study assessment

 

Social

 

Affected residences in the new proposed track area will be consulted.? However the Southern Cross University study developed from the Nambucca Stage 2011 Coffs Coast World Rally stated that the world rally was a social success for the Nambucca Valley

 

Economic

 

The World Rally has the potential to grow the awareness of the region within NSW, nationally and globally and continue to build and attract visitors and tourists to the region from this marketing awareness.

The Southern Cross University study developed from the Nambucca Stage of 2011 Coffs Coast World Rally did not identify an economic success for the Nambucca Valley due to the lack of information provided from stall holders and businesses.

 

Risk

 

That council will be left with the liability of future maintenance of the new graded road.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

If council approves the request for $3,000 for the grading of the road there will be a direct impact on the existing budget as the works will be in 2012/2013 budget period.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The $3,000 could be sourced from councils existing 2012/13 tourism promotion budget and attracting the advantages to the region economic development budget however this will mean other marketing initiatives will be deleted to the amount of $3,000.00

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 31 January 2013

Corporate and Community Services

ITEM 10.1?? SF251????????????? 310113??????? 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????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 31 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.2?? SF729????????????? 310113??????? 2013/2014 Fees and Charges General Increase

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Greg Meyers, Assistant General Manager - Corporate and Community Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

Staff are currently reviewing the Fees and Charges for the 2013/14 budget for charges other than Water, Sewerage and Garbage charges, fees set by statute and those fees that have been specifically modelled and endorsed by Council or those fees that are regulated by annual CPI adjustment such as Section 94 contributions.

 

Council has traditionally increased its general fees and charges by CPI. However, with CPI running below 3% and operating costs soaring well above this, direction is sought from Council if it wishes to increase its general fees and charges by more than the CPI to say 5%.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council increase its General Fees and Charges by a minimum of 5% for consideration with the 2013/2014 budget, other than for Water, Sewerage and Garbage charges, fees set by statute and those fees that have been specifically modelled and endorsed by Council or those fees that are regulated by annual CPI adjustment such as Section 94 contributions.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council could choose to retain its increases in line with CPI or rate pegging of 3.4% for the 2013/14 budget.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has traditionally increased its general fees and charges by CPI. However, with CPI running below 3% and operating costs soaring well above this, direction is sought from Council if it wishes to increase its general fees and charges by more than the CPI (2.2% December 2011/2012) to say 5% or rate pegging of 3.4%.

 

The increases would apply to such items as Inspection fees which are currently on average $142 per inspection. A 5% (3.4% in brackets) increase would move this to $149 ($147); Photocopying (B/W) which is currently $0.60 per A4 copy would increase to $0.63 ($0.62) per copy; Colour copying is currently $6.25 per A4 copy would increase to $6.55 ($6.45); A frame footpath signs (where permitted) currently $110 would increase to $115.50 ($113.75); Footpath rental for footpath signage, tables/chairs etc is currently $44/sq metre would increase to $46.20/sq metre ($45.50/sq metre).

 

Many of the general fees and charges relate to a fee for service such as inspections, business services such as photocopying and applications.

 

Many of the big income items are set by statute such as Development Application fees, Section 603 (rates) and Section 149 (planning) certificates. All of Council?s developer contributions are increased by CPI as outlined in each of the plans.

 

Within the T-Corp report and several other reports into the revenue raising capacity or ability of Council?s, fees and charges or non-standard revenue are identified as areas that Council should be seeking to gain additional income. The proposed 5% increase is not likely to increase Council?s revenue in 2013/14 by 100?s of 1000?s of dollars, the estimates suggest a modest increase of single digit thousands only overall.

 

 


CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental impacts with this report.

 

Social

 

There are no social impacts with this report.

 

Economic

 

The intent of the report is to raise non- standard revenue which are not controlled by statute or regulation.

 

Risk

 

The risks revolve around the communities ability to absorb increases and the viability of Council if it doesn?t explore opportunities to increase non-standard and regulated income.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Increased fees and charges will provide additional income now and in the future.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The suggested increased income will be reflected in the draft budget when presented to Council.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 31 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.3?? SF395????????????? 310113??????? Loan Report 2012/2013

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Craig Doolan, Manager Financial Services; Jeneen Fuller, Finance Officer ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council is seeking to take out a loan for $1,206,000.00 for a 10 year fixed term interest rate (monthly repayments), for Bridges.? These borrowings are being subsidised via LIRS (Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme).

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council consider the offers from the six Financial Institutions as a late item.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no options.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The National Australia Bank, Commonwealth Bank, IMB Limited, Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, St George Bank and Westpac have been requested to provide Council with an offer for the following loan:

 

AMOUNT

PURPOSE

TERM

$1,206,000.00

Bridges $1,206,000.00

 

10 year fixed term interest rate (monthly repayments)

 

The financial institutions will be submitting their offers to Council on 30 January 2013.

 

Upon receipt of these offers, a late report will be tabled for consideration by closed Council.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Accountant

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY:

 

Not Applicable

 

 

FINANCIAL:

 

The loans are provided for in the 2012/2013 adopted budget.

 

SOURCE OF FUND AND ANY VARIANCE TO WORKING FUNDS

 

No source of funding and no variance to working funds until an offer has been accepted.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 31 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.4?? SF1709??????????? 310113??????? DEP Applications and Statistical Reports 2011-2012, And Certificates Received 2010-2012 (November 2012)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Lorraine Hemsworth, Business Service Coordinator ????????

 

Summary:

 

Environment and Planning Department Development Application statistics for the calendar year 2012 compared with 2011 and Certificate Applications/Drainage Diagrams/Outstanding Notice Applications received and determined are provided in the body of the report.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council note development application statistics and processing times for 2012 compared with 2011.

 

2????????? That Council note the statistical information for Applications and Certificates received and released by Council for 2010-2012.

 

 

Development Application Statistics

 

The figures show a 4.76% decrease in the number of DA?s received to November 2012 with construction costs increasing by 16.87% compared to the same period in 2011. The total number of DA?s/CD?s approved for the month of November was 17 plus 3 modifications.

 

 

DA?S AND COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT

 

Construction Costs

No Applications Received

Applications Approved (DA & CD)

Jan-November 2011

28,469,380

198

194

Jan-November 2012

34,245,812

189

148

 

 

FINANCIAL:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The above comparisons will be considered in the next quarterly budget review to identify what impact the development application numbers will have on our projected income.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

An average income is estimated at the start of each budget year and is reviewed at each quarterly review.


 


TURNAROUND TIMES FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 2012

Month

Mean Time

Median

#Average age of DA?s (Days)

Average

Highest

Lowest

January

41.20

42

79.20

202

42

February

51.53

29

86.00

189**

15

March

39.21

31

39.88

112

15

April

42.45

41

53.00

115

21

May

38.79

30

42.5

97

2

June

41.06

29

49.5

244

7

July

37.16

23

86.90

677

3

August

24.7

28

36.4

65

21

September

70.92

29

90.36

242

5

October

43.91

28

45.27

141

12

November

27.47

25

44.1

172

22

December

 

 

 

 

 

 

#Average age of DA?s

The average age of all DA?s for the month is derived from the total number of days from when the applications were lodged with Council until determined. This average is provided for information as many applications required additional information by Council and/or other Government Agencies to enable them to be processed (ie Stop Clock applied).

 

** The clock was not ?stopped? on this application as Council was waiting for referrals from the RTA.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 31 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.5?? SF1709??????????? 310113??????? DEP Applications and Statistical Reports 2011-2012, And Certificates Received 2010-2012 (December 2012)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Lorraine Hemsworth, Business Service Coordinator ????????

 

Summary:

 

Environment and Planning Department Development Application statistics for the calendar year 2012 compared with 2011 and Certificate Applications/Drainage Diagrams/Outstanding Notice Applications received and determined are provided in the body of the report.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council note development application statistics and processing times for 2012 compared with 2011.

 

2????????? That Council note the statistical information for Applications and Certificates received and released by Council for 2010-2012.

 

 

Development Application Statistics

 

The figures show a 4.35% increase in the number of DA?s received to December 2012 with construction costs increasing by 21.40% compared to the same period in 2011. The total number of DA?s/CD?s approved for the month of December 2012 was 10 plus 3 modifications.

 

 

DA?S AND COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT

 

Construction Costs

No Applications Received

Applications Approved (DA & CD)

Jan-December 2011

29,032,300

205

205

Jan-December 2012

36,936,782

207

162

 

 

FINANCIAL:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The above comparisons will be considered in the next quarterly budget review to identify what impact the development application numbers will have on our projected income.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

An average income is estimated at the start of each budget year and is reviewed at each quarterly review.


 


TURNAROUND TIMES FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 2012

Month

Mean Time

Median

#Average age of DA?s (Days)

Average

Highest

Lowest

January

41.20

42

79.20

202

42

February

51.53

29

86.00

189**

15

March

39.21

31

39.88

112

15

April

42.45

41

53.00

115

21

May

38.79

30

42.5

97

2

June

41.06

29

49.5

244

7

July

37.16

23

86.90

677

3

August

24.7

28

36.4

65

21

September

70.92

29

90.36

242

5

October

43.91

28

45.27

141

12

November

27.47

25

44.1

172

22

December

26.1

22

36.00

73

22

 

#Average age of DA?s

The average age of all DA?s for the month is derived from the total number of days from when the applications were lodged with Council until determined. This average is provided for information as many applications required additional information by Council and/or other Government Agencies to enable them to be processed (ie Stop Clock applied).

 

** The clock was not ?stopped? on this application as Council was waiting for referrals from the RTA.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 31 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.6?? SF1709??????????? 310113??????? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 1-18 January 2013

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Lorraine Hemsworth, Business Service Coordinator ????????

 

Summary:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/
STAFF COMMENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/
STAFF COMMENTS

2012/011

03/02/2012

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

Lot 2 DP 1119830, Alexandra Drive, Bellwood

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

????? Further information required from applicant before matter may be processed

 

2012/111

10/09/2012

Telecommunications facility

Lot 1 DP 805735, 36 McKay Street, Macksville

???? No objection to establishment of tower

???? Concern of potential health side effects

???? Close proximity to School

???? Visual impact creating eye sore

???? Minimal consultation with residents

???? Timing coincided with School holidays thus not allowing sufficient time for responses

???? Incorrect zoning listed

???? Plan showed fields not actual homes, offices and school

???? Regulatory Body standards from 1997 ? lot has changed in meantime

???? Where is latest EMF research

 

Submissions closed: 12 October 2012

Total submissions received:? 5

Application being assessed

 

2 Late submissions received

???? Risking lives of people especially children

???? Contradiction to Council?s responsibility to provide safe and clean living environment for residence

???? Emissions will have great adverse impact on so many lives

???? Constant flashing red light that the tower will have mounted on top ? trigger for people who suffer from seizures

 

Report in Business Paper

2012/108

07/09/2012

Residential Flat Building and Serviced Apartments (22)

Lot 1 DP 1016126, 4 Frazer Street, Nambucca Heads

????? Daylight Access ? shadowing

????? Visual privacy

????? Set backs

????? Building separation

????? Energy efficiency

 

Submissions close: 19 October 2012

Total submissions received:? 8

Still being processed by Manager

 

????? Access from public road

????? Shadowing on South side

????? Exit of cars ? south side

????? Building to big for land area

????? Overload on Council infrastructure eg water and sewerage

????? Loose of view of north and north east

????? Danger hazard at crest at Woolworths

????? Scale down and to be aesthetically as well as in line with the slope of the block

????? Noise issue in Nelson Street with influx of cars as they will be using this street

????? Noise from roller doors adjacent to windows

????? Length of time to build

????? Overlooked balconies/roof top terraces

????? Creation of damp problems due to shade during Winter

????? Shadows will be larger than shown on plans

????? Where will be the placement of garbage bins

????? Size of building

????? Room for car spaces

????? Waste management collection ? no room for 22 wheeled bins

????? Rear setbacks

????? Building separation

????? Building footprint

????? Visual privacy

????? Daylight access

????? Energy efficiency

????? Height

????? Streetscape and Open space

????? Acoustic Privacy

?????

Update:? 5/11/2012

Matters have been discussed with proponents and Planning Consultant

Once matters have been further addressed the application maybe processed

16/11/2012 ? Met with Architect to resolve areas of impact

21/12/2012 ? Additional information and plans received for assessment

Assessment complete

Height further reduced

??????????????????????????? Awaiting response from RFS following late submission by applicant for integration

2012/160

21/12/2012

Dwelling House ? Residential

Lot 4 DP 1117349, 13 Birugan Close, Valla Beach

????? Support application

????? Reminder of importance of existing remaining trees in corridor for koala habitat

 

Significantly constrained site

 

Submissions close: 21 January 2013

Total submissions received:? 1

 

2012/157

18/12/2012

Demolition of Existing Dwelling & Erection of Detached Dual Occupancy

Lot B DP 418330, 4 High Street, Nambucca Heads

????? Minimising overshadowing of north facing living areas

????? Reducing potential invasion of privacy

????? Providing of environmentally aesthetic retaining walls to prevent slippage

????? Provision of effective structural support of adjoining fence

????? Ensure all surface/stormwater is directed away from property

 

Submissions close: 14 January 2013

Total submissions received:? 1

 

2012/154

14/12/2012

Additions - Commercial

Lot 8 Sec 23A DP 758749, 12-18 Nelson Street, Nambucca Heads

????? Noise, and noise from poker machines, smoke coming up the hill

????? Unable to enjoy back area as disturbance emanating from the Club

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 31 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.7?? SF1148??????????? 310113??????? Contract Regulatory Officer's Report December 2012

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Teresa Boorer, Administrative Support Officer ????????

 

Summary:

 

The following is the Contract Regulatory Officer?s Report for December 2012.

 

Recommendation:

 

That the report from the Contract Regulatory Officer for December 2012 be received and noted by Council.

 

 

Cats

Dogs

COUNCIL?S SEIZURE ACTIVITY

 

 

Seized (doesn?t include those animals dumped or surrendered)

0

2

Returned to Owner

0

0

Transferred to - Council's Facility from Seizure Activities

0

2

ANIMALS IN AND ARRIVING AT COUNCIL'S FACILITY

 

 

Animals In Council's Facility - (Start of Month)

0

3

Abandoned or Stray

0

2

Surrendered

0

10

Animals transferred from Seizure Activities

0

2

Total Incoming Animals

0

17

ANIMALS LEAVING COUNCIL'S FACILITY

 

 

Released to Owners

0

3

Sold

0

1

Released to Organisations for Rehoming

0

0

Died at Council's Facility(other than euthanased)

0

0

Stolen from Council's Facility

0

0

Escaped from Council's Facility

0

0

Other

0

0

EUTHANASED

 

 

Restricted Dogs

 

0

Dangerous Dogs

 

2

Owner?s Request

0

3

Due to Illness, Disease or Injury

0

0

Feral/infant animal

0

0

Unsuitable for rehoming

0

3

Unable to be rehomed

0

2

Total Euthanased

0

10

Total Outgoing Animals

0

14

TOTAL IN COUNCIL'S FACILITY - (END OF MONTH)

0

3

 

CSR?s (Customer Service Requests) Actioned ? Not including Merit

32

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 31 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.8?? DA2012/111???? 310113??????? DA2012/111 Telecommunications Facility, 36 McKay Street, Macksville

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Selina McNally, Senior Town Planner ????????

 

Summary:

 

An application for a Telecommunications Facility in Macksville has been received by Council. The facility consists of a 30 (thirty) metre high monopole with 5 (five) antennas situated at the top of the monopole and an enclosed electronics board and maintenance area at the foot of the monopole. The whole facility i.e. monopole plus antennas measures 31 (thirty one) metres in height.

 

The land use is permissible on the site, due to the Industrial zoning, however, the area is predominantly residential and several concerned residents have made submissions, including a 111 (one hundred and eleven) signature petition to register objections to the proposal. There are several residences in very close proximity to the site, and there is a school and other community facilities also situated near by.

 

Due to the local topography and the sheer height of the proposed facility, it will have a visual impact to the properties in the immediate vicinity and also at several vantage points throughout the larger locality of Macksville and it?s surrounding areas.?

 

There are other locations, such as Macksville Industrial Estate, that are considered to be more appropriate than the application site and which have not been considered by the applicant.

 

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:

 

That Council resolve to refuse the development application subject to the following draft refusal notice:

 

o ?? Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a) of the EP&A Act 1979, it is considered the development is inconsistent with the height restrictions set for the surrounding area thus maximising the visual impact of the proposed 31 metre high Facility.

 

o ?? Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the EP&A Act 1979, the potential negative impact of the development at this particular location in the residential setting is considered to be unacceptably high.

 

o ?? Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(c), it is considered that the proposed location, within a predominantly residential area, is not suitable for the development and that there are other locations within the larger locality, that have not been considered, which would be more suitable.

 

Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(c), the site may not be suitable in terms of the close proximity of the railway line and corridor, as the appropriate approval has not been obtained by the Australian Rail Track Corporation.

 

o ?? Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(d) of the EP&A Act 1979, it is considered the submissions received raised relevant concerns in their objections to this specific location for such a large facility.

 

o? Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(e) of the EP&A Act 1979, it is considered that the proposed development is not in the public interest as it will affect not only many property owners and residents of nearby properties, but also all those Shire residents who use the nearby community facilities and public reserves and furthermore all residents and visitors to the Shire who enjoy the mountainous views from many vantage points throughout the larger locality of Macksville and surrounding areas.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

????? Option 2 is that Council approve the development subject to the draft conditions.

 

????? Option 3 if the Council approve the development subject to alternate conditions.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The proposed Facility is part of the National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout locally and across New South Wales (NSW). The NBN offer higher speed internet access and greater capability for downloading high volume data.

 

Development for Telecommunication Facilities can benefit from Exempt provisions from both the NSW Infrastructure SEPP and the Commonwealth Telecommunication (Low Impact Facilities) Determination 1997. This Telecommunications Facility does not qualify as Exempt Development in either legislation, hence this development application.

 

In September 2012 Nambucca Shire Council received a development application for a Telecommunications Facility on Angus Lane in Macksville. The proposal comprises a 30 metre monopole, to which is attached 5 (five) further antenna poles, a shed at ground level to house the associated electrical boards and other equipment and 2.4 metre high security fencing. The antennas will consist of 2 (two) parabolic dish antennas and 3 (three) panel antennas.

 

The application and plans state that the monopole has a height of 30 metres. It should be clarified that it is 30 metres to the top of the monopole and the group of antennae are then placed at the top, making the facility as a whole a total height of 31 metres. The Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) details the original facility was proposed to include a 40 metre high pole and it has subsequently been reduced to a 30 metre one.

 

Although the application site is within an Industrial Zone; Zoned IN2 ? Light Industrial, the surrounding land uses and zones are predominately residential and this is a small pocket of industrial land which historically would have evolved around the railway and is not the main Industrial Estate for Macksville which is Zoned IN1 ? General Industrial. The fundamental difference in-between Zone IN1 and IN2 is that IN2 is reserved for light industries only, which are low impact, and IN1 can include the heavier industrial uses. In this particular case, the IN2 zoning was applied to existing industrial development adjacent to the railway but is otherwise surrounded by residential and community land uses. Although the SEE details two alternate candidate sites, neither of these are on the main Macksville Industrial area.

 

Although the height restrictions in the NLEP relate to the height of buildings, the maximum building height of the surrounding area must still be considered, as the tower will protrude out above and over them. The majority of the surrounding land has a maximum height of 10 metres, with a small area adjacent to the railway not being controlled by height limitations. Although the applicant has reduced the height from 40 metres to 30 metres, this would still protrude 20 metre above any buildings in the surrounding area which take advantage of the full 10 metre height limit in the future (there are no existing building at such height). Figure 1 shows the height of the facility in relation to maximum height restrictions in the area, which contains both land with a 10 and 14 metre maximum height restriction. It also shows the height of an existing telegraph pole on Angus Lane and the approximate height of a three storey building. A larger copy of this is attached Attachment 1 To scale the drawing you will need an A3 copy and it is then at scale 1:200.

 

Figure 1: shows the height of the proposed Telecommunications Facility, surrounding height restrictions and existing Infrastructure.

 

The concern with regards to visual impact is not only in relation to the sheer height of the proposed pole but also the location which is extremely close to existing residents whose visual amenity will be substantially reduced at this specific location. The two groups of residents who will suffer the biggest visual impact are, firstly, those on Angus Lane, where the nearest residence will be under 30 metres away from the tower; being this close to such a high tower will mean it will literally tower over these 2 metre high dwellings. The second group of residents to be greatly impacted are those who live on the other side of Tilly Willy Creek along Joffre and Sturdee Streets and have their private open space adjacent to Tilly Willy Creek. A larger copy of this location plan has been included at Attachment 2.

 

 

 

Figure 2 identifies residents on Angus Lane and Sturdee Street.

 

Although we do have existing street furniture and towers for electricity and telecommunications which already impact on our streetscape, the average size of a Transgrid electricity pole* is an average 18.5 metres, (source:? Specification for Pole Installation and Removal - Ausgrid) and so the 31 metre Facility proposed as part of this telecommunication facility will be prominent among them. Angus Lane currently sites a few existing telegraph poles which are at 6 metres in height.

 

* Transgrid Electricity Poles are the large poles transmitting electricity cables

 

 

Figure 3: Photo taken from Angus Lane looking towards application Site.

 

In Figure 3 the garbage bins indicate the close proximity of the application site to nearby homes on Angus Lane which are under 30 metres from the proposed Telecommunications Facility. The proposed location for the Telecommunications Tower is on the overgrown grass to the left of the telegraph pole.

 

 

 

 

Figure 4 : Photo taken Sturdee Street looking towards application site across the bridge.

 

Figure 4 shows a vantage point when crossing the bridge over Tilly Willy Creek. The existing telegraph pole can be used as a 6 metre marker to gain perspective of how high the proposed 31 metre Facility will be, which will protrude out from the vegetation to the right of the telegraph pole, but it will be 4 times the height of this telegraph pole.

 

 

 

Figure 5: Photo taken from the Eastern Side of the Bridge at Tilly Willy Creek.

 

 

Figure 5 is a photograph pf the same telegraph pole taken now from the Eastern side of the bridge over Tilly Willy Creek and again the telegraph pole can be used as 6 (six) metre high marker to indicate the impact of the introduction of a 31 metre Telecommunication Facility at this location.

 

In addition to the intrusive impact of such a height for both sets of nearby residents, it will also have an over bearing impact on nearby community facilities and public open spaces, such as the school, a near-by by aged care facility and a public reserve with childrens? playground. The proposed telecommunication tower will also have a visual impact on the wider locality of Macksville as a whole. Due to the natural topography of the area many properties and public vantage points benefit from views of the near by mountain ranges that surround Macksville, as well as views out to our picturesque rural areas.

 

 

 

Figure 6 shows a cherry picker set at 40 metres (10 metres higher than the facility is now proposed) and the potential impact on Mountainous views.

 

 

The Statement of Environmental Effects advises that photos included from various vantage points show a cherry picker at 40 metres, which was the original intended height for the Facility. The height has now been reduced to 30 metres, but given the end extension of the cherry picker is arched as it extends to 40 metres, it still gives a good indication of the impact of a 31 metre high Facility as shown in Figure 6.

 

Further concern with regards to the erection of such a high pole arises as Telecommunications companies have various Exemption provisions to utilise for future development, including ?adding to? existing facilities. This legislation can be found at Part 7 of the Telecommunications (Low Impact Facilities) Determination 1997 and is referred to as ?co-located facilities?. Although co-located facilities are not Exempt in residential zones, they are in Industrial ones, which means that if this Facility is approved it can be added to later with no opportunity for Council assessment. So, for example, the current antennas add only 1 metre to the height of the overall Facility, but these could be replaced with even larger i.e. higher antennas, or likewise bigger bulkier dishes in the future.

 

Nambucca Shire Council does not have any specific development controls for telecommunication towers within its Development Control Plan. This means this development application neither complies with the NDCP nor does not and assessment therefore comes down to a merit based one. However, Council staff have researched other LGAs controls and requirements in relation to telecommunication facilities and have found that it is common to restrict the location of towers in respect to distance from residential properties and also facilities such as schools. One example has been taken from Ashfield Municipal Council and is provided for your reference at Attachment 3.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Internal

 

????? Engineering

 

Council?s engineering staff recommend several conditions, including one to ensure a construction traffic management plan is prepared prior to construction.

 

External

 

????? Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC)

 

The application site is adjacent to the rail Corridor and the Macksville railway line. Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) have provided advice that the applicant has not obtained the appropriate approval to work within 100 metre of a rail corridor. This requirement has therefore been placed on the recommended draft conditions as a deferred commencement condition, so the Consent will not become operational until this is received. The property officer from ARTC explained that most applicants would obtain at least a? preliminary agreement before proceeding with lodging a development application. ARTC have also requested additional conditions be included on the Consent in relation to stormwater control and security fencing along the rail corridor.

 

ARTC?s advice was lacking any indication as to whether the application will likely be approved or not and Council staff have asked the officer who provided the comments for further clarification on this but none has been received at the time of writing this report.

 

????? Applicant.

 

At Council Meeting on 10 October 2012 Council resolved to seek clarification from the applicant as to whether alternate legislation existed which could override Council?s planning decision. The applicant duly responded to confirm that there are no Federal or State Legislations that can override Council?s determination for this development application as it is not classed as a ?low impact facility? which are often deemed to be exempt from Local Planning policy and decision making.

 

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION ? SECTION 79C(1) EP&A ACT

 

In its assessment of a development application, Council is required to take into consideration the following matters:

 

a????????? the provisions of

 

(i) any environmental planning instruments

 

Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010.

 

The development is permissible in the Zoning.

 

(ii) any draft environmental planning instrument

 

There are none specifically relevant to the proposal.

 

(iii) any development control plan (DCP)

 

Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010

 

The application relates to a Telecommunications Facility for which there are no requirements within the NDCP as previously discussed in this report.

 

b????????? the likely impacts of the development

 

Context and Setting

 

The site relates to a small pocket of industrial land adjacent to the railway line and Tilly Wily Creek in Macksville. Although this small area is zoned industrial, the predominant land use of the surrounding vicinity and wider local area is residential. The locality also includes a school and public reserve. The introduction of such a high monopole and large Facility is not considered appropriate for this residential setting.

 

c????????? the suitability of the site for the development

 

The site is not considered suitable for the development due to the close proximity of near-by residences, community facilities and public open spaces and the over bearing impact of the sheer height of the proposed facility at this location. It is considered that there are more suitable locations within the Shire which have not been considered, for example the Macksville Industrial Estate. Although the SEE details site consideration and other sites were given due consideration, before this one was selected, a site within the Industrial Estate was not included for consideration.

 

d????????? any submissions made in accordance with the Act or the regulations

 

The application was notified and 7 (seven) independently written submissions were received along with a thoroughly written statement for a petition with 111 (one hundred and eleven) signatures on it.

 

Several submissions also express concerns over the various health concerns which could eventuate from living so near to such a Facility and several more submissions expressed concern, not over particular health concerns, but over the lack of evidence available to prove their was no possibility to link Facilities to health concerns. Health concerns in relation to emissions from Telecommunication Facilities are controlled by separate legislation and are not considered under the EP&A Act.

 

e????????? the public interest

 

Given the high number of signatures on the petition from residents in the surrounding community, it is not considered granting Development Consent would be in the public interest. As discussed previously in this report, there are alternate locations which would be more appropriate to be utilised for the development.

 

However, the installation of the facility will facilitate the provision of the NBN throughout the Shire which will be of an benefit to both businesses and residences of the Shire.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The site will be impacted by a 1:100 year flood event due to the close proximity of Tilly Willy Creek and this area?s particular history of flooding. When allowing residential and commercial development in such flood prone areas, it is standard procedure to condition development consent to locate all wiring, power outlets and the like above the flood planning level. In this instance a NBN power distribution board/metre panel and associated electronics and wiring will be located at the foot of the monopole and this will also need to be raised above the flood level i.e. up to 0.5 metres above ground level. Condition number 10 has been included on the recommended draft conditions to ensure the building is designed to accommodate this.

 

Social

 

There are both economic and social benefits to introducing the NBN rollout in the area.

 

Economic

 

The NBN service would benefit businesses in the Shire, particularly web based ones, and thus could have a positive impact on the local economy.


 

Risk

 

There is risk associated with refusing the development application. Firstly the applicant may appeal the decision. Secondly, the applicant may be unable to find an alternate suitable location and Nambucca Shire may miss the opportunity to benefit from the NBN service.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

None identified.

 

Note from General Manager

 

If the application is determined by way of refusal and is then the subject of an appeal, it is proposed that there be a further report on how Council would be represented at an appeal.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Not applicable.

 

DETAILS OF CONDITIONS

 

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THIS CONSENT

 

Deferred Commencement Consent

 

1??????? This Consent is not to become operational until the appropriate approval has been given by Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd.

 

 

Development is to be in accordance with approved plans

 

2??????? The development is to be implemented generally in accordance with the plans and supporting documents endorsed with the Council stamp, dated 1 February 2013 and authorised signature, and set out in the following table except where modified by any conditions of this consent.

 

Plan No/Supporting Document

Version

Prepared by

Dated

?2MAC-51-04-MKW-D-02

02

Aurecon

12.07.12

2MAC-51-04-MKW-D-C3

03

Aurecon

12.07.12

2MAC-51-04-KMKW-D-C1

03

Aurecon

12.07.12

2MAC-51-04-MKW-D-C4

03

Aurecon

12.07.12

 

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

Consent Granted For Works within the Road Reserve

 

3??????? This development consent includes the works within the road reserve set out in the table below. The work must be carried out in accordance with the standard specified in the column opposite the work. All works are to include the adjustment and/or relocation of services as necessary to the requirements of the appropriate service authorities.


 

Work

Standard to be provided

?Kerb and gutter, road pavement and associated drainage construction, footpath formation to the driveway access and a sufficient distance beyond to allow for reverse movements out of the site

Minimum 5.5m wide pavement, or to edge of existing road pavement including any necessary relocation of services as

 

 

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

 

Construction Traffic Management Plan

 

3??????? Prior to a Construction Certificate being issued, the applicant must submit details of stormwater disposal to Council for approval. The flow of stormwater toward the rail corridor must not be increased by the proposed development. All approved details for the disposal of stormwater and drainage are to be implemented in the development.

 

Construction Traffic Management Plan

 

4??????? Consent from Council must be obtained for a traffic management plan pursuant to Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993. The plans and specifications are to include the measures to be employed to control traffic (inclusive of construction vehicles) during construction of the development. The traffic control plan is to be designed in accordance with the requirements of the Roads and Traffic Authority?s Manual, Traffic Control at Work Sites Version 2, and Australian Standard 1742.3 - 1985, Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices Part 3, ?Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads?.

 

The plan must incorporate measures to ensure that motorists using roads adjacent to the development and residents and pedestrians in the vicinity of the development are subjected to minimal time delays due to construction on the site or adjacent to the site.

 

The traffic control plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified and RTA accredited Work Site Traffic Controller.

 

5??????? The application for a Construction Certificate is to include plans and specification that indicate vehicular access from Angus Lane to Development site. Vehicular access must be in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004: Parking facilities, Part 1: Off-street Car Parking No 1. Plans are to include the following items:

 

a??????? pavement description

b??????? site conditions affecting the access;

f???????? drainage (open drains, pipes, etc

 

The plans must be in compliance with Council's Adopted Engineering Standard.

 

Building materials and colours to be specified

 

6??????? The application for a Construction Certificate is to include a schedule of finishes which indicates the colour and type of all finished surfaces. The colours and materials must be drawn from colours found in the surrounding natural environment of such as:

 

a??????? Water ? Steel blue

b??????? Trees - Green

c??????? Earth ? Brown

c??????? Industrial ? Grey.

 

Such plans and specifications must be approved as part of the Construction Certificate.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH DURING CONSTRUCTION

 

Construction times

 

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

 

Monday to Friday, from 7.00 am to 6.00 pm.

Saturday, from 8.00 am to 1.00 pm.

 

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

 

Limiting construction noise

 

8??????? Construction noise is to be limited as follows:

 

For construction periods of four (4) weeks and under, the L10 noise level measured over a period of not less than fifteen (15) minutes when the construction site is in operation must not exceed the background level by more than 20 dB(A).

 

For construction periods greater than four (4) weeks and not exceeding twenty‑six (26) weeks, the L10 noise level measured over a period of not less than fifteen (15) minutes when the construction site is in operation must not exceed the background level by more than 10 dB(A).

 

Builders rubbish to be contained on site

 

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

 

Wiring in flood prone buildings

 

10????? All wiring, power outlets, switches, etc., must to the maximum extent possible, be located above the flood planning level. All electrical wiring installed below the flood planning level must be suitable for continuous submergence in water and must contain no fibrous components. Only submersible-type splices are to be used below flood planning level. All conduits located below flood planning level are to be so installed that they will be self-draining if subjected to flooding.

 

Builders rubbish to be contained on site

 

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

 

 

Attachments:

1View

1395/2013 - Heights

0 Pages

2View

1415/2013 - Aerial

0 Pages

3View

1444/2013 - Ashfield

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 31 January 2013

DA2012/111 Telecommunications Facility, 36 McKay Street, Macksville

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 31 January 2013

DA2012/111 Telecommunications Facility, 36 McKay Street, Macksville

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 31 January 2013

DA2012/111 Telecommunications Facility, 36 McKay Street, Macksville

 

Ashfield Municipal Council

Policies & Codes

Telecommunications

 

Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007 Policies & Codes

 

 

6.0 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS

 

6.1 Proximity to sensitive land-uses

 

Under the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan, telecommunications towers are only

permissible with Council's consent in the General Business 3(a) zone.

 

Notwithstanding, Council will apply the following locational criteria to applications

for telecommunications towers:-

???? 300 metres from any dwelling, boarding house or residential land unless

Annual Average Exposure at nearest item listed is less than 0.2 +/-

0.02uw/cm2; and

???? 300 metres from any school, childcare centre, hospital or aged care centre.

???? 300 metres from any trees covered by Council?s Tree Preservation order.

???? The carrier will be responsible for providing details of the electromagnetic radiation

level (EMR) emitted by the facility and how the EMR levels compare to the relevant

industry and Australian? Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007 Policies & Codes

 

6.2 Heritage and environmental issues

 

In considering potential locations consideration must be given to local attributes and

sensitive environmental areas within the Council area. They should avoid where

possible the location of towers and associated facilities within or at the termination

of a significant vista or focal point of a streetscape. Further, they should avoid

visually sensitive areas or a streetscape or landscape dominated by any heritage

significance and identified as such in the Ashfield LEP.

 

The aesthetics and visual impacts of large pole or lattice towers are always difficult

aspects to manage successfully. Locating towers in areas screened from surrounding

view by buildings and existing tree stands will often not meet carriers? operational

requirements.

 

Submissions from carriers need to deal with these issues carefully, and propose

measures to minimise visual problems which can emerge with these installations.

This can incorporate painting of towers and ground level structures, site landscaping

and other screening measures, such as at the rear of buildings or as well-designed

roof features rather than in street frontage positions.

 

The Telecommunications Act 1997 and The Telecommunications Code of Practice

1997 have specific requirements for areas on the Register of the National Estate, and

accordingly, apply to the Haberfield Conservation Area. Clause 55 to Schedule 3 of

the Telecommunications Act 1997, provides that, in addition to lodging a

development application for any telecommunication facility in any area listed on

the Register of the National Estate, it will be necessary to notify the Federal

Environmental Secretary of the proposal. The Australian Communication Authority

may direct a carrier to amend the proposal after consulting the Australian Heritage

Commission.

 

6.3 Design issues

- preference is given to a slimline pole rather than a ?lattice? tower due to its

lesser visual impact

- provision of suitable landscaping if possible to soften the appearance of the

tower

- ancillary buildings to be of a compatible colour and design for the area

 

7.0 ROOFTOP ANTENNAE

 

These are generally more acceptable than towers as they tend to be less obtrusive

and have less visual impact on the streetscape, providing there is not excessive

clutter of the skyline. The following design controls apply to rooftop antennas that

are not identified as low impact facilities in the Telecommunications (Low Impact

Facilities) Determination 19971*:-

 

Carrier to submit an overall plan showing all such facilities to be placed on roof,

and details of the impact on the skyline. Proposals which result in

excessive clutter of the skyline will not be permitted

- preferably to be screened by other design features on the building

- appropriate screening devices to be used where feasible to improve visual

impact

- colour to be compatible with colour of building

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 31 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.1?? SF768????????????? 310113??????? Attards Road, Congarinni North - Request for Maintenance

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Peter Baynes, Manager Assets ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council has been approached by the owner of a property which is located on Attards Road with a request to repair and raise a timber bridge located on the road.? Attards Road is a Crown Road and therefore is not maintained by Council.? In order to undertake any maintenance of the road and bridge Council would need to apply to the Department of Primary Industries to have the road transferred to Council?s control.

 

Given the poor condition of the road and bridge it is recommended Council not make application to have the road transferred to its control as taking on any additional infrastructure assets of this type will place additional impost on already limited maintenance and capital works budgets.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council:

 

1??????? not make any application to have the Crown Road known as Attards Road, Congarinni North transferred to Council control as a public road.

 

2??????? Advise the owner of Lot 168 DP 755537 of Council?s resolution.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council could apply to have the Crown Road known as Attards Road, Congarinni North transferred to its control.? This would then require capital expenditure of up to $118,000 to bring the road up to an acceptable condition and additional ongoing maintenance expenditure of approximately $2,000 per annum.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Background

 

Attards Road, Congarinni North runs off Wilson Road just south of Bowraville and provides access to several rural properties.? Attards Road is a Crown Road and therefore is not maintained by Council.

 

Council has been approached by the property owner of Lot 168 DP 755537 which is located approximately 1.8km along Attards Road with a request to repair and raise a timber bridge located approximately 50m from Wilson Road.

 

Prior to writing to Council the property owner has previously written to the Primary Industries Catchments and Lands office at Grafton requesting maintenance of the bridge.? Their advice was that they ?don?t fix bridges? and that he should approach Nambucca Shire Council regarding repairs to the bridge.

 

As Attards Road is a Crown Road, Council is not the Road Authority for this road and has no responsibility to maintain the road.? In order to undertake any maintenance of the road and bridge Council would need to apply to the Department of Primary Industries to have the road transferred to Council?s control.

 

Issues

 

If Council were to apply to have Attards Road transferred to its control the road would need to be classified in accordance with Council?s Road Hierarchy.? Once this is done there would potentially be some work required to bring the road and bridge up to the minimum condition acceptable for a road in the assigned class.

 

The Road Hierarchy Plan classifies rural roads into the following 5 classes based on Average Annual Daily Traffic count (AADT):

 

CLASS

TRAFFIC COUNT

Class 1 ? Primary

Greater than 700

Class 2 ? Secondary

200 ? 700

Class 3 ? Minor

50 ? 199

Class 4 ? Access

10 ? 49

Class 5 ? Track

Less than 10

 

Actual traffic counts for Attards Road are not available; however a ?rule of thumb? figure provided by AusSpec for planning purposes is five (5) vehicle movements per day for rural tenements.? Attards Road serves three tenements so the approximate traffic count would be 15 which would see this road classified as a Class 4 access road.

 

Attards Road and the bridge in question are in poor condition and both would require considerable maintenance or upgrade work to bring them up to an acceptable condition. ?A preliminary assessment of the condition of the bridge would see it rated as Condition 5 on Council?s 1 ? 5 Condition Scale.? With 35 bridges already in condition 4 or 5 and needing replacement, the addition of another bridge in such poor condition to Council?s asset portfolio is considered unwarranted.

 

Preliminary estimates of the costs of this work as follows:

 

??????? Reconstruction works to bring the 2.4km length of the road up to standard could be up to $72,000 dependent on site conditions.

??????? Replacement of the old timber bridge $46,000.? Repairing the existing structure to bring it up to standard is not considered a feasible option.

??????? Ongoing annual costs of approximately $2,000 for maintenance grading and bridge maintenance.

 

Currently Attards Road passes through a number of paddocks and is unfenced on one side before it reaches Lot 168.? There are a number of cattle grids where fences cross the road.? If the road is upgraded there is the potential for these private structures having to be upgraded in accordance with Council?s policy on Erection of Public Gates and Motor Bypass (Grids).? This policy state that there are no new grids to be constructed and installed and requires that existing grids be upgraded and thereafter remain maintained and insured by the landowner.? There is the risk that property owners may object to the cost associated with this work.

 

There is an alternate access to Lot 168 DP 755537 via Rhones Creek and Coulters Roads to the southern end of Attards Road.? This portion of Attards Road is very steep and in poor condition.? A barrier and Road Closed sign have been erected at the junction of Coulters Road and Attards Road.

 

Recommendation

 

Taking on any additional infrastructure assets of this type will place additional impost on already limited maintenance and capital works budgets.? The expenditure of up to $118,000 on Attards Road is not considered a high priority when compared with work on repairing large pavement failures, replacing existing timber bridges, correcting deficiencies with roadside drainage and maintenance of road shoulders.

 

Therefore it is recommended Council not apply to have Attards Road transferred to its control.

 


CONSULTATION:

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services

Manager Civil Works

Surveyor

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental issues arising from this report.

 

Social

 

Adopting the recommendation of this report will impact the owner of Lot 168 DP 755537 in that the access to his property will not be improved unless private works are carried out.? Adopting the option will impact on landowners, including the owner of Lot 168, in that they would likely be required to upgrade existing private infrastructure to comply with Council policy and standards.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic issues arising from this report.

 

Risk

 

Should Council take over responsibility for the road there is the risk that property owners may object to the cost associated with work required to upgrade existing private infrastructure to comply with Council policy and standards.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no impact if the recommendation is adopted.? Should the option be adopted there will be a requirement for additional capital expenditure of up to $118,000 to bring the road up to an acceptable condition and additional ongoing maintenance expenditure of approximately $2,000 per annum.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

General Fund, Loans

 

Attachments:

1View

1228/2013 - Attards Road

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 31 January 2013

Attards Road, Congarinni North - Request for Maintenance

 

Fig 1.? Locality Map

 

Fig 2.? Timber Bridge on Attards Road (looking toward Wilson Road)

Fig 3.? General view of Attards Road (looking North)

 

Fig 4.? Road Closed sign and Timber Cattle Grid at southern end of Attards Road


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 31 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.2?? SF1676??????????? 310113??????? Capital Works Report - 1 October 2012 to 31 December 2012

 

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

 

Summary:

 

This report provides Council with a quarterly report on the Capital Works Program for the period 1 October 2012 to 31 December 2012.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That the Capital Works Report for the period 1 October 2012 to 31 December 2012 be received and noted.

 

2??????? That the proposed variations be endorsed and included in the December 2012 budget review.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Receive the report.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Capital Works report is presented for the period 1 October to 31 December 2012.

 

Comments from Assistant General Manager Engineering Services:

 

Substantial planning has been implemented across the Engineering Department to monitor the progress of works and ensure delivery of the capital works program.? The most significant impact has been on the bridge program associated with the issues surrounding Weekes and Eungai Bridges.? These matters have been subject to various Council reports and resolved through Council resolution.

 

The attached circularised spreadsheets reflect the expenditure for capital works for the December Quarterly Budget Review (QBR).? This period of reporting has again experienced favourable weather conditions for the works with the only impedance to the maintenance grading program associated with continuing dry conditions, with rural residents reporting dusty conditions on unsealed roads.

 

Monthly works program

 

A monthly works program page (with a caveat on weather conditions) went live in mid October 2012 on Council?s website. The page is updated at the beginning of each month advising of proposed works for the month and is located under Services & Infrastructure > Roads & Bridges > Maintenance Program.

 

Rural Fire Service ? Service Level Agreement

 

The draft 2013/14 RFS BID will be presented to Council from the Zone Manager in February. The delivery of the BID has been delayed by the bushfires around the state and the Zone Manager being temporarily deployed on outer area assistance. The Liaison Committee made it clear to the Zone Manager at the last meeting that the draft BID will be indexed as per the rate pegging levy, and must be presented to Council in February for consideration in order to adhere to the Service Level Agreement.

 

The Liaison Committee are meeting in accordance with the scheduled meeting dates monitoring the performance of the Business Plan, Quarterly Performance and Finance Reports.? (Council will be presented with a report in February emanating from the Liaison meeting held in January) There are no foreseen anomalies within the budget at this review period.

 

The Managers have outlined the progress of works as follows:

 

Comments from Manager Civil Works:

 

Weekes Bridge has been deferred for consideration by Council in the 2013/14 financial year, or beyond. Council resolved that the bridge is to be constructed as a single lane bridge. In accordance with the Council resolution the funding allocation has been redirected to Millers Bridge and other bridges as determined.

 

Council has resolved that Eungai Creek Bridge is to be constructed as a single lane bridge unless RMS provides additional funding for a two lane bridge to facilitate highway traffic in the case of a diversion from the Pacific Highway. No response has been received to date and work is scheduled to commence at the completion of Laverty?s Bridge after Easter.

 

The major landslips (items 63 to 65) Riverside Drive Nambucca Heads have been completed with retention being held in reserve. These projects were combined into one contract and variations to individual Work Orders will be reported at the completion of the contract.

 

The Urban Road Rehabilitation Reseal Program has been programmed for Feb/Mar 2013 and will be reported in the March QBR.

 

ITEM

DESCRIPTION

COMMENTS

PROPOSED CARRYOVER

 

VARIATION

14

Weekes Bridge

To be constructed as single lane bridge in the 2013/14 financial year, or beyond. Funding re-allocated to Millers Item 11 and a bridge to be determined Item 12.

 

$ NIL

$ NIL

63 - 65

Landslips

Three landslips were combined as one contract. The total project is within budget.? Variations to individual work order allocations will be reported at the end of the contract.

 

$ NIL

$ NIL

8

Eungai Creek Bridge

To be constructed as a single lane bridge unless additional funding allocated by RMS.

 

$ NIL

$ NIL

 

Comments from Manager Assets:

 

Council is progressively reverting away from the lease arrangements with Toyota Fleet Management back to the ownership of the passenger and utility fleet by Council due to FBT liabilities.

 

This has resulted in a further revision of the mix of leased and Council owned vehicles and corresponding reallocation of budget amounts across all three funds as summarised in the table below and detailed in the attached circularised spreadsheet.?

 

In the general fund the purchase of a dog trailer has been deferred following a review of the existing trailer?s condition (reported in the last QBR). An additional amount has been included for portable traffic lights as per Council?s resolution of 14 November 2012.

 

In the water and sewer funds a reallocation of budget figures has been made to reflect adjustment of a budget allocation for a utility from the sewer fund to the water fund.

 

Details of these variations are provided in the attached circularised spreadsheet.?

 

The table below shows a summary of the total of the variations:

 

ITEM

DESCRIPTION

COMMENTS

PROPOSED CARRYOVER

 

VARIATION

94 - 113

General Fund plant purchases

Four passenger vehicles have been purchased, no further to be ordered.

Seven utilities have been ordered, five have been delivered with two due for delivery early 2013.

One truck has been ordered, delivery is due early 2013.

Purchase of dog trailer deferred following a review of the existing trailer?s condition.

Minor plant purchases, water filled barriers and compressor yet to be completed.

Addition of portable traffic lights following Council?s resolution of 14 November 2012.

 

$ NIL

-$35,323

114 - 118

Water Fund plant purchases

 

One passenger vehicle is yet to be ordered, scheduled for March 2013.

Two utilities have been ordered, due for delivery early 2013.? (Budget transfer from sewer to water fund for one of these items).

One truck has been ordered, delivery is due early 2013.

One more truck is to be ordered, awaiting confirmation of specification.

 

$ NIL

+$41,632

119 - 125

Sewer Fund plant purchases

One utility has been ordered, due for delivery early 2013.? (Budget transfer from sewer to water fund for one utility incorrectly allocated to wrong fund in original budget).

One van has been purchased, includes reallocation of funds originally budgeted for a water snorter but no longer required.

Two ride on mowers to be purchased early 2013.

 

$ NIL

-$29,634

 

Comments from Manager Water and Sewerage:

 

Construction works have commenced on the Bowraville Off River Storage (BORS) Project albeit later than assumed when the budget was produced.? This may mean that the budget allocation may not be fully used however this will not be reported until the last quarter as things can change quickly.? In any case unexpended funds would be carried over to the 2013/14 budget and this will be reported monthly through the BORS meeting.

 

ITEMS 1, 2 and 3 - Variations to the water budget will be required for works involved in reservoir improvements and installation of a pressure reduction valve to control water pressure in the Bellwood area.?? It is proposed to vary the water mains upgrade budget downward to offset these increased budget costs. It is intended to undertake the installation of the trunk main to South Macksville using Council labour and budget savings are now anticipated.

 

ITEM 4 ? South Macksville URA ? Pump Stations.? The design and specifications have been completed ready for works, however the development of the South Macksville area has not proceeded as anticipated and the construction of the pump station will not occur this financial year.? For this reason the budget allocation of $690,610 will not be expended this financial year and it is recommended that Council endorse $690,610 being removed from the 2012/13 budget and considered in the 2013/14 in lieu of a revote.

 

ITEM 5 - The contractor for the Nambucca Heads Sewerage Augmentation has lodged a significant claim against Council for variation and delay costs.? This claim is currently being negotiated with the aim of reaching an agreed settlement.? Council will incur the cost for some level of payment as well as for additional project management fees and these costs were not anticipated in the original budget allocation.? A further report will be provided to Council following negotiations between Council and the Contractor.

 

A provisional sum was also allowed in the contract for repairs to the original IDEA tank. In view of the dispute with the contractor these works are now being managed by Council.? Quotes received for the works have exceeded the amount of the provisional sum but as this is a one off opportunity to have the tank off line, the works are being undertaken as they will prolong the life of the asset.

 

ITEM 6 - Tenders have closed for works to design a constructed wetland at Bowraville Sewage Treatment Plant however construction is subject to Section 60 approval from the NSW Office of Water and Council resolving to proceed with the project.? For this reason the budget allocation of $350,000 will not be fully expended this financial year and it is recommended that Council endorse $250,000 being removed from the 2012/2013 budget and an allocation for construction work considered in the 2013/14 budget in lieu of a revote.? Continuation of the project after design has been completed will be subject to a further report to Council.

 

The following table provides details on the budget variations to date:

 

ITEM

DESCRIPTION

COMMENTS

PROPOSED CARRY OVER

VARIATION

 

1

Reservoir Improvements

(WO1629)

Quote for works to remove internal ladders and modify hatches on Palmer Street reservoir was higher than anticipated however works approved due to contractor availability and benefits in removing risk to water quality.

$ NIL

$6,134

2

Pressure Reduction Valve

(WO2125)

Installation took longer than anticipated and budget did not allow for fabrication and installation of protective cover.

$ NIL

$5,195

3

Water Supply Mains Upgrade (WO1643)

 

Installation using Council labour and machinery hire as required is expected to provide budget savings on installation of trunk main to South Macksville

$ NIL

-$11,329

(offsets variations above)

4

South Macksville URA - Pump Stations (WO1675)

 

Development of the South Macksville area has not proceeded as anticipated and the construction of the pump station can be postponed.

$ NIL

Will be subject to 2013/14 budget

-$690,610

 

5

Nambucca Heads Augmentation (WO1705)

 

Allowance for Monadelphous variation and delay claim to be resolved as well as payment of additional project management fees.

 

Subject of a further report

6

 

Bowraville STP - Constructed Wetland (WO2147)

 

Design and procurement will take some time and the construction stage is not anticipated until 2013/14 subject to a further report to Council and approval to proceed.

$ NIL

Will be subject to 2013/14 budget

-$250,000

 

Comments from Waste Management Officer:

Council received a report at the meeting held on 15 August 2012 on the operations of waste.? The following capital works have been physically completed as at December 2012 QBR, however final completion is subject to EPA approval to meet the licence requirements which are associated with the Biomass upgrade and are outside of Council?s control:

 

ITEM

DESCRIPTION

COMMENTS

PROPOSED CARRY OVER

VARIATION

 

1

Waste Depot Closure of old landfills (Job 1187.103.509)

Constraints/delays associated with the upgrade to the Biomass Plant and the revegetation layer of cell 2 as per Council resolution.

$ NIL

$ NIL

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services

General Manager

Manager Civil Works

Manager Water and Sewerage

Manager Technical Services

Manager Assets

Waste Management Officer

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are no environmental issues associated with this report.

 

Social

There are no social issues associated with this report.

 

Economic

There are no economic issues associated with this report.

 

Risk

There are no risk issues associated with this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

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

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

Sources of funds are across a various range of functions.

 

Attachments:

1View

?- Circularised Documents - Capital Works Spread Sheet (TRIM SF1676: 1894\2013 and 1901\2013)

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 31 January 2013

Capital Works Report - 1 October 2012 to 31 December 2012

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Capital Works Report - 1 October 2012 to 31 December 2012

 

 

 

Circularised Documents - Capital Works Spread Sheet (TRIM SF1676: 1894\2013 and 1901\2013)

 

??Pages

 


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 31 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.3?? SF1031??????????? 310113??????? Adoption of Policies for Building in the vicinity of Sewers and Easements for Sewerage Water Supply and Stormwater

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Richard Spain, Manager Water and Sewerage ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council has recently reviewed and placed on public exhibition revised the policies for ?Building in the Vicinity of Sewers? as well as ?Easements for Sewerage, Water Supply and Stormwater?.

 

The public exhibition period closed on 20 December 2012 and no written submissions were received.

 

It is recommended that the attached revised polices be adopted by Council.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council adopt the revised policies for ?Building in the Vicinity of Sewers? and ?Easements for Sewerage, Water Supply and Stormwater?.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

As the policies have been reviewed by Council prior to public exhibition and no written submissions were received from the general public through the public exhibition period, no other option has been considered.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

In accordance with Council?s direction to be provided with current and proposed amended policy documents prior to consideration at a Council meeting, the policies for ?Building in the Vicinity of Sewers? as well as ?Easements for Sewerage, Water Supply and Stormwater? were provided to Council on 9 October 2012 .? At the ordinary meeting of Council held on 14 November 2012 Council resolved as follows:

 

?That the Council place the Draft ?Building in the Vicinity of Sewers? and ?Easements for Sewerage, Water Supply and Stormwater? Policies on public exhibition for a period of 28 days for public comment with a view to adopting the policies once any comment has been considered.?

 

The public exhibition period closed on 20 December 2012 and no written submissions were received.

 

It is recommended that the attached revised polices be adopted by Council.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Councillors

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services

General Public

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The amended policies will have no direct impact on the environment

 

Social

 

The amended policies will have no direct social impact.

 

Economic

 

The amended policies clearly set out Council requirements for dealing with Council infrastructure located on private land.? This higher degree of certainty provides a benefit for any landowner who may want to assess the feasibility of developing land where the infrastructure is present.

 

Risk

 

The amended policies will reduce Council?s risk with regard to maintaining its ability to access, operate and maintain the infrastructure assets under its control.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no impact on the current or future budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Not applicable

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

26055/2012 - DRAFT Policy - Sewerage - Building in the Vicinity of Sewers

0 Pages

2View

26057/2012 - DRAFT Policy - Easements for Sewerage, Water and Stormwater Pipelines

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 31 January 2013

Adoption of Policies for Building in the vicinity of Sewers and Easements for Sewerage Water Supply and Stormwater

 

 

 

 

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

POLICY

SEWERAGE - BUILDING IN THE VICINITY OF SEWERS

 

 

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.?

 

 

 

1.0?????? Policy objective

 

This policy is aimed at:

 

???? Preventing damage to Council owned sewer pipes that may result from the increased load from a structure bearing on the pipe work. This load may cause the pipes to subside and/or fracture.

 

???? Preventing damage to new of existing buildings and structures. Buildings and structures located on or near underground pipes can be subject to subsidence with consequent damage to the structure. Subsidence can occur when a pressurised pipeline breaks and the flow of water undermines the surrounding soils. When a hole occurs in an underground sewer, the surrounding soil can be drawn into the pipe leaving a void, which may then collapse. Any structure located over or near this collapsing ground may be damaged unless it is adequately support by piers .

 

???? Maintaining right of entry to access chambers, junctions and inspection shafts. This will allow staff to undertake regular maintenance to pipe work without having to remove structures. Sewers, in particular, are subject to blockages that need to be cleared quickly.

 

???? Enabling efficient and economical access to pipe work for major repairs and/or replacement without damaging structures. Large earthmoving equipment may be required to repair pipelines and this equipment needs room to manoeuvre and operate. Structures that are too close to the pipeline will make access difficult and may also be at risk of being damaged.

 

???? Reducing future maintenance costs to Council. It is unreasonable that Council, and subsequently our customers, should incur unnecessary costs when carrying out maintenance and/or repairs caused by having to remove and then replace structures that have been built over or too close to an underground pipeline.

 

???? Providing a consistent approach to building over or near underground pipe work throughout the Council area. This will assist in maintaining the structural integrity of existing buildings that may be affected by new building proposals. Existing buildings may become at risk where a new building has been built without consideration for nearby pipelines

2.0?????? Related legislation

 

Section 191A of the Local government Act affords Council the power to enter private property to construct and maintain its water, sewer and stormwater assets irrespective of whether or not there is an easement over the asset.

 

3.0?????? Definitions

 

3.1?????? Access Chamber

 

An access chamber is a circular concrete structure used to provide direct access to the sewers for maintenance and clearing blockages.? They are located where sewers change direction or at a maximum interval of approximately 70m along a sewer pipeline. They are usually visible at the ground surface as a concrete lid and surround about 600 mm in diameter.

 

3.2???? Junction

 

A junction is the pipe fitting located at the point where the individual property plumbing connects to the Council sewer main.

 

3.3???? Inspection Shafts

 

An inspection shaft is a pipe rising to ground level just inside a property boundary and is considered to be the point where the responsibility for maintenance of the sewer pipes changes from Council to the property owner.? It is usually a PVC pipe, either 100 mm or 150 mm in diameter and finished 100 mm at ground level with a concrete surround. The inspection shaft may be used to access either the property owner?s pipes or the Council?s main in the event of a blockage.

 

3.4???? Easement

 

An easement is a strip of land set aside for the purpose of allowing access to underground service pipelines such as sewers and water mains. Not all lots have easements and not all underground lines are located within easements. If a lot has an easement it will be shown on the title plan for the property.

 

3.5???? Sewer Mains

 

Sewer mains are Council owned pipelines designed to collect and transport the wastewater generated from dwellings, shops and industrial premises. The drains from kitchen sinks, laundry tubs, showers, baths, hand basins, toilets and the like are connected via private sewer pipes within the property to the sewer main.

 

3.6???? Sewer Rising Mains

 

Sewer rising mains are Council owned pressure pipelines that are used to transfer wastewater from sewer pumping stations to the wastewater treatment plant.

 

3.7???? Water Mains

 

Water mains are Council owned pressure pipelines that distribute treated drinking water throughout the urban area to dwellings, shops and industrial premises.


Ordinary Council Meeting - 31 January 2013

Adoption of Policies for Building in the vicinity of Sewers and Easements for Sewerage Water Supply and Stormwater

 

4.0?????? Policy Statement

 

Council will not give approval for structures to be built over a sewer rising main, pressure sewer main or a water main or within any Council easement or, where an easement does not exist, within the distances from a Council pipeline specified in this policy.

 

Council will not permit structures to be built over a gravity sewer, within an easement provided for gravity sewer or within the distances from a gravity main specified in this document (subject to exceptions as specified in this document).

 

Council may approve structures to be built adjacent to a gravity sewer, a sewer rising main, pressure sewer main or a water main providing precautions are taken with the design of the footings. Structural Engineers details of the proposed footings will be required prior to a final approval being granted..

 

 

4.1?????? Policy Requirements

 

4.1.1? Application

 

This policy applies to the construction of all buildings, dwellings, decks, carports, garages, sheds, swimming pools, pergolas, retaining walls and permanent structures within Council's jurisdiction that are to be built near water mains, sewers and sewer rising mains.

 

4.1.2??? Coverage

 

This policy covers regulations relating to building over or adjacent to the following Council owned pipelines:

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Sewers

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Sewer rising mains

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Pressure sewer mains

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Water mains

 

In newly constructed subdivisions the above pipelines shall be located in an easement. The easement provides a means for Council to gain access to the pipelines. If an easement has been designated, it will be shown on the deposited plan for the lot.

 

Where a formal easement does not exist, Council has a legal power of entry to obtain access to the pipes under Section 191A of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

4.1.3??? New Development and /or Building Applications

 

When an application is made to build a new structure or extend and/or alter an existing structure, an assessment is made of the effect the proposal may have on any nearby sewers, sewer rising mains or water mains. All development/building applications should show the position of any sewer or water mains in relation to the property and existing or proposed structures. Plans should be drawn at a scale of 1:200 or 1:100.

 

It is advisable to contact Council to ascertain the general location of any pipelines and whether special designs will be required for the proposed structure before submitting plans. If any part of the proposed structure is to be located over the underground pipeline, within the easement or, where an easement does not exist, within specified distances of the pipeline then the application may be refused.? In this case the applicant will be requested to redesign the structure so that it does not encroach on the underground pipeline. (See section 4.1.5 for specified distances).

 

A structure that is to be built close to an easement may require a Structural Engineer?s detail to ensure that it does not place a loading within the zone of influence of the sewer, sewer rising main or water main. Before plans are submitted, the applicant should have a surveyor locate the pipeline to ensure that footing designs will be adequate for the proposed structure. This may be required in some circumstances where Councils records cannot be confirmed.

 

4.1.4??? Building Near an Underground Water Main or Sewer Rising Main

 

These pressure mains are usually located in footpaths or roadways and are sited well away from most structures. However, occasionally pressure mains are located through private property and in these cases special advice should be obtained from Council before commencing design work. A burst water main may quickly cause severe damage to an adjacent structure.

 

Under no circumstances will approval be given for any structure to be built over a water main or sewer rising main or within their easements. In cases where an easement has not been provided a corridor at least 3 m wide and centred on the pipeline shall be used to determine the area in which a structure cannot be located.

 

4.1.5??? Building Near an Underground Gravity Sewer

 

i???????? Where easements are not provided:

 

Where an easement has not been provided then the offset distances shown in Figure 1 will apply.

Figure 1 - Minimum Distances from the side of pipes

 

The closest distance that the external edge of a structure can be located to the outside edge of a sewer or drainage line is:

 

???? 1050 mm from the outside edge of an overhang such as an eave or gutter.

???? 1500 mm from an external wall or footing.

 

(The above distances allow a maximum eave overhang of 450 mm. For larger overhangs the distance of the wall to the side of pipeline would have to be greater than 1500 mm).

NOTE: These distances are measured horizontally between the proposed structure and a line drawn vertically from the side of the pipeline as shown in Figure 1.

 

ii???????
Proposed structures of two or more storeys:

 

An allowance may be made for 2 or more storey structures where the eave is well above the ground level (>3000mm) to allow further encroachment of an overhang. In these cases an individual assessment will be made. This assessment will consider the distance from the pipe to the external wall of the structure, the distance from the lowest point of the overhang to the ground level, the depth of the pipe and the difficulty of access for machinery.

 

iii?????? Where easements are provided:

 

Easements of specified width are defined on the Deposited Plan for each lot. Where an easement has been provided the following conditions will apply:

???? No external wall of a structure can be built within an easement.

???? An overhang is permitted within an easement. Where a structure is to be built up to the easement the maximum eave overhang would be 450 mm.

???? It cannot be assumed that the underground pipe will always be located in the centre of the easement. Where the pipe has been located to one side of an easement then it may be necessary for a structure to be located well outside the easement to maintain the minimum distances from the pipe. In these cases an individual assessment will be made to determine the minimum wall and eave setbacks required. This assessment will consider the distance from the pipe to the edge of the easement, the depth of the pipe and the difficulty of access for machinery.

 

4.1.6??? Zone of Influence for Sewers and Other Pipes

 

The ?zone of influence? is an area surrounding a pipe such that if any part of a structure or its footing were to be located on or within it an additional load would be imposed on the pipe through the surrounding soil.? The depth of the pipeline, the type of soil and the slope of the site determine the size of the zone.

 

All footings for structures located on the surface of the zone of influence shall be constructed to a depth that extends through the zone of influence.

 

The zone of influence is calculated as described below:

 

i???????? The pipeline depth and its position in relation to the proposed building site shall first be determined. (These details are taken from Council?s records or by inspection of the site).

ii??????? The depth of the trench containing the pipe work is calculated by adding 300 mm to the pipe depth.

iii?????? The width of the trench depends on the pipe diameter. As a guide, pipes up 225 mm diameter will have a trench width of 600 mm whilst pipes over 225 mm diameter will have a trench width of 1000 mm. In the case of large diameter pipes and/or deep trenches the trench width may be larger than the preceding values. In these cases an individual assessment will be made.

iv?????? The zone is calculated using the depth of the trench and half the trench width. This calculation varies due to the type of soil present. Figures 3 and 4 indicate the zone of influence for clay soils and for sand, filled ground and loam respectively.

 

Figure 2 - Zone of Influence for Clay Soils

 

As Figure 2 indicates, the zone of influence extends out from the edge of the pipe trench the same distance as the depth of the trench (The ratio used is 1:1). For clay soils the zone will extend the same distance as the depth plus half the width of the trench. For example, for a pipeline of 150 mm diameter and a depth of 1500 mm, the trench depth is 1800 mm deep (i.e. 1500 + 300) therefore, the zone extends 2100 mm from the pipe centre line (i.e. 1800 + 300).

Figure 3 - Zone of Influence for Sand, Filled Ground and Loam

 

The zone of influence extends out from the edge of the pipe trench twice the distance as the depth of the trench. (The ratio used is 2:1). For sand, filled ground (including controlled fill), loam, etc. the zone will extend twice the depth of the trench plus half the width of the trench.

 

For example, for a pipe line of 375 mm diameter and a depth of 2500 mm, the trench depth is 2800 mm deep (i.e. 2500 + 300).? Therefore, the zone extends 6100 mm from the pipe centre line (i.e. (2800 x 2) + 500)). The zone of influence may be affected by the topography of the site. If the proposed building is to be located on a slope above the pipe then the zone may be substantially extended. Alternatively, if the proposed building is to be located on a slope below the pipe then the zone may be substantially reduced.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 31 January 2013

Adoption of Policies for Building in the vicinity of Sewers and Easements for Sewerage Water Supply and Stormwater

 

On steep blocks substantial footings may be required to overcome the effect of the zone of influence. Figures 4, 5 and 6 indicate the effect on the zone of influence in relation to topography.

 

Figure 4 - Zone of Influence on Flat Ground

 

 

 

Figure 5 - Zone of Influence where pipe is located downhill from building

Figure 6 - Zone of Influence where pipe is located uphill from building

 

4.1.7? Minor Exceptions for Building Over Sewers

 

Minor exceptions may be made to this policy to allow certain limited, light demountable structures to be built adjacent to or over sewers where it can be demonstrated that the operation and maintenance of Council?s assets will not be hindered. Where an applicant feels that the underground mains will unreasonably limit their design then discussions should be held with Council staff to explore options before submitting a proposal.

 

Consideration may be given to approving a strictly limited range of light demountable structures located over an underground sewer if, and only if, it is not practical to build the structure elsewhere on the block. Any proposal seeking exclusion would be considered in the light of the options for locating the structure on other parts of the site and the type of structure proposed.

 

The types of structures that may be considered are limited to light timber or metal carports, relocatable garden sheds, pergolas and awnings that are bolted together and can readily be removed, car parking areas, fences and gardens. Properly designed retaining walls that cross the easement at right angles to the pipeline may also be permitted. No other structures will be permitted. Any structures approved under this section of the policy cannot be altered (eg by enclosing carports with walls to make a garage) without Council approval.

 

If it is found necessary to demolish or relocate, or mains failure results in damage to any structure over Council?s mains, Council will not be liable for any associated costs.

 

The types of structures that may be refused approval include (but is not limited to) carports, pergolas and awnings that have been permanently fixed (eg using nails, welds, etc.), garages, fixed garden sheds, aviaries, ferneries, glasshouses, pools and sporting facilities (eg tennis courts using artificial surfaces) etc.

 

Where this policy restricts the ability to develop in an appropriate manner for that area (eg commercial areas) then proposals will be investigated on an individual basis in line with the aims of this policy.


 

4.1.8??? Existing Structures

 

Where structures have been built over an underground pipeline without Council approval then Council may require that the structure be demolished, moved or substantially modified so that it complies with this policy

 

Where it is necessary to access an underground line for maintenance or repair work Council will not be held liable for the cost of restoring any illegal structures and the property owner may be charged for extra work required due to the illegal structure.

 

Where Council has previously given permission for a structure to be built over a pipeline then no further extensions, additions or reconstructions will be allowed. Council recognises that the existing structure presents a risk to both the building and Council?s liability. Therefore Council will not be prepared to increase this risk by approving further structures or additions and alterations.

 

4.1.9? Earthworks

 

Council approval is required where any development proposes to alter the cover over existing gravity sewers and pressure mains

 

Filling over sewer mains may cause pipe failure by crushing due to increased bearing loads and may result in access chambers being buried.? The toes of batters may also become unstable if trenches are required to be excavated to maintain or replace sewer pipes.

 

On the other hand, excavation resulting in decreased cover over sewer mains may cause failure due to breakages from direct load on the pipe caused by vehicles or other mobile equipment.

 

Full details of any proposed modification to ground levels adjacent to or over sewer mains shall be provided to Council with the Development Application.? The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of any access chamber modifications, pipe protection or upgrade work that is deemed to be required as a result of the modified finished surface levels.

 

4.1.10???????? Application Requirements

 

Where a structure is proposed to be built adjacent to a Council sewer, all Development and Construction Certificate Applications will be required to have footing details that show how the proposed structure will be designed to accommodate the zone of influence from these adjacent pipelines. These details must be designed and certified by a Structural Engineer. Plans should be drawn to an appropriate scale (i.e. 1:200 or 1:100).

 

 

5.0?????? History

 

Two previous policies covered Building Over Sewer Mains (adopted by Council on 2 May 1996) and Building in the Vicinity of Sewers (adopted by Council on 13 September 2001).?

 

The first Policy confirmed that Council generally prohibits the construction of buildings over sewerage mains, both dedicated and undedicated and where no alternative exists then each individual application to build over a sewer main be submitted to Council for consideration on its merits. (Document 26080/2007)

 

The second Policy was issued with an objective to ensure that a building (urban elected) will not exert any load onto a Council Sewer main and to ensure that Council has reasonable access to the main for servicing and/or replacement. (Document 25826/2007)

 

The Policies were last reviewed on the 20 October 2010.? However as the Policy content is more extensive, it is recommended the former policies be deleted and be replaced by this current revised edition. (Document 26055/2012)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Department:

Engineering Services

Last Reviewed

Resolution Number

Author:

Richard Spain

 

 

Document No.

26055/2012

 

 

First Adopted:

 

 

 

Resolution No:

 

 

 

Review Due:

 

14 November 2012

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 31 January 2013

Adoption of Policies for Building in the vicinity of Sewers and Easements for Sewerage Water Supply and Stormwater

 

 

 

 

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

POLICY

EASEMENTS FOR SEWERAGE, WATER AND STORMWATER PIPELINES

 

 

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.?

 

 

 

1.0?????? Policy objective

 

To provide Council with legal access to operate, maintain and replace Council owned service infrastructure that is located within private property

 

To provide a clear indication to property owners that Council owned infrastructure is located on their property and may impose a constraint to potential development of that property.

 

 

2.0?????? Related legislation

 

Section 191A of Local Government Act 1993

Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919

 

3.0?????? Definitions

 

3.1?????? Easement

 

An easement is a burden on a property to allow full and free right for authorised persons from the party having the benefit of the easement to access the easement for the purposes of inspecting, operating, maintaining, repairing or replacing the pipes located within the easement.

 

The easement is a portion of land with specified dimensions that is defined on the land title plan.

 

4.0?????? Policy statement

 

An appropriate easement shall be created over all Council owned water supply, sewerage and stormwater pipelines that are located within private property.

 

The easement instrument shall be a burden on the land title and reserves the right for Council authorised persons to enter the easement at any time without notice for the purpose of constructing, extending, maintaining, controlling, inspecting, replacing and managing the work on the Council owned infrastructure

 


4.1?????? Policy Requirements

 

4.1.1? Subdivision Approvals

 

As part of any subdivision approval the developer shall be required to provide an easement over any existing or proposed Council owned sewer, water and stormwater pipes located within private property.

 

The easement shall be created so that the pipes are located centrally within the width of the easement.

 

The subdivision plan shall be provided to Council for approval clearly showing all easements required.? Pursuant to Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 an instrument shall be created on all land titles where an easement is required.? The wording of the instrument shall be in accordance with the relevant clause of Schedule 4A Part 9 of the Act.

 

 

4.1.2? Minimum Easement Width

 

The minimum width of an easement for both sewerage and stormwater pipelines shall be 3m.

 

The minimum width of an easement for a water supply pipeline shall be 2m

 

The minimum width of an easement with more than 1 pipeline shall be 4m and the pipes shall have a minimum separation between the outside walls of the pipes of 1m.

 

4.1.3? Deep Sewers and Large Pipes

 

Where deep sewers or large pipes are proposed the required easement width may be greater than 3m.? The easement width shall be determined by Council?s Manager Water and Sewerage or Manager Civil Works following an assessment of the maintenance access requirements.

 

4.1.4? Restriction on Use

 

Property owners should note that the creation of an easement is a restriction on use and may be a potential constraint to the maximum development density that may otherwise be permissible on the site.

 

Lot sizes for new development shall make allowance for the constraints imposed by the easement so as to allow for building areas that are similar to those available on the neighbouring lots.? Where pipelines and accompanying easements are located along a side boundary of a lot consideration should be given to increasing the width of the lot frontage.

 

 

5.0?????? History

 

For many years easements were not considered necessary where water supply pipelines and sewer mains were installed in private property. This was due to the extensive powers given to Councils for access under the Local Government Act 1919 (Section 382 ? 384) and the Public Works Act 1912.

 

The Local Government Act 1993 (Clause 3(1) of Schedule 7) ensures the legality of decisions prior to 1 July 1993, but does not confer any power of entry of the Crown that was previously available under the aforementioned Acts.? Section 191A of the Act also provides Council with the power of entry to access Council owned infrastructure in order to operate, maintain or replace it in an appropriate manner

 

The Local Government and Shires Associations consider that pipelines should have easements created with the right to enter the easement at any time without notice for the purpose of constructing, extending, maintaining, controlling, inspecting, replacing and managing the work on the Council owned infrastructure.

 

Council has required easements to be created in recent times, however the minimum width was previously set at 2m.? This is no longer considered to be an adequate width to provide for reasonable access to or the protection of Council?s assets.? Lot sizes are getting smaller and houses larger and it is vital that appropriate easements are provided to enable Council to continue to operate and maintain the assets

 

An easement is also considered to be the best means of indicating to a property owner that there is a constraint on the land as it is clearly visible on a title plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Department:

Engineering Services

Last Reviewed

Resolution Number

Author:

Richard Spain

 

 

Document No.

 

 

 

First Adopted:

 

 

 

Resolution No:

 

 

 

Review Due:

 

14 November 2012

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 31 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.4?? SF1294??????????? 310113??????? Establishment of Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme to be paid through Water Fund

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:?? Richard Spain, Manager Water and Sewerage ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council has adopted a Rainwater Tank Policy however to date it has been funded through monies received from the Environmental Levy.? Council recently resolved to cease funding the rebate through the Environmental Levy and receive a report on sourcing the rebate from the Water Fund.

 

It is proposed to continue funding the rebate through the Water Fund to encourage the uptake of tank installations as a means of managing demand on the water supply as detailed in the Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) Strategy.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council:

 

1??????? Recommence the funding of the rainwater tank rebate in 2013/14 and beyond and fund the rebate through the Water Fund.

 

2??????? Include an allocation of $20,000 for rainwater tank rebates as part of the budget allocation for water saving devices within the 2013/14 Budget and beyond.

 

3??????? Revise the current Rainwater Tank Policy to incorporate the proposed tiered rebate system as outlined in this report and place it on public exhibition for the required 28 day period.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

No other options considered.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council?s IWCM Strategy proposed the use of rainwater tank rebates to encourage the installation of rainwater tanks to act as a means of managing the demand on Council?s water supply to limit the size of the off river storage required to cater for current and future demands of the Shire.

 

The Water Fund has the capacity to fund the rebate and it would seem to be an appropriate source of funding given that rainwater tanks can be an effective demand management tool.? The major issue will be how to handle the administration of the rebate and the following is proposed:

 

Inspections

 

Installations on new houses - Inspections would continue to be carried out by Council?s Building Inspectors as they will be on site for other inspections.

 

Installations retrofitted to existing houses - Would be inspected by the Water and Sewerage Technical Officer.

 

Administration and Payment

 

All forms, memos and payment approvals will be managed by the Business Support Unit in much the same way as they have been to date.

 

Policy

 

The wording of the existing Rainwater Tank Rebate Policy is considered to be satisfactory and only minor amendments would be required to encourage a higher level of uptake.?

 

This would essentially involve the adoption of a tiered rebate scheme where a higher level of subsidy would be paid for a tank of larger capacity rather than the current fixed subsidy of $500.

 

In order for a rainwater tank to provide any meaningful demand management benefits it is considered that it should have a minimum capacity of 5 kL.? For this reason it is proposed that rebates would not be provided for tanks with a capacity less than 5 kL.

 

The revised rebates would be as follows:

 

TANK CAPACITY (kL)

REBATE

5 ? 10?

$500

>10 ? 20?

$750 or half the cost whichever is least

>20 ? 30?

$1,000 or half the cost whichever is least

>30?

$1,500 or half the cost whichever is least

 

Similarly a rebate would not be paid for rainwater tanks required to satisfy BASIX or fire fighting requirements unless the total capacity of the tanks exceeded these requirements by a minimum of 5 kL.? The rebate would be paid at the same rate as shown in the table above for the equivalent capacity provided in excess of the BASIX and fire fighting requirements.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services

Strategic Planner

Business Services Co-ordinator

General Manager

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The funding of the rainwater tank rebate through the Water Fund will have no additional environmental impact.

 

Social

 

The funding of the rainwater tank rebate through the Water Fund will have no additional social impact.

 

Economic

 

The funding of the rainwater tank rebate through the Water Fund will not in itself provide an economic impact.? However it is hoped that the proposed increase to rebate will encourage a higher uptake and increased economic benefit to those ratepayers that choose to install the tanks

 


Risk

 

The funding of the rainwater tank rebate through the Water Fund will have no additional impact on risk.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The rebate for rainwater tanks will require an increase in the budget for the water saving devices rebate. It will be a fixed amount each year and once the allocation has been filled further applications will not be accepted until the following year.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Funds for the rainwater tank rebate will be sourced from the Water Fund.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 31 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.5?? SF86??????????????? 310113??????? Resignation of the Nambucca State Emergency Services Local Controller - Leanne Cooper

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Ms Leanne Cooper has tendered notice that she is resigning as the Local State Emergency Service Controller for the Nambucca SES Unit having accepted a paid position as a Volunteer Support Officer with the NSW SES in Grafton commencing on 25 February 2013.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council:

 

1??????? Receive and note the report and the temporary appointment of Mr Paul Hendriks and Peter Shales as joint acting Local State Emergency Service Controllers for the Nambucca SES Unit while the recruitment of a new Local Controller is commenced.

 

2??????? Formally thank Ms Leanne Cooper for her service to the Nambucca Valley community while she was Local State Emergency Service Controller for the Nambucca SES Unit and wish her well in her new endeavour as a Volunteer Support Officer with the NSW SES in Grafton.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Receive and note the report.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The State Emergency Service Act 1989 - SECT 17 requires the appointment of a Local SES Controller.? As an interim measure Mr Paul Hendriks and Mr Peter Shales will be jointly acting as Controllers while the recruitment of a new Local Controller is commenced.

The position will be externally advertised by the Region Controller ? NSW SES Clarence Nambucca Region.

The Director General of the State Emergency Service is the appointing officer, but the views of Council are important in the process. Section 17 (1) of the Act (as amended) provides that;

????????? ?(1) The Commissioner may, on the recommendation of the council of a local government area, appoint one or more persons as a local controller for the area.?

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Region Controller ? NSW SES Clarence Nambucca Region

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental implications associated with this report.

 


Social

 

There are no social implications associated with this report.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications associated with this report as the position is on a volunteer basis.

 

Risk

 

There are no risk implications associated with this report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no impact on the 2012/13 budget or future budgets as the position of Local State Emergency Service Controller for the Nambucca SES Unit is a voluntary unpaid position.

 

Council make a provision to the operating expenses of the Nambucca SES and also the Emergency Service Levee within the annual budget and management plan.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no variation to working funds required this financial year as a result of this report.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 31 January 2013

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.6?? SF1483??????????? 310113??????? 2012 Local Government Graffiti Survey

 

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

 

Summary:

 

In February 2012 the Department of Attorney General and Justice conducted a survey of local governments in NSW about graffiti in their area. This was a follow up to a similar survey conducted in 2006 by the Department.

 

The three main objectives of the survey were to:

 

1??????? Quantify the current incidence of graffiti in NSW and to undertake a comparison with the data collected from the 2006 survey.

2??????? Identify current policies and management practices for dealing with graffiti and to compare this with the information collected from the 2006 survey.

3??????? Assess the current social and financial impact of graffiti and to compare this with the information collected from the 2006 survey.

 

The NSW Local Government Graffiti Survey is circularised (TRIM 1288/2013) for Councillors information.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council receive and note the February 2012 report on the NSW Local Government Graffiti Survey.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Receive and note the report.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Official graffiti reports for the state of NSW rely on recorded crime statistics collated by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) from police reports. However, as not all graffiti incidents are reported to the police, the use of recorded crime data to quantify the extent of the issue in the state is unreliable.

 

In February 2012 the Department of Attorney General and Justice conducted a survey of local governments in NSW about graffiti in their area. This was a follow up to a similar survey conducted in 2006 by the Department.

 

Key findings from the 2012 survey include:

????? 104 Local Councils took part (68.4% response down from the 78.9% response rate in 2006)

????? Most councils (49.0%), reported the incidence of graffiti in their LGA as being medium with the remaining councils (40.2%) reported low incidence. Only 11 (10.8%) of the councils that responded to the survey reported the incidence of graffiti in their LGA as being high. These are similar to 2006 figures

????? The most commonly reported graffiti targets were amenities blocks (80.2%), followed by signs, and bus shelters

????? Tagging remains the most popular form of graffiti with etching the next most common form of graffiti

????? Spray paint remains the most commonly used material to create graffiti followed by markers, etching instruments, and chalk. Ninety-one respondents stated that spray paint was either common or fairly common in their area.  These are similar to the 2006 figures.

????? Most councils (76.2%) have a system in place for recording graffiti in their area. This is an increase from 2006, when only 69.0% of councils had a system in place. Conversely, this result means that almost one-quarter of councils still do not have a system in place to record graffiti.

????? Graffiti management policies have remained consistent over the past few years - rapid removal and encouraging reporting are the most common strategies used by councils to combat graffiti.

????? Council staff were the most commonly accessed service to remove graffiti in their area (91%), followed by private contractors and offenders on community service orders High pressure hoses and paint were commonly used to remove or cover up graffiti.

????? The most common methods used to encourage community reporting of graffiti are the council websites and local papers. A number of councils also used graffiti hotlines, newsletters, word of mouth, and consultation at community events to encourage reporting. These findings are similar to those of the 2006 survey.

????? Incidences of graffiti as reported by local councils and those recorded by police in the recorded crime statistics continue to differ. This is an issue that needs to be given attention by the NSW Government

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Manager Civil Works

Parks and Gardens Supervisor

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are no environmental implications associated with this report.

 

Social

There are no social implications associated with this report.

 

Economic

There are no economic implications associated with this report.

 

Risk

There are no risk implications associated with this report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

There is a budget allocation for vandalism in the 2012/13 which encompasses the removal of graffiti.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

There is no variation to working funds required this financial year as a result of this report

 

Attachments:

1View

?- Circularised Document - 2012 Local Government Graffiti Survey (TRIM: SF1483: 1288/2013)

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 31 January 2013

2012 Local Government Graffiti Survey

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

2012 Local Government Graffiti Survey

 

 

 

Circularised Document - 2012 Local Government Graffiti Survey (TRIM: SF1483: 1288/2013)

 

??Pages

 

? ?