NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

26 May 2016

 

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

 

Our Vision

Nambucca Valley ~ Living at its best.

 

Our  Mission Statement

 

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

 

Our Values in Delivery

·                Effective leadership

·                Strategic direction

·                Sustainability of infrastructure and assets

·                Community involvement and enhancement through partnerships with Council

·                Enhancement and protection of the environment

·                Maximising business and employment opportunities through promotion of economic development

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

·                Actively pursuing resource sharing opportunities

 

Council Meetings:  Overview and Proceedings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Meeting Agenda

 

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


 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

 

Acknowledgement of Country            (Mayor)

 

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

 

AGENDA                                                                                                   Page

 

1        APOLOGIES

2        PRAYER

3        DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4        CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES —

Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 May 2016...................................................................................... 7

5        NOTICES OF MOTION

5.1     Notice of Motion - Climate Change (SF1075).................................................................... 13  

6        PUBLIC FORUM

 

Tony Gordon

 

Todd Vercoe

 

Angie Evans

 

Russell Simmons

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.................................................................................... 15

9.2     Proposed Subdivision and Sale of Land Adjoining the Macksville Sewerage Treatment Plant 21

9.3     Organisation Structure - Ranger Services......................................................................... 52

9.4     DA2004/250/01 12 Lot subdivision and Lapsed Contribution Agreement Owner - V Edgehill 59

9.5     Modification to Development Consent DA2014/198.......................................................... 62

9.6     Draft North Coast Regional Plan - Review and Submission............................................. 178

9.7     Scotts Head - Public Space Landscape Plan.................................................................. 222

9.8     Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months or where submissions received - 6 Mayl 2016 - 19 May 2016.................................................................................................................................... 230

9.9     Review of Compliance, Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.......................................... 234

9.10   Council Ranger's Report April 2016................................................................................ 275

9.11   Draft Section 94A Developer Contributions Plan for Approval......................................... 278

9.12   Environmental Levy Budget 2016/17.............................................................................. 298

10      Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

10.1   Proposed Changes to the Administration of On Site Sewerage Management .................. 304

10.2   March 2016 Budget Review........................................................................................... 311

10.3   Schedule of Council Public Meetings............................................................................. 315

10.4   Review of Policies - Payment of Fees, Expenses & Provision of Facilities to Councillors. 316


11      Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

11.1   Road Closure proposal - Naylors Lane Upper Taylors Arm.............................................. 325    

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

12.1   Business Investment Inquiry - Valla Urban Growth Area

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

  

            a      Questions raised by Councillors at 8 above

 

       i         MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING

       ii        PUBLIC VERBAL REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL

     TO CLOSE

       iii       CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS

                   iv       DEAL WITH MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING

13      MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

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


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

          (name)

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Council’s Facsimile Number – (02) 6568 2201

 

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

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

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

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

Ordinary Council Meeting

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Council Meeting HELD ON 12 May 2016

The following document is the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held 12 May 2016.  These minutes are subject to confirmation as to their accuracy at the next meeting to be held on Thursday 26 May 2016 and therefore subject to change.  Please refer to the minutes of 26 May 2016 for confirmation.

 

PRESENT

 

Cr Rhonda Hoban (Mayor)

Cr Brian Finlayson

Cr Martin Ballangarry OAM

Cr Paula Flack

Cr Kim MacDonald

Cr Bob Morrison

Cr Anne Smyth

Cr Elaine South

 

 

ALSO PRESENT

 

Michael Coulter (General Manager)

Scott Norman (AGM Corporate Services)

Clint Fitzsummons (Acting AGM Engineering Services)

Monika Schuhmacher (Minute Secretary)

 

 

APOLOGIES

Cr John Ainsworth

 

 

PRAYER

 

Pastor Darryl Spriggs (Presbyterian Church) offered a prayer on behalf of the Nambucca Minister's Association.

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

 

Councillor K MacDonald declared a pecuniary interest in Item 9.4 Outstanding Item - Investigation into opportunities to assist in the management of the Council reserve being Lot 40 DP711098  (Kingsworth Estate Lake Reserve) under the Local Government Act as Cr MacDonald’s sister has property adjoining the lake and the price of the property and/or amenity may be effected by Council decision making. 

 

Cr Councillor K MacDonald declared a non-pecuniary less significant conflict of interest in Item 11.1 Request for interest free loan by the Gordon Park Tennis Committee of Management under the Local Government Act as Cr MacDonald is a social tennis player at the Nambucca Heads Tennis Club.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council Meeting 28 April 2016

 

203/16 RESOLVED:        (South/Smyth)

 

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of 28 April 2016 be confirmed.


 

 

PUBLIC FORUM AND DELEGATIONS

 

Resolved:          (Smyth/South)

 

That the following Public Forum:

i)           Mr Stephen Ryan, President of the Tewinga Community Hall Committee of Management and President of Radio 2NVR

 

and Delegations be heard

i)           Mr Dave Banks—Nambucca Valley Tourism Association

9.2         Visitor Information Centre - Future Options........................................................... 8

ii)       Mr John Tait, Treasurer Gordon Park Tennis Centre Committee of Management

          11.1       Request for interest free loan by the Gordon Park Tennis...................................... 9

 


 

Mr Stephen Ryan addressed Council (to prepared notes which are on File SF338) making the following points:

 

DELEGATIONS:

 

Mr Dave Banks addressed Council making the following points:

 

ITEM 9.2      SF929                120516      Visitor Information Centre - Future Options

204/16 RESOLVED:        (Flack/MacDonald)

 

1        That Council call for Expressions of Interest to rent or lease the existing Visitor Information Centre, with the understanding that there would be a requirement for a small floor space to be used for the Visitor Information Centre.

 

2        That Council continue to pursue a visitor information outlet at the BP Travel Centre, including investigation of the viability of a no-cost option.

 

3        That, should a staffed visitor information outlet be favoured at the Travel Centre, Council seek Expressions of Interest from organisations interested in operating it.

 

4        That the Tourism Co-ordinator be permanently based at the Council Administration Centre to allow for an increased strategic focus. 

 

5        That Council make a formal application to the Tourist Attraction Signposting Assessment Committee for the old Pacific Highway (Giinagay Way) to become a Tourist Drive.


 

DELEGATIONS continued

 

Mr John Tait addressed Council (to prepared notes which are on File SF325) making the following points:

 

ITEM 11.1    SF251                120516      Request for interest free loan by the Gordon Park Tennis Committee of Management (SF325)

205/16 RESOLVED:        (Hoban/Finlayson)

 

1        That Council provide an Interest Free Loan to the Gordon Park Tennis Centre Committee of Management for $70,000 (seventy thousand dollars), to be repaid over a period of 10 years and Council enter into a Deed Of Agreement that includes the Loan Repayment Plan.

 

2        That Council investigate opportunities for securing financial interests in the tennis courts and associated buildings.


 

 

ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

 

There were no questions with notice.

 

 

QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

 

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


 

 

General Manager Report

 

ITEM 9.1      SF959                120516      Outstanding Actions and Reports

206/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/MacDonald)

 

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


 

 

Item 9.2 was dealt with under Delegations.


 

 

ITEM 9.3      SF544                120516      Draft Section 94A Developer Contributions Plan for Approval

207/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Ballangarry)

 

That this item be deferred.


 

 

Cr MacDonald left the meeting for this Item at 6.40 pm and returned after the conclusion of the item at 6.42 pm.

 

ITEM 9.4      PRF72                120516      Outstanding Item - Investigation into opportunities to assist in the management of the Council reserve being Lot 40 DP711098  (Kingsworth Estate Lake Reserve)

208/16 RESOLVED:        (Flack/Smyth)

 

That Council take no further action in respect to this matter.

 

Note:  Cr Finlayson requested his vote be recorded against this resolution because he believes the asset requires more attention.

          Cr Hoban requested her vote be recorded against this resolution because she believes that it is a significant asset adjoining land that belongs to Council.


 

 

ITEM 9.5      SF2173              120516      Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months OR where submissions received - 21 April 2016 - 5 May 2016

209/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Flack)

 

That the information be noted by Council.


 

 

ITEM 9.6      DA2004/250        120516      DA2004/250/01 12 Lot subdivision and Lapsed Contribution Agreement Owner - V Edgehill

Motion:      (Flack/Morrison)

 

The applicant/developer be advised that because the current modified consent allows for a lot by lot release when the land is sold a deferred Section 64 and 94 payment agreement is considered onerous in delivery and not merited considering the sum involved.

 

Amendment:       (Finlayson/Morrison)

 

That this item be deferred.

 

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

 

210/16 Resolved:        (Finlayson/Morrison)

 

That this item be deferred.


 

 

ITEM 9.7      SF2173              120516      2016 April - Received Development Applications and Complying Development Applications

211/16 RESOLVED:        (Flack/Finlayson)

 

That the Development Applications and Complying Development Applications received in April 2016 be received for information.


 

 

ITEM 9.8      SF2173              120516      2016 April - Approved Construction Certificates and Complying Development Certificates

212/16 RESOLVED:        (Flack/MacDonald)

 

That the Construction and Complying Development Certificates approved for April 2016 be noted and received for information by Council.


 

 

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

 

ITEM 10.1    SF2130              120516      Draft Operational Plan and Long Term Financial Plan

213/16 RESOLVED:        (Flack/Smyth)

 

1        That Council endorse the draft 2016-2017 Operational Plan, draft 2016-17 Revenue Policy (Fees and Charges) and that the draft documents be placed on display for public comment.

 

2        That an environment levy program including a component for staff wages be included in the advertised document.

 

3        That, with change in unit description for plumbing and drainage inspections and an increase in the POEO fees from $492 to $520 as per legislation.

 

4        That a correction be made to budget line item 3100405622 reducing the amount to $20,000 to remove the duplication of the donation to the Cancer Council Resource Centre.

 

5        That Council further consider the addition of the $5000 in the donations budget.


 

 

ITEM 10.2    SF2116              120516      Investment Report To 29 February 2016

214/16 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Ballangarry)

 

That the Accountants’ Report on Investments placed to 31 April 2016 be noted.


 

 

ITEM 10.3    SF251                120516      Schedule of Council Public Meetings

215/16 RESOLVED:        (Smyth/Flack)

 

That the schedule of dates for public Council meetings be noted and received for information by Council with amendments to take into consideration the Local Government Elections.


 

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

 

Item 11.1 was dealt with under Delegations.


 

 

ITEM 11.2    SF818                120516      Bowra Dam -  Request to Amend the Operating Licence

216/16 RESOLVED:        (Flack/Smyth)

 

That Council:

 

1        Place the Review of Environmental Factors (REF) on public exhibition for the required period of 28 days.

 

2        Receive and forward submissions from the general public and affected landowners to the consultant preparing the REF to making any amendments considered necessary to address any reasonable concerns raised by the submissions prior to finalising the document for the endorsement of Council for issue to DPI -Water.

 

3        That Council receive a further report at the completion of the exhibition period.


   

CLOSURE

 

There being no further business the Mayor then closed the meeting the time being 7.15 pm. 

 

Confirmed and signed by the Mayor on 26 May 2016

 

 

CR RHONDA HOBAN

MAYOR

(CHAIRPERSON)

    


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     26 May 2016

Notices of Motion

ITEM 5.1      SF2183            260516         Notice of Motion - Climate Change (SF1075)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Brian Finlayson, Councillor         

 

Summary:

 

Climate change and floodplain management in Nambucca Shire LGA.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council investigate and consider the impact of climate change (particularly relating to sea level rise and flooding) on Macksville, Nambucca Heads and Scotts Head.

 

2        That if considered appropriate

 

a)   take steps to limit further development in those areas considered likely to be adversely affected by sea level rise and flooding and

 

b)   create by rezoning alternative sites for further development in areas not likely to be so affected and where provision of services will not be prohibitively expensive.

 

 

3        That as part of this consideration Council conducts an inspection of areas along Coronation Road and Bald Hills Road Macksville, Wellington Drive Nambucca Heads and the caravan park Scotts Head.

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Apart from the intervention of climate change there is really nothing new here.  Floodplain management studies conducted as far back as 1981 identified approximately 50% of Macksville as being flood prone then and recommended amongst other things limitation of development in those areas affected.

 

It is now accepted in most quarters that climate change is a reality, the only real issue being what is causing it.  With sea level rise and more frequent and severe flooding, the impact on Council’s urban areas can only be increased.

 

Apart from the consequences of increased flooding to infrastructure and population there is the possibility of damages claims against councils which fail to take steps to prohibit development in areas that they knew or should have known were likely to be impacted by inundation.

 

We have an obligation to protect ratepayers from this.

 

There are flood free areas to the east and west of Macksville which would be suitable for commercial and residential development.  Council might consider rezoning in those areas to accommodate that type of development and the rezoning of areas particularly within say the current commercial area of Macksville to accommodate development which would survive occasional inundation.

 

MANEX COMMENT:

 

This notice of motion was considered by Council at its meeting on 11 February 2016 and deferred to the first Council meeting in April.  At the Council meeting on 14 April 2016 it was resolved to defer the matter to the Council meeting on 26 May 2016.

 

The matters posed by the notice of motion will be the subject of the Floodplain Risk Management Plan which is item 1 in the list of outstanding actions.  The Plan will provide the Council with the opportunity to restrict development on the floodplain, being new development as well as alterations and additions to existing development.  The restrictions on development can be applied via changes to the local environmental plan and development control plan.  A draft Floodplain Risk Management Plan has now been received from the consultant WMA Water.  The draft has been sent to the Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) for review as they have provided two thirds of the funding for the project.  Council’s Coordinator Strategic Planning and Natural Resources is also reviewing the draft document.  He believes that the consultant needs to undertake further work before the draft is in a form suitable for circulation to the Estuary Committee and Councillors.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.       


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     26 May 2016

General Manager

ITEM 9.1      SF959              260516         Outstanding Actions and Reports

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

FILE

NO

COUNCIL

MEETING

SUMMARY OF MATTER

ACTION

BY

STATUS

 

MARCH 2011

1

DA2010/234

17/3/11

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

 

GM

The draft Floodplain Risk Management Plan has been circulated to Councillors and the Estuary Committee.

 

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

 

Council staff and OEH are reviewing the draft.  The draft requires further work before it can be circulated to the Estuary Committee and Councillors.

 

Draft now being circulated to Estuary Committee and Councillors.

 

JULY 2011

2

SF1031

21/7/11

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

 

GM

The project is awaiting the completion of the floodplain risk management matrix.

 

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

 

Council staff are still in the process of reviewing the draft document

 

AUGUST 2013

 

3

SF1031

14/08/13

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

 

 

AGMES

Report in September 2013.

Deferred to October 2013.

At the request of Cr Morrison this item has been deferred to the first meeting in November 2013.

Cr Morrison has provided information to the Manager Civil Works who will draft a report to the December Council meeting.

Staff on leave during December – deferred until February 2014.

Deferred until April – Staff dealing with landslips.

Deferred until May 2014

Deferred until June 2014

Deferred until September 2014 and a report will be prepared on the outcome of the meeting.

Policy has been redrafted and a new operations procedures manual developed. A memo with the updated policy and procedures will be provided to Councillors for comment at the end of December

Deferred with staff on leave - Guidelines and tree assessment form developed and now being trialled for tree assessment with the Policy and guideline review to be presented to Council for comment after trial – anticipate April.

Deferred until September after the budget, restructure and staffing levels settle.

Provided to Councillors on 29 October for comment.

Not provided to Councillors on 29 October - now propose to provide to Councillors mid December 2015 for comment. 

 

Deferred whilst trialling the International Society of Arboriculture, Tree Hazard Evaluation form which is intended to replace the tree inspection form within the policy. The policy in its present form has shown some issues pertaining to property owners wanting healthy trees removed citing the criteria in the policy, the new form provides greater transparency and clarity   

 

 

DECEMBER 2013

 

4

SF1842

11/12/13

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

 

GM

The first quarterly report would be the rates newsletter to be distributed with the 2014/2015 rates notice.

Report produced.

Media release issued before 13 November Council meeting.

Second media release issued 20 May 2015.

 

Third media release issued 30 November 2015.

 

MARCH 2015

 

5

SF841

12/03/15

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

 

GM

Letter written w/e 20/3/2015.

As at June 2015 arrangements are being made for a consultant to assist Council staff in investigating the liability associated with the proposed handover of the existing Pacific Highway to Council.  Data provided by the RMS needs to be reviewed as well as a physical inspection of the road and bridge assets.

Mayor and GM met with the Member for Oxley on 18 September 2015.  Details of Council’s previous submissions forwarded to the Member for Oxley with a request that she make representations on behalf of Council.

 

The early estimates of annual depreciation for the northern section of the Pacific Hwy (Nambucca Heads to Oyster Creek) assets are proposed to be transferred is approximately $1million per annum.

 

Council is expecting receiving a written offer from the RMS in relation to the handover.

 

 

AUGUST 2015

 

6

SF674

13/08/15

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

 

AGMES

Letter to be drafted to appropriate Minister.

Letter sent week ending 30 September 2015.

Nil response from the Minister to date, another letter sent 3 December 2015.

 

Response received from Minister and report to a meeting in March 2016.

 

Minister referred staff to Forests and a meeting is being organised with Forests NSW in May 2016 for further discussion with a report to be presented to Council afterwards

 

 

SEPTEMBER 2015

 

7

Q17/2015

24/09/15

That Council receive a further report and briefing from Greg Powter Consulting once an independent assessment has been completed (re the Pacific Highway Assets Handover)

 

AGMES

Council briefing planned for April 2016

Consultants engaged. RMS reviewing data supply.

Still being assessed; report not complete; briefing now scheduled for 28 April 2016.

Consult not available for 28 April, will report to the 26 May 2016 meeting.

Deferred until Council receives expected offer from the RMS.

 

 

OCTOBER 2014

 

8

SF95

15/10/15

Following the 6 month trial period of nose-to-kerb parking arrangements in River Street adjacent to the river bank, that Council receive a further report on the outcome of the trial period.

 

AGMES

Report late 2016

 

9

DA2015/

191

 

29/10/15

That Council take action regarding the unapproved shipping container at 21 George Street, Bowraville.

 

GM

Notice of Intention to Serve an Order has been issued (was issued prior to the Council meeting on 29/10/15).

Letter sent.10 February 2016.

 

The number of cats was reduced to an acceptable number but an inspection in January indicated that breeding cages were being used.  A notice of intention to serve an order will be served.

 

Discussed with staff on 6/4/2016.  Final warning to be provided to lodge a DA or receive a fine for undertaking development without consent.

 

 

10

SF1031

29/10/15

That the General Manager follow up the question of the appropriate number of companion animals at 21 George Street, Bowraville, and the requirement for a DA for the shipping container.

 

GM

Inspection being arranged.  Report to Council in late November/early December.  Proposed to report to second meeting in January 2016.

 

A letter has been sent requiring the lodgement of a DA for the continued use of the container.

 

NOVEMBER 2015

 

11

SF2068

12/11/15

Council receive a future report on the preferred treatment options & procurement process to gain the most economical outcome for the recycled water scheme at the Bowraville STP.

 

AGMES

Report in 2016

 

12

SF1855

26/11/15

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

 

GM

Report late 2017

 

JANUARY 2016

 

13

SF996

28/1/16

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

 

GM

Report March 2016

 

Preparation of Policy underway.

 

Will be reported to Council in May 2016.

 

FEBRUARY 2016

 

14

SF2183

11/2/16

That the Notice of Motion concerning climate change be deferred to the first Council meeting in April 2016.

 

GM

List for Council meeting on 14 April 2016

List for Council meeting on 26 May 2016

 

15

SF848

11/2/16

That the customer’s progress in reducing the outstanding balance on their water account be reviewed in July 2016 in a report to Council.

 

AGMCS

List for a meeting in July 2016

 

16

DA2014/198

25/2/16

Modification to development consent - to connect Old Coast Road to Florence Wilmont Drive.

 

GM

Deferred at Council’s meeting of 17 March 2016 to enable assessment of trees requiring removal from the road alignment.  Applicant advised & now awaiting additional information.

Will be reported to meeting of 26 May 2016.

 

 

MARCH 2016

 

17

LF7116

31/3/16

That Council receive a report from the Engineer on options for improving water flow through the property (8 Loftus Lane) and the costs of those options.

 

AGMES

Report to June meeting following of assessment by design staff.

 

A report will be prepared for July after a catchment assessment is undertaken by design staff as there a number of design priorities for Council’s capital works program.

 

 

APRIL 2016

 

18

SF1540

14/4/16

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

 

AGMES

Letter drafted

 

19

SF2183

14/4/16

That Council includes an annual Sustainable Energy Use and Climate Change Adaptation Program budget in its Environment Levy Program and considers appropriate project opportunities when it considers the draft 2016/17 Environment Levy Program and Budget.

 

GM

Proposals to be included in the 2016-17 Budget papers

 

20

SF453

14/4/16

That there be a report on the cost of Council providing the bulky goods pick up once or twice a year plus a comment on the voucher system which is being trialled. 

 

AGMES

Will be included in next quarterly waste services report

 

21

SF848

14/4/16

That there be a report to Council on the review of ratepayers with large sewer access charges.

 

AGMCS

AGMES

Review commenced

 

22

SF90

14/4/16

That Council write to the Nambucca Heads & Valla Beach Chamber of Commerce & Industry Inc and advise of Council’s decision to retain rear-to-kerb parking in Bowra St, Nambucca Heads and advise them if they would consider a survey of members to assess interest in a trial of nose-to-kerb parking.

 

AGMES

Letter sent

 

23

SF1963

28/4/16

Council make representations to the Minister for LG in relation to concerns about the transfer of public housing to various NGO’s and the loss of rate income.

 

AGMCS

Letter sent 6/05/16

 

24

SF1963

28/4/16

Council make a submission to IPART in regard to the Issues Paper for its review of the LG rating system (incorporating the impact of transfer of public housing to NGO’s).

 

AGMCS

Submission lodged 2/05/2016

 

25

SF453

28/4/16

Council write to the State Government advising that the cost of disposing asbestos imposed by the State Government acts as a significant disincentive to the proper disposal of this dangerous waste.

 

AGMES

 

 

MAY 2016

 

26

SF929

12/5/16

Council call for Expressions of Interest to rent or lease the existing VIC with the requirement for a small floor space to be used for visitor information

 

GM

Report in August 2016

 

27

SF251

12/5/16

Council investigate opportunities for securing financial interests in the Gordon Park Tennis Courts and associated buildings.

 

GM

Report in July 2016

 

28

SF818

12/5/16

Council receive a further report at the completion of the exhibition period for the Bowra Dam – request to amend the operating licence.

 

AGMES

Report August 2016

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     26 May 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.2      SF600              260516         Proposed Subdivision and Sale of Land Adjoining the Macksville Sewerage Treatment Plant

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

The report concerns a proposed subdivision of Council owned land adjoining the Macksville Sewerage Treatment Plant so as to enable the sale of the land to establish a grease trap waste processing plant.

 

It is proposed to enter into a contract of sale with Mr Tony Gordon to sell 2,500m2 of land for $87,500 and pending the completion of the subdivision that Mr Gordon be allowed to enter the land and establish his processing plant under licence at a weekly rental of $240 per week.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1.       That Council enter into a contract of sale with Mr Gordon for the proposed lot 20 for $87,500 and that he be allowed to enter the land and establish his processing plant under licence at a weekly rental of $240 per week.

 

2.       That the contract of sale include appropriate conditions to be determined by the General Manager including a condition wherein Council would have first right of refusal to purchase the land back for the price paid in the event that Mr Gordon ever decided to sell/transfer and with the purchase option to be identified by way of a caveat on the title to the proposed lot 20.

 

3.       That following the establishment of the proposed grease trap waste processing plant, that Council lodge and determine a development application for the proposed two lot subdivision.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

It is Council’s land and it is a matter for Council as to whether or not it wishes to consider Mr Gordon’s proposal and the terms of any agreement to sell or lease the land.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council is aware of a proposal to establish a grease trap waste processing plant on Council owned land next to the Macksville Sewerage Treatment Plant.  The grease trap waste is by volume mainly water and the processing plant will allow its separation from the grease and will substantially reduce the number of truck trips required to transport the residue waste to a processing facility in Newcastle.  It is proposed that following treatment and testing to demonstrate the achievement of appropriate standards, the liquid would be discharged directly to the adjoining sewerage treatment plant via a pipe.

 

Besides the proximity of the sewerage treatment plant which avoids doubling handling of the treated effluent, the other benefit of the proposed site for processing grease trap waste is it already has a reasonable buffer distance from the closest dwelling.

 

It has been determined that the land is operational so Council can consider the proposal without the necessity of a rezoning process to reclassify it.

 

The matter was reported to Council’s meeting on 13 November 2013.  It was noted that to enable further consideration of the proposal the following was required:

 

1.         Mr Gordon (the proponent) needs to obtain development consent for his proposal

2.         Council needs to obtain subdivision approval to create a lot for the development

3.       The costs of undertaking the subdivision need to be determined once a conditional consent has been issued

4.       Council and Mr Gordon need to agree on a price for the land which includes or excludes the cost of undertaking the subdivision.

 

At its meeting on 13 November 2013, it was resolved that:

 

1.       Council note the progress with the proposed subdivision of land adjoining the Macksville Sewerage Treatment Plant for the purpose of a proposed grease trap processing facility.

 

2.       There be a further report to Council on the estimated cost of the proposed subdivision and the recommended terms of any agreement with Mr Gordon.

 

Mr Gordon proceeded to prepare and lodge his development application with an environmental impact statement, the latter being required for designated development.  The proposed development includes:

 

·           Installation of a treatment system on a bunded hardstand area consisting of five 40,000 litre tanks (2.8m high with 4.5m diameter) including two holding tanks.

·            Construction of a wastewater discharge pipe into Councils sewage treatment plant.

·            Installation of a staff toilet.

·           Extension of the existing vehicular access road to the development foot print and the provision of truck turning and parking areas.

·            Operation of the facility Monday to Friday during daylight hours.

·            An expected daily processing rate of 2200 litres.

 

It is to be noted that the proposed facility is fully enclosed and the provision of holding tanks with the combined volume of 80,000 litres provides the ability for waste water to be tested prior to discharge into the sewage treatment plant under Council supervision. All sludge material will be removed from the site and disposed of at a lawful premise.

 

The plans showing the layout of the proposed development are attached.

 

The development application was approved by the Joint Regional Planning Panel on 28 April 2016.  Council’s Senior Town Planner had prepared a report “for information” for Council’s meeting on 14 April 2016 but for reasons unknown it was not incorporated into the business paper.

 

The principle reason for the Panel’s decision was that the proposed development is located adjacent to an existing sewerage treatment plant with other reasons being that the proposed development is over 500m from the closest sensitive receivers; the scale of the development; and the ability to implement mitigation measures to minimise the impacts of flooding and improper management.  A copy of the conditional development consent is attached.

 

The consent conditions set out standards for the discharge of wastewater to the sewerage treatment plant (condition 3) being that chemical concentrations shall not exceed:

 

·    pH levels outside the range of 7.0 to 9.0 at all times.

·    BOD and suspended solids concentration in excess of 300 mg/L at any time.

·    Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) in excess of 600 mg/L for BODs less than 100 mg/L, otherwise the COD shall not exceed the BODs concentration by more than 3 times.

·    Total Dissolved Solids in excess of 4000 mg/L.

·    Ammonia (as N) in excess of 50 mg/L at any time.

·    Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) in excess of 100 mg/L at any time.

·    Total oil and grease in excess of 100 mg/L at any time.

·    Petroleum Hydrocarbons (non-flammable) in excess of 30 mg/L.

 

Condition no. 4 sets out the requirements for sampling prior to the discharge of the treated effluent to Council’s sewerage treatment plant.  The sampling requirements in Condition no. 4 are as follows:

 

Representative samples of the effluent from each batch shall be collected and tested with respect to pH, BOD, COD, Total Suspended Solids, Total Oil & Greases, Ammonia(as N), Total Dissolved Solids, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons.

The discharge shall not commence without Council's review of the sampling results.

 

The sample analysis tests shall be carried out only by laboratories that hold National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) registration for the class of test(s) or specific test(s) specified in the trade waste approval or by a laboratory acceptable to Council. Tests shall be carried out by using analytical methods indicated in the Australian Sewage Quality Management Guidelines, June 2012, WSAA.

 

In April 2013 Council obtained a valuation for the proposed site from Valuers Herron Todd White.  A copy of the valuation is attached.  The valuation for 2,500m2 was $87,500.  The valuation is on the basis the property is input taxed and free of GST.  Should the property not qualify as GST free, the valuation assessment is to be regarded as inclusive of GST.

 

In 2016, Council staff lodged a development application to create the allotment proposed to be acquired by Mr Gordon.  The survey plan showing the land being the proposed lot 20 is attached.  It is proposed that the land have access to River Street/Gumma Road via a 10m wide right of carriageway.

 

The land is zoned RU1 Primary Production and the Lot Size Map indicates the minimum area required for a new lot in a subdivision to be 40 hectares.

 

The Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 provides that a rural lot with an area smaller than the minimum prescribed on the lot size map may be created in the following circumstances:

4.2C   Exceptions to minimum lot sizes for certain rural subdivisions

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

(2)      This clause applies to land in the following rural zones:

(a)      Zone RU1 Primary Production,

(b)      Zone RU2 Rural Landscape.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

In order to be able to achieve consideration under Clause 4.2C it is necessary that the land use be occurring prior to the determination of the application – “if the consent authority is satisfied that the use of the land after the subdivision will be the same use permitted under the existing development consent for the land”.  As the provision prevented Council staff from considering the subdivision application until after the issue of the development consent by the JRPP and the establishment of the use, the development application for subdivision was withdrawn on 10 March 2016.

 

Given the provisions of Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010, in terms of dealing with the land it is proposed that Council enter into a contract of sale with Mr Gordon for his purchase of the proposed lot 20 for $87,500 and that he be allowed to enter the land and establish his processing plant under licence at a weekly rental of $240 per week.  The weekly rental would continue until such time that the subdivision of the proposed lot 20 is complete and the title becomes available for transfer.  As the existing valuation is now 3 years old, consideration was given to whether a new valuation should be obtained.  Given the cost of obtaining a new valuation and the fact that the development consent requires that Mr Gordon (not Council) to provide appropriate access to the land, it is recommended that Council utilise the 2013 valuation.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with Mr Gordon and his consultant Mr David Pensini who is a Health and Building Surveyor in private practice.  There has also been consultation with Council’s Manager Water and Sewerage, Manager Business Development, Senior Town Planner and Manager Technical Services.  There has been consultation with Council’s solicitor Mr Terry Perkins in relation to the provisions of a contract of sale.

 

It would be fair to say that Council’s Manager Water and Sewerage is not predisposed to either the development or the sale of the land, believing that its proximity to the sewerage treatment plant may compromise Council’s operations, notwithstanding there are no current proposals for the use of the land.  In relation to this concern it should be noted that there remains a very large area of unused land adjacent to the treatment plant should its footprint ever need to be enlarged.  But given changing technology and climate change considerations, it should not be assumed that there will be a need for an ever expanding footprint for the existing treatment plant.

 

There has been recent consultation with Mr Gordon in relation to the sale or lease of the land.  Council staff had expressed a preference to enter into a long term lease but Mr Gordon’s strong preference is to acquire the land.  The reason for the suggested lease was to protect Council’s established buffer to the sewerage treatment plan and increase flexibility should Council ever wish to utilise the land in extending the treatment plant or otherwise in a future upgrade.

 

Mr Gordon indicated his personal preference to acquire the land was based on his longstanding approach to business being to own assets and avoid borrowing money.  By way of compromise Mr Gordon agreed to a contract condition wherein Council would have first right of refusal to purchase the land back for the price paid in the event that he ever decided to sell it or transfer it to another company.  Mr Perkin’s advice is that this contract condition should be identified by way of a caveat so that it is not accidentally overlooked in the future.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The proposed processing plant to refine grease trap waste should be a positive for environment in significantly reducing the volume of waste currently trucked to Newcastle.

 

There is the possibility of some odour but no more so than from the adjacent sewerage treatment plant.  The proposed site has reasonable buffers to the nearest dwelling.

 

Social

 

There are no significant social issues.

 

Economic

 

New investment which should provide Mr Gordon with the opportunity to increase the size of his business is beneficial to the local economy.

 

Risk

 

With the determination of the development application by the Joint Regional Planning Panel the risk involved in the proposal has been substantially reduced.  The Council still needs to lodge and determine a development application for the proposed two lot subdivision.  As most of the infrastructure required for the subdivision will be provided via the conditions of consent issued by the Joint Regional Planning Panel, the proposed subdivision should not commit Council to any significant costs.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The cost of undertaking the subdivision should be relatively minor as the access requirement is a condition of consent for DA 2015/135.  There will be costs pertaining to the provision of a certificate from Essential Energy as well as registration and legal fees. 

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There may be some relatively minor requirement for working funds to achieve the registration of the subdivision.  However the major impact on working funds arising from rent and the sale of the proposed lot 20 will be positive.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no significant resourcing/staff implications.

 

Attachments:

1

10188/2016 - Development Plans

 

2

9721/2016 - DA2015/135 -  Consent - Water Treatment Facility

 

3

27153/2013 - Kelly Close Valuation

 

4

3020/2016 - Plan of subdivision lodged with DA2016/011

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Proposed Subdivision and Sale of Land Adjoining the Macksville Sewerage Treatment Plant

 




Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Proposed Subdivision and Sale of Land Adjoining the Macksville Sewerage Treatment Plant

 

Enquiries to:        Daniel Walsh

Contact Phone:    6568 0259

Our Ref:             DA 2015/135

 

 

 

3 May 2016

 

 

 

Tony Gordon Septic Tanks

Po Box 591

MACKSVILLE NSW 2447

 

 

 

NOTICE TO APPLICANT OF DETERMINATION OF A

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

(Issued under Section 81(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)

 

 

Development Application No:                   2015/135

 

Applicant:                                                Tony Gordon Septic Tanks

 

Subject Land:                                          Lot: 2 DP: 538542, 20 Gumma Road, Macksville

 

Development Proposal:                            Water Treatment Facility

 

 


DETERMINATION

 

Determination:                                         The development application has been determined by Nambucca Shire Council by way of granting of consent subject to conditions described below.

 

Made on:                                                  28 April 2016

 

Consent to operate from:                         28 April 2016

 

Consent to lapse, unless the development has commenced in accordance with the provisions of Section 95 of the Act:                                                                28 April 2021

 

 


RIGHT OF APPEAL

 

If you are dissatisfied with this decision, Section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gives you the right to appeal to the Land and Environment Court within six (6) months after the date on which you receive this notice.

 



Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Proposed Subdivision and Sale of Land Adjoining the Macksville Sewerage Treatment Plant

 

DETAILS OF CONDITIONS

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THIS CONSENT

 

Development is to be in accordance with approved plans

 

1.       The development is to be implemented in accordance with the plans and supporting documents endorsed with the Council stamp, dated 3/5/16, and set out in the following table except where modified by any conditions of this consent.

 

Plan Title/Supporting Document

Dwg. No

Prepared by

Dated

Environmental Impact Statement

-

David Pensini

July 2015

Site and Context Plan

DA-01

-

27 August 2013

Layout Plan

DA-02

-

27 August 2013

Process Plan

DA-03

-

27 August 2013

Letter from David Pensini and attachments

 

David Pensini

16 December 2015

 

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.

 

Discharge of Wastewater

 

2.         Wastewater from the development must be discharged into the adjoining sewage treatment plant in accordance with an approval granted under section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993.

A lockable valve and magnetic flow meter shall be provided within the existing fenced area of the sewage treatment plant prior to the point of discharge. All wastewater to be discharged into the sewage treatment plant must be tested and discharged under the supervision of Council.

An inspection point suitable for taking representative samples shall be provided immediately prior to the point where the liquid trade waste enters the sewerage system and/or mixes with domestic sewage from the premises.

 

Waste Water Quality

 

3.       The chemical concentration of wastewater discharged from the development shall not exceed:

 

·   pH levels outside the range of 7.0 to 9.0 at all times.

·   BOD and suspended solids concentration in excess of 300 mg/L at any time.

·   Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) in excess of 600 mg/L for BODs less than 100 mg/L, otherwise the COD shall not exceed the BODs concentration by more than 3 times.

·   Total Dissolved Solids in excess of 4000 mg/L.

·   Ammonia (as N) in excess of 50 mg/L at any time.

·   Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) in excess of 100 mg/L at any time.

·   Total oil and grease in excess of 100 mg/L at any time.

·   Petroleum Hydrocarbons (non-flammable) in excess of 30 mg/L.

 

Sampling

 

4.       Representative samples of the effluent from each batch shall be collected and tested with respect to pH, BOD, COD, Total Suspended Solids, Total Oil & Greases, Ammonia(as N), Total Dissolved Solids, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons.

          The discharge shall not commence without Council's review of the sampling results.

 

          The sample analysis tests shall be carried out only by laboratories that hold National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) registration for the class of test(s) or specific test(s) specified in the trade waste approval or by a laboratory acceptable to Council. Tests shall be carried out by using analytical methods indicated in the Australian Sewage Quality Management Guidelines, June 2012, WSAA.

 

Sludge

 

5.       Sludge resulting from treatment of the waste shall be removed from the premises by a licensed contractor.

 

EPA General Terms of Approval

 

6.         In accordance with Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the following conditions are required to be consistent with the General Terms of Approval issued by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA):

a.     Works must not commence until a licence has been obtained from the EPA in accordance with section 43 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

b.    The development must be undertaken in accordance with the general terms of approval issued by the EPA on 10 March 2016 and attached to this consent.

 

DPI Water General Terms of Approval

 

7.         In accordance with Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the following conditions are required to be consistent with the General Terms of Approval issued by the NSW Department of Primary Industries – Water (DPI Water):

a.   Works must not commence until a controlled activity approval has been obtained from the NSW Department of Primary Industries – Water (DPI Water) and a copy of the approval has been provided to Council.

 

             Advice: Application forms for the controlled activity approval are available from DPI Water's website: www.water.nsw.gov.au  Water licensing > Approvals > Controlled activities.         

 

b.   The consent holder must prepare or commission the preparation of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. All plans must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and submitted to the DPI Water for approval prior to any controlled activity commencing. The plans must be prepared in accordance with DPI Waters guidelines located at www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-Licensing/Approvals.

 

c.   The consent holder must (i) carry out any controlled activity in accordance with approved plans and (ii)  construct and/or implement any controlled activity by or under the direct supervision of a suitably qualified professional and (iii) when required, provide a certificate of completion to DPI Water.

 

d.   The consent holder must carry out a maintenance period of two (2) years after practical completion of all controlled activities, rehabilitation and vegetation management in accordance with a plan approved by the DPI Water.

 

e.     The consent holder must reinstate waterfront land affected by the carrying out of any controlled activity in accordance with a plan or design approved by the DPI Water.

 

f.     The consent holder must ensure that no materials or cleared vegetation that may (i) obstruct flow, (ii) wash into the water body, or (iii) cause damage to river banks; are left on waterfront land other than in accordance with a plan approved by DPI Water. 

 

g.    The consent holder must establish all erosion and sediment control works and water diversion structures in accordance with a plan approved by DPI Water. These works and structures must be inspected and maintained throughout the working period and must not be removed until the site has been fully stabilised. 

 

h.     The consent holder must ensure that (i) river diversion, realignment or alteration does not result from any controlled activity work and (ii) bank control or protection works maintain the existing river hydraulic and geomorphic functions, and (iii) bed control structures do not result in river degradation other than in accordance with a plan approved by DPI Water.

 

 

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

 

Water and Sewerage Section 68 approval required

 

8.       An approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 to connect to Council’s infrastructure for water supply and sewerage and to discharge trade waste into Council’s sewer must be obtained from Council.

 

Driveway and Car Parking Plans

 

9.       Plans and specifications that indicate vehicular access from the site boundary to the proposed parking space(s) and manoeuvring details must be submitted to and approved by Council. The access road must not encroach within the existing fenced area containing Councils sewage treatment plant. Vehicular access must be in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004: Parking facilities, Part 1: Off-street Car Parking No 1 and Councils Development Control Plan. Plans are to include the following items:

 

a.   Pavement description (minimum 4m wide all weather access track );

b.   Site conditions affecting the access;

c.   Existing and design levels;

d.   Cross sections every 20 metres (The batter of the access track must of sufficient grade for an errant vehicle to be able to recover, alternatively install a roadside traffic barrier)

e.   Drainage (pipes, pits etc.);

f.    Turning paths; and

g.   Line marking and signs.

 

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

 

Contributions and Certificate of Compliance

 

10.     Prior to the commencement of works the developer/consent holder will have to be eligible to obtain a Section 307 Certificate of Compliance under the Water Management Act 2000. To be eligible, the developer/consent holder will have to pay the contributions set out in the following table to Council.

 

Public service

No of Equivalent Tenements

Contribution Rate (Amount per ET)

Contribution Levied

Date until which Contribution rate is applicable

Water

1

$12,568.00

$12,568.00

June 2016

Sewer

5.357

$7,063.00

$37,836.49

June 2016

TOTAL

$50,404.49

June 2016

 

The contributions payable will be adjusted in accordance with relevant plan and the amount payable will be calculated on the basis of the contribution rates that are applicable at the time of payment.

 

Flood Planning Level

 

11.     The flood planning level for this development is 3.493m AHD. Detailed plans and specifications must be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the commencement of works which illustrate the processing area at or above the flood planning level and demonstrate that the development will be capable of withstanding flood velocities during a PMF event (0.5-1m/s).

 

Importation of fill

 

12.        Prior to the importation of any fill to the subject land, suitable evidence is to be provided to the satisfaction of Council demonstrating that all fill imported to the site is virgin excavated natural material (VENM) as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. This may require the material to be sampled and analysed for potential contaminants by a NATA accredited laboratory.

 

Setback from Sewage Treatment Plant Fence

 

13.        The developments setback (excluding driveway access) to the existing chain wire fence on the western side of the existing sewage treatment plant must be increased to 15m in order to maintain existing access in and around the existing plant.

 

            An amended site plan is to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the commencement of works.

 

Detailed Plans

 

14.        Detailed plans of the proposal including all pipework, valves and meters shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to works commencing.  This is to include a lockable valve and magnetic flow meter within the existing fenced area of the sewage treatment plant prior to the point of discharge.

The final system design must be substantially the same as that approved under this development consent.

 

Erosion & Sediment Measures

 

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

 

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

 

Erection of Signs

 

16.        A sign must be erected on site in a prominent position containing the information prescribed by Clause 98A (2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 being the name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority for the work, and name of the principal contractor for the work and telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and stating that unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited.  This sign must be maintained on site while work is being carried out and removed when the work has been completed.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH DURING CONSTRUCTION

 

Approved Plans to Remain on Site

 

17.     A copy of the approved plans, details and specifications must remain at the site at all times during construction.

 

Building Code of Australia

 

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

 

 

 

Construction times

 

19.     Any works involving the generation of noise which extends beyond the boundary of the land, other than works required in an emergency to avoid the loss of life, damage to property and/or to prevent environmental harm, shall only be carried out between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm Monday to Saturday inclusive. No works shall occur on public holidays.

 

The builder/site manager is responsible to instruct and control sub-contractors regarding the hours of work

 

Construction Noise

 

20.        All feasible and reasonable work practices shall be implemented to minimise construction noise exceeding the noise management level in accordance with the NSW Interim Construction Noise Guideline (55dB(A). In the event construction noise will exceed the guideline limit, all potentially impacted residents must be notified of the nature of works to be carried out, the expected noise levels and duration, as well as contact details.

 

Construction dust suppression

 

21.     All necessary works are to be undertaken to control dust pollution from the site.

 

These works must include, but are not limited to:

 

a        restricting topsoil removal;

b        regularly and lightly watering dust prone areas (note: prevent excess watering as it can cause damage and erosion;

c        alter or cease construction work during periods of high wind;

d        erect green or black shade cloth mesh or similar products 1.8m high around the perimeter of the site.

 

Builders rubbish to be contained on site

 

22.     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 development site. Footpaths, road reserves and public reserves are to be maintained clear of rubbish, building materials and all other items.

 

Maintenance of sediment and erosion control measures

 

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

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF USE

 

Works to be completed

 

24.     All of the works indicated on the plans and granted/required by this consent, including any other consents that are necessary for the completion of this development, are to be completed and approved by Council prior to the commencement of use.

 

Vehicular Access

 

25.     The driveway and parking areas are to be constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

 

Sewer and water to be connected

 

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

Toilet Facilities

 

27.        The toilet building must not be more than 3m in height and must be connected to a public sewer. If the building is not a relocatable structure or is to be located on footings, works must not commence unless a construction certificate is issued by the principal certifying authority (PCA). Such a structure must not be occupied unless an occupation certificate is issued by the PCA.

 

Bushfire Protection

 

28.       The following conditions are required for compliance with Section 79BA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

(a)    Asset Protection Zones

At the commencement of building works and for the life of the development, the area of land illustrated on the layout Plan shall be managed as an inner protection area as outlined within Section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006’ and the NSW Rural Fire Service’s document ‘Standards for Asset Protection Zones’.

Advice: An inner protection area must provide a tree canopy cover of less than 15% and be located greater than 2 metres from any part of the roofline of a dwelling. Garden beds of flammable shrubs are not to be located under trees and not be closer than 10 metres from an exposed window or door. Trees must have lower limbs removed up to a height of 2 metres above the ground. Grass must be maintained below 100mm.

(b)   Water and Utilities

Water, electricity and gas are to comply with section 4.1.3 of ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006’.

(c)    Landscaping

Landscaping to the site is to comply with the principles of Appendix 5 of ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006’. 

 

Certification

 

29.        Certification that the proposal has been implemented in accordance with the manufactures specifications must be provided to Council prior to the commencement of use.

 

 

REASONS FOR CONDITIONS

 

·      To ensure that the proposed development:

(a)      achieves the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment  Act 1979;

(b)      complies with the provisions of all relevant Environmental Planning Instruments;

(c)      is consistent with the aims and objectives of Council’s Development Control Plans, Codes and Policies.

 

·      To meet the increased demand for public amenities and services attributable to the development in accordance with Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Section 64 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

·      To ensure the protection of the amenity and character of land adjoining and in the locality of the proposed development.

 

·      To minimise any potential adverse environmental, social or economic impacts of the proposed development.

 

·      To ensure that all traffic, car parking and access requirements arising from the development are addressed.

 

·      To ensure the development does not conflict with the public interest.

 

 

 


OTHER APPROVALS

 

The following Section 68 Approvals

have been issued with this consent:        Nil

 

Integrated Development:                          Yes – s91 water Management Act 2000

                                                                   s43 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

 

 

 


Signed on behalf of Consent Authority

 

 

 

 

Signature: ....................................................................

 

Name:           Daniel Walsh

                     SENIOR TOWN PLANNER

 

Date:              3 May 2016

 

Consent Authority:           Nambucca Shire Council


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Proposed Subdivision and Sale of Land Adjoining the Macksville Sewerage Treatment Plant

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Proposed Subdivision and Sale of Land Adjoining the Macksville Sewerage Treatment Plant

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     26 May 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.3      SF1893            260516         Organisation Structure - Ranger Services

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

Under Council’s organisation structure, the compliance activities associated with companion animal and stock control and parking enforcement are currently provided by a single Ranger.

 

The experience of the last twelve months is that despite having an efficient and hardworking Ranger, the position is unable to satisfy the service levels desired by the community, particularly when the officer is absent on leave.

 

It is recommended that Council amend its organisation structure to incorporate a part time 3 day (22.8 hours) per week Ranger position but with a requirement for the part time employee to be available when the Ranger is on leave.

 

Equally if Bellingen Shire Council indicates a willingness to share a full time Ranger then this option would also cover the needs of Nambucca Shire Council.  Any sharing arrangement should be the subject of a written agreement between the two councils.

 

Subject to securing a competent and high performing candidate, it is assessed that the net cost of the additional part time position would be in the order of $15,000 per annum.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1.       Council advertise for a permanent part time (22.8hrs/week) Ranger but with a     requirement           for the employee to be available when the existing Ranger is on leave.

 

2.       There be a report to Council on any proposal which might be forthcoming from           Bellingen Shire Council for the sharing of a Ranger position and/or Council’s pound.

 

3.       That the proposed permanent part time (22.8hrs/week) Ranger position be incorporated into           Council’s 2016/2017 operational plan.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are a variety of options.  In summary the options are as follows:

 

1.  Do nothing

With the “do nothing” option it must be accepted that when the Ranger is on leave, either planned or otherwise, there will not be Council staff available to attend to “call outs” for incidents such as dog attacks and straying stock.  Based on previous matters, it is foreshadowed that the community are unlikely to accept a level of service where there is no timely response to such incidents.  In relation to straying stock there may be some liability to Council if the straying stock subsequently cause a traffic accident.

 

2.  Casual Ranger

A casual ranger could be employed to undertake the Ranger’s duties when the Ranger is on leave.  The advantage of a casual employee is that they only attend duties when required as a backup or to manage a large workload.  The major disadvantage is recruiting a suitable candidate as they have neither job security nor the expectation of regular earnings. 

 

3.  Permanent Part Time Ranger

This would be a permanent part time position of say 3 days (22.8 hours) per week but with a requirement to be available when the Ranger is on leave.  The advantage of this option is that it still seeks to minimise the Council’s wages cost but is likely to attract a stronger field of applicants given there is job security and the expectation of regular earnings.

 

4.  Full Time Job Share Position with Bellingen Shire Council

There have been on-going discussions and communication with Bellingen Shire Council as to the opportunities which might be available to share a Ranger and also this Council’s pound.  Depending upon Bellingen Shire Council’s preferences, a number of sub-options have been identified and were put to Bellingen Shire Council on 12 February 2016.  The identified options were:

 

          4.1     Share Pound

This option is simply to share our pound and split the costs.  This option does not involve a Shared Ranger.  There are obvious benefits in sharing a pound with reduced capital and operational costs.  Whether the pound contains 3 dogs or 8 dogs it still needs to be attended to 7 days per week and the dogs feed, watered and exercised and the pens cleaned.  Assuming the pound in Macksville was to be used as the joint pound the only discernible disadvantage is the increased travel time for Bellingen residents and staff.  However if the shared pound was allied with a shared Ranger then animals could be readily moved between the LGA’s.  The pending completion of the Pacific Highway upgrade will also improve the cost effectiveness of shared resources.

 

          4.2     Shared Pound plus Shared Ranger with no roster control

This scenario is the same as 4.1 with a shared ranger working a fixed 38 hours per fortnight in each Council.

 

          4.3     Shared Pound plus Shared Ranger with roster control

A roster would need to be completed to ensure that each Council would have a Ranger presence to cover planned leave. There would also need to be flexibility to cover unplanned leave.  The obvious benefit is that both Councils would have a Ranger presence to cover most leave.  The disadvantage concerns the employment arrangements for the shared ranger as only one Council can be the employer.  The employer council is legally responsible for all facets of the employment including remuneration and other conditions, work health and safety, performance management, etc. In practice it would mean that one Council, presumably the employer Council, would need to take responsibility for preparing the roster, albeit with extensive consultation with the other council.  It is unlikely that there will be many instances where the requirements of each council cannot be accommodated in the roster but the arrangement would rely on good communication and good faith.  Notwithstanding, this sharing arrangement should be the subject of a written agreement between the two councils, covering the matters identified above but also liabilities, for example in the event that one Council wishes to withdraw rendering the incumbent redundant.

 

4.4     Full Shared Services for the Ranger Function (including a shared pound)

This is not so much an option for sharing a staffing position but a more substantial change to each Council’s organisation structure wherein both Councils would agree to a joint shared services function with common service levels and enforcement policies.  The “shared service” would extend to all Ranger functions in both Councils including all of the staff employed in undertaking the functions.  Again one Council would need to be the employer and there would need to be an agreement and governance structure in place (such as a Section 355 Committee) to ensure both Councils had a say in the development of policies and the operation of the Ranger services.  With this “full blown” shared services function it may be desirable, in the first instance, for the two Councils to collectively undertake a service level review of the whole function.

 

It is understood that Bellingen Shire Council is considering the matter and may choose to proceed with one of these options.  If this is the case then the matter can be reported back to Council.  However as it stands it is not recommended that a decision on “back up” arrangements for this Council’s Ranger continue to be deferred as it is causing the incumbent stress and may adversely affect the employment relationship.  The key performance indicators referred to in the discussion section confirm that Council’s Ranger is an excellent employee and accordingly Council should be taking all reasonable steps to ensure he is properly supported in undertaking what is arguably one of the most difficult jobs in local government.

 

5.  Full Time Position

Council’s Manager Development & Environment has proposed a full time position, potentially undertaking additional duties currently undertaken by Council’s Business Services Unit or not undertaken at all.  It is suggested this may provide scope to reduce the equivalent full time staff (EFT) in Business Services and accordingly provide some cost savings to Council to offset the cost of the additional full time Ranger.  The potential disadvantage are inefficiencies created by the fragmentation of administrative functions into different departments and the loss of corporate wide oversight in favour of a narrow department based oversight.  Another option suggested by Council’s Ranger is to create a position for a full time trainee.  This would have some cost advantages but at the same time require a commitment of additional time to mentoring and management with the potential return being in the longer term.

 

6.  Use of a Contractor

In the past the Council has used a contractor to undertake its companion animal responsibilities.  An attempt was also made to secure a contractor to maintain Council’s pound.  The employment of a contractor on a similar basis to the previous arrangement would require a substantial increase in the budget for Ranger services, potentially doubling the existing operating cost.  Notwithstanding the previous unsuccessful attempt, a small contract to maintain Council’s pound is more realistic and achievable.

 

In the event that Council is not successful in recruiting a satisfactory candidate for a permanent part time position then other options will need to be considered.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Under Council’s organisation structure, the compliance activities associated with companion animal and stock control and parking enforcement are currently provided by a single Ranger.  The duties of the position are as follows:

 

Parking Regulation and Enforcement

§   Undertake regular patrols of all restricted parking areas within the Shire

§   Prepare and issue parking infringements

§   Provide information and advice to the public on parking and traffic matters

§   Maintain concise notes and records, including photographic evidence and a professional diary, that are acceptable to the courts in the event that infringements are contested

§   Use Council’s computer systems to prepare letters and reports and maintain statistics (TRIM, Microsoft Word, Excel)

§   Ability to access and use the “Drives” software

 

Companion Animal and Stock Control

§   Undertake regular patrols and surveillance in relation to companion animals and straying stock

§   Ensure that companion animals are identified in the appropriate manner

§   Manage seized and surrendered animals in the appropriate manner

§   Investigate complaints in relation to companion animals, including barking dog complaints

§   Manage animal pound as required.

§   Input council’s web-site with photographs and information pertaining to  ‘dogs in the pound’ and ‘animals for adoption’

§   Prepare and issue penalty notices

§   Prepare and present evidence in Court as necessary and assist with investigations regarding corroboration and recording of interviews/evidence

§   Undertake community education and awareness programs on regulatory matters pertaining to the position.

§   Provide information and advice to the public on companion animals matters

§   Maintain concise notes and records, including photographic evidence and a professional diary, that are acceptable to the courts in the event that infringements are contested

§   Use Council’s computer systems to prepare letters and reports and maintain statistics (TRIM, Microsoft Word, Excel)

§   Manage any contracts in relation to companion animal and stock control

§   Check and authorise payments to suppliers of goods and services such as veterinary surgeons, stock carters

§   Prepare a draft budget for Council’s companion animal and stock control functions and responsibilities.

 

Other Regulatory Functions

§   Provide information and advice to the public on relevant regulatory matters

§   Undertake community education and awareness programs on regulatory matters

§   Undertake routine and regular patrols of the Council area in respect of:

o   littering, waste dumping and issuing Clean Up Notices

o   uncovered loads

o   abandoned motor vehicles

o   illegal camping

o   illegal roadside advertising and stalls

o   activities and vehicles on beaches

o   unauthorised signs and activities on footpath areas

o   unauthorised commercial activities on Council controlled land

§   Carry out inspection of overgrown allotments

§   Assist with compliance of Control of Burning regulations

§   Investigate complaints under the POEO Act

§   Monitor and regulate environmental conditions of development consents, including sediment and erosion controls

§   Issue penalty notices

§   Prepare and present evidence in Court when necessary and assist with investigations regarding corroboration and recording of interviews/evidence

§   Accompany water supply staff during fitting of water restrictors to water meters

§   Serve notices, orders, writs and summons on behalf of Council as required and directed

 

The following key performance indicators provide an overview of the work flows for the Ranger’s position.

 

INFRINGEMENTS ISSUED 1 MAY 2015 TO 30 APRIL 2016

Companion Animals

Value $

Parking

Value $

LG Act

Value $

May-15

72

10180.00

Jun-15

22

3950.00

Jul-15

3

660.00

41

5834.00

3

330.00

Aug-15

36

6230.00

Sep-15

70

9194.00

Oct-15

9

2365.00

77

10292.00

1

110.00

Nov-15

78

11463.00

4

440.00

Dec-15

15

4510.00

91

13903.00

2

220.00

Jan-16

7

1870.00

42

5091.00

2

220.00

Feb-16

70

10543.00

6

1540.00

Mar-16

1

220.00

96

13726.00

9

990.00

Apr-16

50

7642.00

8

880.00

35

9625.00

745

108048.00

35

4730.00

 

Therefore for the 12 month period to 30 April 2016, 815 infringement notices were issued with a combined value of $122,403.

 

This compares with the employees estimated salary and 42% on-costs for the 2015/2016 financial year of $113,135.80.

 

Over the same period the other major expense in the issue of fines is the fee the Council pays to the State Debt Recovery office who take complete responsibility for the debt recovery.  This amounted to $17,072.

 

The throughput for Council’s pound is shown in the following table:

 

NSC POUND FIGURES 1 May 2015 to 30 April 2016

Cats IN

Cats Euthanised

Cats Rehomed

Dogs IN

Dogs Euthanised

Dogs Rehomed

May-15

2

2

0

May-15

19

1

1

Jun-15

1

0

1

Jun-15

12

14

6

Jul-15

0

0

0

Jul-15

12

8

4

Aug-15

2

2

0

Aug-15

9

5

1

Sep-15

2

2

0

Sep-15

5

3

1

Oct-15

2

2

0

Oct-15

10

3

1

Nov-15

1

1

0

Nov-15

9

4

0

Dec-15

2

2

0

Dec-15

6

4

0

Jan-16

1

1

0

Jan-16

17

8

1

Feb-16

12

12

0

Feb-16

8

4

1

Mar-16

1

1

0

Mar-16

9

3

0

Apr-16

0

0

0

Apr-16

12

4

2

26

25

1

128

61

18

 

Most requests for Ranger services are received through telephone calls to council.  These calls are recorded, assigned and tracked through a customer request system known as “Merit”.

 

The following table lists the merit requests assigned to Council’s Ranger over the past 12 months.

 

 

MERITS RECEIVED - ASSIGNED TO RANGER – 1 MAY 2015 TO 30 APRIL 2016

 

Type

No. of requests

Companion Animals

621

Abandoned Vehicles

75

Beach Driving

3

Illegal Camping

13

Illegal Dumping

58

Parking Issues

59

Pollution Issues

19

Stock

42

TOTAL:

890

 

It will be noted that the large majority of requests pertain to companion animals being mainly complaints about stray dogs, barking dogs, aggressive dogs and dog attacks.  Reported pollution matters are often, but not exclusively, noise pollution arising from motor bikes, building construction work and factory premises.

 

The experience of the last twelve months is that despite having an efficient and hardworking Ranger, the position is unable to satisfy the service levels desired by the community, particularly when the officer is absent on leave.  During periods of leave his duties have had to be reassigned to other staff including Council’s Plumbing and Drainage Inspector, Senior Health and Building Surveyor and Manager Development and Environment.  The General Manager has also attended to some POEO complaints which ordinarily would be dealt with by the Ranger.

 

Besides the community expectations, Council also has legal responsibilities to ensure the welfare of companion animals in its care.  This requires Council’s pound to be attended seven days per week so that the animals’ health can be checked, they be fed and watered and their pens cleaned. 

 

Attending to these responsibilities has meant the payment of overtime, particularly in the absence of the Ranger.

 

In terms of the options listed at the start of this report it is recommended that Council amend its organisation structure to incorporate a part time 3 day (22.8 hours) per week Ranger position but with a requirement for the part time employee to be available when the Ranger is on leave.  This is considered to be the most cost effective solution to the existing service level problem which mainly manifests when the Ranger is on leave (planned or otherwise).  Assuming a proportionate increase in fine revenue and with the same salary, on-costs and State Debt Recovery Office fees, the net annual cost of the additional 3 day per week Ranger would be $4,682.  However in reality there is likely to be diminishing returns on fine revenue and the Council will be unlikely to secure a part time Ranger of the same efficiency.   There will also be a reduction in overtime paid to existing staff.  Balancing all of this a higher net cost is anticipated, say $15,000 per annum.

 

An additional motor vehicle will not be required as the Ranger’s utility can be shared according to who is rostered on.  For the infrequent occasions when both staff may be at work at the same time, then a car from the administrative staff car pool can be used.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

In relation to the proposed addition to Council’s organisation structure there will be consultation with Council’s Consultative Committee.  Based on past consultation, it is not anticipated that the Consultative Committee will object to an addition to Council’s organisation structure.  However if any concerns are raised it is proposed that the matter be reported back to Council prior to any appointment being made.

 

There has been on-going consultation with Bellingen Shire Council.  The options concerning a full time job sharing position and shared pound were put to them on 12 February 2016 with a request that they nominate their preferred option or another option, following which a Memorandum of Understanding would be prepared.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

With additional resources available for compliance activities there should be a positive impact on the environment.

 

Social

 

In a disadvantaged community, the Council does need to be conscious of relying too heavily on “fine” based revenue.  Whilst the revenue does make an appreciable difference to Council’s budget, it needs to be acknowledged that it is being sourced from a community where a larger than average proportion of people are existing on social security payments, whether they be allowances or pensions.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

The major risks relate firstly to Council’s ability to respond to critical or “high profile” incidents in a timely way.  Council faces reputational risks and potential liability if it is unable to respond to incidents such as straying stock and dog attacks in a timely manner.  Often these incidents occur on weekends and outside normal business hours.  Secondly there is a risk that Council’s high performing Ranger will “burn out” with the existing work load and perceived lack of support.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Subject to securing a competent and high performing candidate, it is assessed that the net cost of the additional part time position would be in the order of $15,000 per annum.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There will be no impact on working funds if the position is accounted for in the 2016/2017 operational plan.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

The service level and resourcing issues concerning Ranger services are discussed in the report.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     26 May 2016

General Manager

ITEM 9.4      DA2004/250      260516         DA2004/250/01 12 Lot subdivision and Lapsed Contribution Agreement Owner - V Edgehill

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Paul Guy, Manager Development and Environment         

 

Summary:

 

Consideration of this report was deferred at the Council meeting 12 May 2016

 

The above development application for a 15 lot subdivision was approved on 20 October 2004. The owner via his planning consultant requested that the payment of Section 64 and 94 contributions be deferred until each lot was sold. The initial response from Council’s Director Development and Environment advised that the deferment of section 94 contributions was not in accordance with councils policy at the time (deferment only considered with a bank guarantee, NSC listed as principal, for a period of up to 6 months) and that there was no legal pathway for Section 64 to be deferred. 

 

The consultant requested that the matter be reported to council where it was resolved that Council defer the payment of developer contributions subject to a caveat on title as protection to council financial interests and a suitable legal agreement for terms.

 

The caveat was registered with the above condition but also that it expire 5 years from the date of registration of the Linen Plan being 21 August 2006

 

 The DA was subsequently amended on the 21 April 2015 for titles to be issued on a lot by lot basis due to the slow market interest since 2004.

 

A contract for sale has recently been issued for three lots and on lodgement of the linen plan council officers requested payment of the contributions after finding that the previous agreement had expired by date and also by virtue of the modified consent requiring a subdivision certificate and 88b instrument for each lot or multiple of lots released at the time

 

The developer has paid the contributions for the 3 lots to be released but requests that consideration be given to the reinstatement of the agreement. It is believed that the request has not taken into consideration the outcome of the modification as will be discussed below

 

 

Recommendation:

 

The applicant/developer be advised that because the current modified consent allows for a lot by lot release when the land is sold a deferred Section 64 and 94 payment agreement is considered onerous in delivery and not merited considering the sum involved

 

 

OPTIONS:’

 

a)       That council agree to a deferred Section 64 and 94 payment agreement conditioned similar to the previous agreement on a lot by lot basis

b)       That council agree to a deferred Section 64 and 94 payment agreement in accordance with current policy

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The presently modified Development application allows for a lot by lot release and increases the workload of all involved having to release individual subdivisions certificates up to 14 times. The result however is that the contribution to be paid at any time is the current contribution rate x the number of lots being sold/released (current payment for combined 64 & 94 contributions being $12,351). Deferred payment would require a restriction on each subdivision certificate for the deferral of payment until settlement of the sale

 

Council’s recent policy with respect to the deferral of contributions (adopted 2006 and reviewed 13th August 2015) is as follows:

 

Deferral of payments secured by deed of agreement and caveats

 

Council will consider entering into a deed of agreement with a developer whereby it is agreed that contributions will be paid on the sale (settlement) of each subdivided lot with Council’s interest in the payment of such contributions being “secured" by a caveat on each title.  The deed of agreement is to contain a schedule listing the contributions to be paid on the settlement of each lot.

 

This deferral of payments arrangement is restricted to:

 

1.         Residential subdivision only

2.         Not more than 15 lots for development consents issued after 16 February 2012 (which are paying full Section 64 water and sewerage developer contributions)

3.         Not more than 30 lots for development consents issued before 16 February 2012 (which are paying “grandfathered” water and sewerage contributions)

4.         A term of 5 years in which to sell the lots.

 

This option for deferral of payments is not “as of right”.

 

As this deferral option does not provide Council with financial security for the required contributions, the elected Council will make a determination as to a developer’s suitability.

 

In assessing a developer’s suitability for such an arrangement, the Council will undertake a risk assessment and consider:

 

a.   The developer’s record in undertaking similar subdivisions in the Nambucca Valley;

b.   The developer’s liquidity;

c.   The relevant market conditions at the time; that is interest rates, sales of vacant land, other investment occurring in the LGA etc;

d.   Any evidence of pre-sales;

e.   Whether or not the developer is agreeable to Council securing all of part of the debt by way of a registered mortgage.

f.    Any other matter relevant to assessing the financial risk to Council.

 

The fact that the present modified consent is a lot by lot release does significantly reduce Council’s financial risk should a deferred payment agreement be considered

 

CONSULTATION:

 

No further consultation

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

No impact

 

Social

 

No impact

 

Economic

 

A deferred payment means Section 64 and 94 contributions are paid after the land is sold, which is an undetermined period after the subdivision certificate is lodged. The land sale may fall through. 

 

Risk

 

The modified consent has reduced the financial risk to council should a deferred payment be considered.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Nil as recommended

 

Minimal if deferred agreement resolved

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

NA

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

No change at present status.  Additional staff input if agreement resolved

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     26 May 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.5      DA2014/198      260516         Modification to Development Consent DA2014/198

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Daniel Walsh, Senior Town Planner         

 

Summary:

 

Development consent was granted for a 26 lot subdivision of Lot 42 DP 711098 - Old Coast Road, North Macksville on 27 February 2015 as part of development application DA2014/198 and was modified by Council on 24 September 2015 by amending conditions relating to the timing and scale of works. A copy of the approved plan has been included within attachment 2 and the existing development consent within attachment 3.

 

The subject modification application seeks to amend condition 2 of the consent by permitting the construction and sealing of Old Coast Road (OCR) from the development through to Florence Wilmont Drive (FWD) to satisfy Councils access requirements. To do this it is proposed to utilise an existing 20m wide right of carriage way which connects OCR and FWD. Under the Conveyancing Act 1919, Council has the authority to authorise any persons to use the right of carriageway.

 

A copy of the applicants request to modify the development consent has been included within attachment 4 and the proposed concept plan of the road extension has been included within attachment 5.

 

The application was notified to surrounding residents in accordance with Part A of the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 with 33 submissions received.

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and subject to the recommended conditions of consent, is considered to be consistent with all of the relevant matters for consideration subject to the recommended conditions of consent contained within attachment 10.

 

The modification application is being referred to Council for determination because approval of the application will require Councils authorisation for the public to use the 20m wide right of carriageway.

 

NOTE:  This matter requires a “Planning Decision” meaning a decision made in the exercise of a function of the Council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 including a decision relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan.  Under Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 it requires the General Manager to record the names of each Councillor supporting and opposing the decision.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council, as the consent authority, pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, modify development consent DA2014/198 for a 26 lot subdivision at Lot 42 DP 711098 - Old Coast Road, North Macksville by amending conditions 2 & 21 of the development consent to permit the construction of an access road connecting Old Coast Road and Florence Wilmont Drive as outlined within attachment 10 of this report.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

a)       Approve the application to modify the development consent in accordance with the recommendation.

 

b)       Approve the modification application subject to amendments to the recommendation. Please note that only conditions subject to the modification application can be modified.

 

c)       Refuse the modification application.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

At Council’s meeting on 25 February 2016 it was resolved:

 

“1.      That this item be deferred to a meeting in March to enable an onsite inspection of the site and consideration of concerns raised in the submissions received.

 

2.       That prior to determining this matter Council receive a report on the bushfire implications for both Kingsworth Estate and Old Coast Road residents pending the closure of the Old Coast Road as a through road.  Further, that Mr Chris Clark from the RMS be invited to attend this meeting.”

 

A plan showing the new access arrangements along Old Coast Road (OCR) as a consequence of the highway upgrade is shown on attachment 1.  In summary the existing Old Coast Road will end in a cul-de-sac to the north of Florence Wilmont Drive (FWD) and the through route connection between Wirrimbi Road and the existing Pacific Highway will instead be provided by a new service road located to the west of the new highway alignment.  Without any changes to the existing arrangements, the existing Old Coast Road on the eastern side of the highway alignment will become a 2.8km long cul-de-sac north of Mattick Road, whilst Florence Wilmont Drive will remain a 2.1km long cul-de-sac.

 

Providing the connection between FWD and OCR will provide improved egress from the area in the event of a flood or a bushfire. As can be seen in the flood map included within attachment 9, the proposed connection is the only flood free egress from the Pelican Caravan Park, The Nambucca Motel, Kingsworth Estate, a church, and future development within the 12ha of business park zoned land which includes the former Kennwal Ford dealership.

 

The proposed connection will also provide an alternate egress from Kingsworth Estate in the event its eastern entrance was cut as a result of a bushfire originating in the State forest to the north and from the development site if a bushfire were to be approaching from the south.  There are also about 5 houses along Old Coast Road north of Mattick Road which would similarly benefit.

 

The NSW Rural Fire Service publication, Planning for Bush Fire Protection contains a performance criteria that public road widths and design allow safe access for firefighters while residents are evacuating an area.  A section on acceptable solutions provides, “all roads are through roads.  Dead end roads are not recommended, but if unavoidable, dead ends are not more than 200 metres in length, incorporate a minimum 12 metres outer radius turning circle, and are clearly signposted as a dead end and direct traffic away from the hazard”.  The proposed connection will result in Kingsworth Estate becoming compliant with the access provisions within Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

 

Besides the advantages for emergency access in times of fire and flood, the proposed connection would potentially improve emergency response times (fire, police, ambulance) by allowing emergency vehicles access via either Old Coast Road or Florence Wilmont Drive.  The proposed connection would also provide time and cost benefits for public utilities and publicly funded services such as school busing, Australia Post, Essential Energy, as accessing properties along a “through” route will be more efficient that two x 2km plus cul-de-sacs.

 

At Council’s meeting on 17 March 2016 it was resolved:

 

That the matter be deferred so that Council can consider any statutory requirements eg assessments of impact of removal of specific trees and report come to back to Council.

 

Following the meeting the applicant was requested to provide an amended ecological assessment prepared by a suitably qualified person which addresses the extent of disturbance required for the proposed road construction. The requested report has been submitted by the applicant and has been circulated to Councillors. The report found that the proposed road connection will not result in any significant impacts on threatened species, populations, communities or their habitats. This means that the proposal is not contrary to section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the act).

 

Furthermore, having regard to the below assessment of the proposed modification against the relevant provisions of the act; it is not considered that the proposal is contrary to any statutory requirements.

 

Background of Proposal and Description of Modification Sought

Development consent was granted for a 26 lot subdivision of Lot 42 DP 711098 - Old Coast Road, North Macksville on 27 February 2015.

 

On 24 September 2015, Council modified the development consent by permitting the release of one lot with limited road construction works subject to the payment of a bond, the required footpath to be a widened shoulder of the upgraded Old Coast Road (OCR) pavement instead of a concrete path, required the footpath to be constructed as part of the roadwork, clarified the requirements for the provision of services, modified the allotment configuration, and altered the location of the right of carriageway which connects the development to the adjoining public reserve.

 

A copy of the approved plan has been included within attachment 2 and the existing development consent within attachment 3.

 

A copy of the applicants’ current request to vary the development consent has been included within attachment 4. In summary, Condition 2 of the development consent requires sealed access to be provided across each lots frontage to a public road and a continuous bitumen seal from each lot to an urban area. It requires OCR to be upgraded to provide the continuous seal to the urban area (Macksville).

 

The proposed modification seeks to amend condition 2 by permitting the extension of the bitumen sealed road from the development through to Florence Wilmont Drive (FWD). A copy of the proposed concept plan has been included within attachment 5.

 

Planners Comment

The requirement for the applicant to provide a continuous bitumen seal to an urban area and seal all frontages to proposed lots is contained within clause B3.4.5 of the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 (DCP). The applicants suggested condition and concept plan does not include the sealing of the sites frontage to OCR. However, subject to the maintenance of the existing provisions to seal the development sites frontage to OCR; the proposed connection of OCR to FWD will be consistent with clause B3.4.5 of the DCP.

 

Having regard to the issues relating to the proposed connection of OCR and FWD, the following comments are made:

 

·      The existing road reserves of OCR and FWD are linked by a 20m wide right of carriageway (ROC) illustrated as ‘C’ on deposited plan (DP) 1049360 contained within attachment 6. The ROC was created under the Conveyancing Act 1919, with Nambucca Shire Council being the authority benefited by the ROC.

 

The instrument created under section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 which accompanied the registration of DP 1049360 did not contain any specific terms. Therefore, the terms for a ROC contained within Part 1 of Schedule 4A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 apply. These are:

 

Part 1 Right of carriage way

Full and free right for the body in whose favour this easement is created, and every person authorised by it, to go, pass and repass at all times and for all purposes with or without animals or vehicles or both over the land indicated herein as the servient tenement.

      

In the subject case, Nambucca Shire Council is in favour of the easement. As such, Council has the ability to permit the construction of a vehicular access road over the easement and authorise members of the public to use the access.

 

It is noted that the description of the easement identified as ‘C’ as referred to above is titled ‘Right of Carriageway and Easement for Services’. This enables Council to authorise people to use the easement for access as referred to above, and to undertake the following in accordance with Part 9 of Schedule 4A of the Conveyancing Act 1919:

 

Part 9 Easement for services

1   The body having the benefit of this easement may:

(a)  provide domestic services supplied by that body through each lot burdened, but only within the site of this easement, and

(b)  do anything reasonably necessary for that purpose, including:

•  entering the lot burdened, and

•  taking anything on to the lot burdened, and

•  carrying out work, such as constructing, placing, repairing or maintaining pipes, poles, wires, cables, conduits, structures and equipment.

2   In exercising those powers, the body having the benefit of this easement must:

(a)  ensure all work is done properly, and

(b)  cause as little inconvenience as is practicable to the owner and any occupier of the lot burdened, and

(c)  cause as little damage as is practicable to the lot burdened and any improvement on it, and

(d)  restore the lot burdened as nearly as is practicable to its former condition, and

(e)  make good any collateral damage.

3   For the purposes of this easement, domestic services includes supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone and television and discharge of sewage, sullage and other fluid wastes.

 

·      Part B2.1 of the DCP contains general design principles which require subdivisions to provide inter-connected roads rather than a network of cul-de-sacs and no through roads to promote pedestrian access, bicycle use, public transport and to reduce the energy required for transportation purposes. The proposed connection of OCR and FWD will ensure this common planning principle is adopted to the existing Kingsworth Estate development and will improve the proposed developments connectivity and consistency with this clause by not increasing the amount of no through roads within the locality.

 

Please note that due to the steep topography of the land, flooding/flora and fauna constraints, construction costs, and additional road maintenance costs for Council; it is not considered appropriate or reasonable to require the applicant to connect the proposed internal subdivision road to Lumsden Lane instead of the proposed connection of OCR and FWD.

 

·      Council’s intention for FWD to be connected to OCR is best illustrated on the former deposited plans which created Kingsworth Estate. These are included within attachment 6. The existing residential allotments within Kingsworth Estate were created in three stages. The first stage is illustrated within DP 711098. The second stage is illustrated in DP 816018 and included an extension of FWD and the creation of a ROC to connect the end of FWD with OCR through the residual allotment. The third stage is illustrated within DP 1049360 and included the extension of FWD (20m wide) along the ROC (20m wide) to service the development and the retention of the remainder of the ROC within the residual lot 3. Please note lot 3 is now known as Lot 64 DP 1167978 due to the creation of a lot to accommodate Councils water reservoir.

 

Since this application was last reported to Council, the development file for stage 3 has been located. After review of the file it is evident that condition 21 of the development consent required the connection of OCR and FWD as part of the subdivision works. However, proposed lots 3, 4, 36, and 37 were within the study area of the Pacific Highway bypass. Given the uncertainty at the time regarding the future route of the highway bypass, those lots were not approved as part of the consent (condition 18).

 

When the developer was finalising subdivision works in order to obtain a subdivision certificate for stage 3, 10 years after development consent was granted; the developer questioned the reason why the connection had to occur given the potential impact of the future Pacific Highway route. Council sought clarification from the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) who responded by stating that a final design route had not been selected and that the road may be impacted. As such, Council agreed to modify the development consent by deleting condition 21 and requiring the applicant to construct a temporary cul-de-sac within Lot 64 DP 1167978 (current cul-de-sac at the end of FWD). Documentation outlining the above has been included within attachment 12.

 

The intent was that the developer would make the connection between FWD and OCR as part of the development of lot 3 (Lot 64 DP 1167978) once the route of the Pacific Highway had been finalised. However, the developer has since sold the land and the development of Lot 64 DP 1167978 has not yet eventuated to its full potential.

 

Please note that on 2 February 2015 Council approved development application DA2014/205 for a two lot subdivision of Lot 64 DP 1167978. The approved plan has been included within attachment 7. A condition was included within the development consent for DA2014/205 that the ROC be dedicated to Council as a public road. It is considered that this should have been done as part of the previous stages of the Kingsworth Estate development instead of the ROC approach as this would have avoided the misunderstanding which has eventuated within the community regarding the status of the connection. Construction of a sealed connection between FWD and OCR was not considered reasonable due to the scale of the development, construction costs, and the development potential of the residue lot 1.

 

More recently, Councils intention to connect FWD and OCR is evident in its requests to the NSW Roads and Maritime Service to construct the road as part of the Pacific Highway upgrade.

 

·      The new Pacific Highway bypass will result in OCR becoming a dead end road 700m north of the proposed connection to FWD. Plans of the bypass currently under construction have been included within attachment 8. In order to travel north along OCR from the proposed connection with FWD post highway construction you will need to travel 1.8km south, cross the highway overpass at Mattick Road, then travel north along Old Coast Road towards Nambucca Heads. This will result in the travel times for residents in surrounding areas to the west of Old Coast Road (Wirrimbi) being shorter if they were to travel north to the Nambucca Heads town centre/Plaza then it would be to travel to those areas via FWD.

 

The same applies for residents living south of Mattick Road, as it will be shorter/faster for them to travel via the existing highway to Nambucca Heads then it would be via FWD. As such, it is considered that travel times to and from the commercial areas within Nambucca Heads will only be shorter/faster for the residents in Mattick Road (9), residents of the subject development (26), and residences in between (3). It should also be noted that it will be shorter for all of those residences to travel to the Macksville town centre than it would be to travel to the Nambucca commercial areas. In addition to this, it will not only be shorter/faster for these residents to access the new highway via the Mattick Road on ramp (no need to use FWD) but will improve accessibility for many residents within the western section of Kingsworth Estate to access the new highway.

 

It is to be noted that the new highway will have an interchange to access Nambucca Heads adjacent to the Valla urban release area. Given that it will be considerably shorter for motorists to exit at this interchange to access Nambucca Heads than it would be to exit at the off ramp to OCR (south bound only), it is not considered that additional traffic from the new highway would be directed through the proposed connection.

 

Furthermore, given that it is shorter and faster to travel from the entrance to FWD along the existing highway to Macksville and the on ramp to the Pacific Highway bypass; it is not considered that the proposed connection will generate additional west bound traffic along FWD.

 

It should be noted that an unsealed track has provided access from FWD to OCR for many years. In this regard, traffic generation will not be significantly increased as any west bound traffic using the connection to OCR will most probably be already using it.

 

Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed connection will primarily benefit the residents of Kingsworth Estate and surrounding 38 residents (including the proposed development) in providing increased connectivity and shorter travel distances/times.

 

·      FWD has a carriageway width of 7m, verges in excess of 4m, will serve less than 170 lots if the proposed connection is approved (144), and has a speed limit of 50km/h. In this regard, the design of FWD is in accordance with the local road provisions of Councils design standards outlined in clause B2.3.3 of the DCP. Furthermore, given that the proposed connection will result in additional traffic generated by 38 residential lots and that it was designed to accommodate through road traffic, it is not considered that the life of the pavement of FWD will deteriorate significantly faster as a result of the expected traffic increase than what would already occur.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 ASSESSMENT

 

The proposed modification application is assessed against the relevant subsections of section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as follows:

 

SECTION 96(1A)

Council may on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by Council, modify the development if:

 

Complies

Comments

(a) It is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact,

Yes

The proposal will require the upgrade of an existing unsealed track which will include minor tree removal and excavation works. Given the existing disturbance of the site and use; it is not considered that the formalisation of the connection will result in any significant environmental impacts.

(b) It is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all),

Yes

It is considered that the development will remain substantially the same development for which consent was originally granted as the proposed modifications will result in only minor changes to conditions relating to access to the development.

(c) It has notified the application in accordance with:

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent,

Yes

The application was notified in accordance with Part A of the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010.

(d)It has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

Yes

33 submissions were received with the following reasons for objection raised:

·      The increase of traffic flow will not benefit the already compromised conditions of FWD bringing increased noise and hazardous safety issues for road users due to there being no footpath.

Planners comment: As outlined earlier, additional traffic generation along FWD as a result of the development will be 38 residential lots (existing and proposed). With Macksville being closer than Nambucca Heads to all of those 38 lots as well as Pacific Highway access being obtained via OCR, the use of FWD by residents of those lots for all vehicular trips is highly unlikely.

Given the existing use of FWD, extent of the traffic generated by the proposal, and the proximity of the existing and future Pacific Highway to Kingsworth Estate; it is not considered that the proposal will adversely increase noise pollution within the locality.

Although there are no constructed footpaths, FWD currently has sufficient width of road pavement and substantial verges for pedestrian movement which are compliant with the design standards of Councils DCP.

 

·      Kingsworth Estate was sold as a land locked estate with the right of carriageway over private property at the end of FWD for emergencies. The right of residents to a quiet enjoyment of this estate would be totally changed and property prices will drop.

 

Planners comment: The ROC was not created for emergency use only and having regard to the above, it is not considered that the traffic flows on FWD would be substantially altered. As such, it is considered unlikely that the proposal would significantly impact property prices within the area.

 

·     The track to Old Coast Road and cycle ways off Jacks Ridge Road are more than adequate for pedestrians and cyclists.

 

Planners comment: The current access track was relocated from a position outside the ROC by the owners of Lot 64 DP 1167978 during works associated with the erection of the newly constructed house on that lot. Council staff have been informed that this was due to the continued desire for people to drive through to and from OCR.

 

The use of this track by both vehicles and pedestrians is considered to be unsafe in its existing condition due to its narrow width, no shoulders and blind corners. Given that previous attempts to block the track to vehicles in the past have failed due to people removing obstructions and trespassing outside the ROC; it is considered unlikely that Council or the landowner could effectively close off potential vehicular access without undertaking substantial works which would eliminate it as an emergency egress route.

 

As such, construction of a formalised connection with designated footpath/cycleway as per the recommended conditions of consent will ensure the safety of the ROC is improved and liability minimised.

 

·    An alternate route via Lumsden Lane to the Pacific Highway would cause less impact to the residents of the Kingsworth Estate.

 

Planners comment: Connection of the development site to Lumsden Lane would result in substantial environmental disturbance and construction cost to the applicant, as well as increased road maintenance costs to Council due to the additional road length dedicated to Council control. Having regard to this and that Lumsden Lane is flood prone, it is considered that the upgrade and use of existing roads in the control of Council is the most appropriate option.

 

·      The removal of trees will increase noise from the new highway on Kingsworth Estate.

 

Planners comment: Approximately 30 regrowth trees (<200mm diameter) and 4 mature trees will be required to be removed to upgrade the existing track. However, the existing vegetation between Kingsworth estate and the new highway cannot be relied on as a road noise buffer as vegetation does not provide a continuous barrier to reduce noise levels. 

 

·     There is an unknown about the future development which will occur on Lot 64 DP 1167978 (lot with connector road proposed) and the adjoining lot to the north of that (Lot 187 DP755550). The future subdivisions on these lots will only increase traffic further.

 

Planners comment: Lot 64 DP 1167978 is the 20ha residue lot to the Kingsworth Estate development and is the only other lot which can be subdivided which would utilise FWD as its access. Given the constraints of the lot, achieving 20 x 1ha allotments is considered to be unachievable. With this in mind and the design standards contained within the DCP, it is considered that FWD is capable of accommodating future traffic generation.

 

·      The road verge along OCR is a wildlife corridor and contains Koala feeding trees.

 

Planners comment: Previous environmental studies have identified that the area contains Koala feeding trees, however is not core koala habitat.

 

·      FWD does not comply with DCP design standards and will deteriorate faster as a result of increased traffic.

 

Planners comment: As outlined earlier, FWD is a local road which is consistent with design standards within clause B2.3.3 of the DCP. Given the low expected increased traffic and the intended carrying capacity of FWD, it is not considered that the life expectancy of the road pavement will be significantly shorter than what is currently expected.

 

·      The ROC is in private property and Council can only authorise employees and contractors to use it, not a third party.

 

Planners comment: As outlined earlier, Council is benefited by a ROC and can authorise it to be used by any persons.

 

·      The connection of FWD to OCR will only encourage people leaving the new highway at OCR to take the “back way”.

 

Planners comment: As outlined earlier, it will be faster and a shorter distance for motorists to travel via the existing highway form the new Pacific Highway off ramp compared to using OCR/FWD.

 

·      OCR will remain unsealed which will add maintenance/upgrade costs to Council.

 

Planners comment: It is recommended that condition 2 of the development consent be maintained so that the frontage of the development site to OCR is sealed. The upgrading works as part of the Pacific Highway construction will result in OCR being sealed from its intersection with the existing highway at Macksville through to approximately 60m of the development sites frontage. As such, the development consent will result in sealed access towards Nambucca and Macksville.

 

·      Council staff have previously advised that FWD would not be required to be connected to OCD as a result of development on Lot 64 DP 1167978.

 

Planners Comment: Council staff have advised that a proposal for a single dwelling or two lot subdivision of Lot 64 DP 1167978 would not be required to make the connection. This is seen in the determination of DA2014/205 as referred to above. This did not relate to the proposed subdivision or further subdivision of Lot 64 DP 1167978.

 

·      The owners of Lot 64 DP 1167978 have invested money in constructing their new home adjacent to the ROC. Council has not considered the effects on them having regard to liability and costs associated with driveway, fencing and losing frontage to the cul-de-sac.

 

Planners Comment: Prior to commencing construction of the dwelling on Lot 64 DP 1167978, Council staff discussed Councils intention to seek the RMS to make the connection of OCR and FWD. Acknowledging this, the owners amended the dwelling design so that it fronted the ROC instead of the cul-de-sac.

It is also recommended to be included as a condition of consent that the applicant be responsible for all costs associated with the proposed connection. This is to include fencing and driveway relocations.

 

The owners of Lot 64 DP 1167978 have given their permission for the ROC to be dedicated to Council as a public road should the application be approved in order to remove themselves from any potential liability. The costs associated with this will be transferred to the applicant and has been incorporated into the recommended conditions of consent.

 

·      The connection should be made using asphalt and kerb/gutter to match the existing FWD and not spray seal and gravel shoulders.

 

Planners Comment: The use of asphalt and installation of kerb/guttering within FWD has been included within the recommended conditions of consent to promote consistency with the existing streetscape.

 

·      The bicycle/pedestrian path should be located on the northern side of the ROC instead of the southern side.

 

Planners Comment: It is considered that the most practical side of the road for the path is on the southern side of FWD as requiring a crossing on OCR increases safety hazards.

 

 

SECTION 96 (3) & (5)

(3) In determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 79C (1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application. The matters referred to in section 79C (1) are as follows:

 

Complies

Comments

a  the provisions of:

 

 

(i)  any environmental planning instrument, and

Yes

The proposed modification will not be contrary to any provision of an EPI which applies to the land.

(ii) any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Director-General has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved), and

Yes

There are no draft instruments that have been placed on exhibition that are relevant to the land.

 

(iii) any development control plan, and

Yes

Subject to maintaining the condition requiring the sealing of the development sites frontage to Old Coast Road, it is not considered that the proposed modification is contrary to any provision of the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010.

(iiia) any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 93F, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 93F, and

Yes

No planning agreement or any draft planning agreement has been entered into under section 93F.

 

(iv) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), and

Yes

There are no relevant matters prescribed by the regulations.

(v) any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979),

Yes

It is not considered that the nature or location of the proposed development will be contrary to any of the management actions outlined within the Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Nambucca Shire Coastline.

b   the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,

Yes

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent, it is not considered that the proposal will result in any significant impacts on the natural or built environments or any adverse social or economic impacts on the locality due to its location within a predominantly disturbed location, the small extent of potential traffic generation and ability for the road network to accommodate such an increase.

c   the suitability of the site for the development,

Yes

The modification will not impact on the suitability of the site for the proposal.

d   any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations,

Yes

Submissions received have been considered earlier in this report.

e   the public interest.

Yes

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent, it is not considered that the proposed development is contrary to the public interest because it will not result in any significant impacts on the natural, social, or economic environments.

(5)Development consent of the kind referred to in Section 79B(3) is not to be modified unless the requirements of Section 79B(3)-(7) have been complied with in relation to the proposed modification as if the proposed modification were an application for development consent.

Yes

The subject site does not contain any critical habitat and it is not considered that the proposed modifications will result in the development having any significant impacts on threatened species, populations, communities or their habitats.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

·      The application was notified in accordance with Part A of the DCP.

·      Manager of Technical Services

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

Having regard to the extent of works associated with the proposed modification and location within a predominantly modified area; it is not considered that the proposal will result in any adverse environmental impacts.

 

Social

Given the expected traffic generation as a result of the proposal and the ability for FWD to accommodate the additional loading, it is not considered that the proposal will have any adverse social impacts.

 

Economic

While there will be an increase in traffic on FWD, it is not considered that it will be at a level that will adversely affect the amenity of residents. Having regard to this and the additional connectivity the link will provide residents of Kingsworth Estate, it is not considered that the proposal will have any adverse economic impacts on the locality.

 

Risk

Nil.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

Nil.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

N/A

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

N/A

 

Attachments:

1

8193/2016 - Plan of new services road

 

2

5405/2016 - Approved Plan

 

3

5404/2016 - Existing Consent

 

4

5403/2016 - Applicants Modification Request

 

5

5402/2016 - Concept Road Design

 

6

5401/2016 - Former Deposited Plans

 

7

5400/2016 - DA2014.205 Approved Plan

 

8

5399/2016 - Highway Upgrade Plans

 

9

5398/2016 - Flood Map

 

10

5397/2016 - Schedule of Conditions

 

11

5396/2016 - Public Submissions

 

12

16690/2016 - Documentation from stage 3 development consent

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Modification to Development Consent DA2014/198

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Modification to Development Consent DA2014/198

 



Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Modification to Development Consent DA2014/198

 













Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Modification to Development Consent DA2014/198

 



Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Modification to Development Consent DA2014/198

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Modification to Development Consent DA2014/198

 





Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Modification to Development Consent DA2014/198

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Modification to Development Consent DA2014/198

 





Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Modification to Development Consent DA2014/198

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Modification to Development Consent DA2014/198

 

ATTACHMENT 9 – SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THIS CONSENT

 

Development is to be in accordance with approved plans

 

1.       The development is to be implemented in accordance with the plans endorsed with the Council stamp, dated 28/9/15, and set out in the following table except where modified by any conditions of this consent.

 

Plan Title

Dwg No

Prepared by

Dated

Site Plan

DA01

De Groot & Benson

August 2015

Cul De Sac Plan

DA02

De Groot & Benson

August 2015

 

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

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

Engineering Construction Plans

 

2.       Three (3) copies of engineering construction plans and specifications must accompany the Construction Certificate application. Such plans are to provide for the works in the following table in accordance with Council’s current Design and Construction Manuals and Specifications.

 

Required work

Specification of work

Street Name Signs

Street name signs and posts to all proposed new roads. (Note: street/road names proposed for the subdivision must be submitted for Council approval 12 weeks prior to lodgement of the Subdivision Certificate application. A suitable name for any new road/s must be in accordance with Council’s adopted policy).

Full Width Road Construction

Full width road and drainage construction for all proposed roads on the approved plan, minimum 6m seal on an 8m formation.

 

Concrete dish drains are required where table drain gradients are less than 1% or more than 5%. Sealed shoulders shall extend to the table drain. Open table drains are to be turf lined and supplemented with subsoil drainage.

 

The intersection of Old Coast Road and the proposed subdivision road shall be designed in accordance with Austroads Guide to road design – Intersections.

 

Old Coast Road shall be constructed and sealed to public road standards to provide sealed frontages to each lot and a continuous bitumen sealed road to connect each lot to an existing urban area. Council acknowledges that sections of Old Coast Road heading towards Macksville will be sealed as part of the Pacific Highway bypass and is willing to accept design plans that illustrate the sealing of Old Coast Road to the end point of the highway sealing works. Sufficient documentation is required to be submitted as part of the construction certificate application.

 

A bus stop is to be provided at the entrance to the subdivision.

 

The radius of the cul-de-sac head shall be a minimum of 12 m and guide posts shall be installed around the perimeter.

 

A temporary 12m radius gravel turnaround shall be provided at the termination of each stage of road construction.

 

This development consent also authorises full width road and drainage construction connecting Florence Wilmont Drive and Old Coast Road for public use within the right of carriageway marked ‘B’ on Lot 64 DP 1167978. Such a connection shall be constructed using asphalt and installing kerb and guttering which is consistent with the existing pavement road formation within the western section of Florence Wilmont Drive.

 

The intersection of Old Coast Road and Florence Wilmont Drive shall be designed in accordance with Austroads Guide to road design – Intersections.

 

Relocation of any driveways and fencing within Lot 64 DP 1167978 is to be illustrated on the plans accompanying the construction certificate to the satisfaction of Council and is to be undertaken at the expense of the developer.

Footpath Construction

A minimum 1.2 metre wide sealed public footpath from the entrance of the development site to Florence Wilmont Drive.

The footpath is to be located on the eastern side of the Old Coast Road carriageway and is to connect to the road verge on the southern side of the existing Florence Wilmont Drive road reserve through the existing 20m wide right of carriageway located within Lot 64 DP 1167978.

If the footpath is to consist of a widened sealed shoulder of the road carriageway, it is to be delineated by line marking and guide post separation. The section of footpath within the 20m wide right of carriageway located within Lot 64 DP 1167978 must consist of a concrete footpath within the road verge.

Driveways Rural – sealed roads

Sealed driveways, in accordance with Council’s rural driveway standards, from the edge of the bitumen to 3 metres within the property boundary to each of the proposed new allotments.

 

Minimum 375 RCP and headwalls through the table drain

Service Conduits

Service conduits to each of the proposed new allotments laid in strict accordance with the service authorities’ requirements.

Estate sign and/or structure

Council will not accept ownership or responsibility for any estate sign or structure. Council will need to be satisfied that a Plan is in place that will provide for ongoing maintenance of the sign and/or structure. Council reserves the right to assess the condition of the sign or structure and also its relevance at intervals of 5 years. The Estate name will not be recognised by Council as part of a property address.

Stripping and Stockpiling

Stripping and stockpiling of existing topsoil on site, prior to commencement of earthworks, and the subsequent re-spreading of this material together with a sufficient quantity of imported topsoil so as to provide a minimum thickness of 80mm over the allotments and footpaths and public reserves, upon completion of the development works.

Culverts required across drainage channels or streams

Culvert to be designed to ensure that peak flow rates for the 1 in 10 year storm event are not affected. The applicant is to obtain any necessary approvals from the Department of Natural Resources and/or the Department of Primary Industries, Fisheries, and plans.

Stormwater Outlets

An energy dissipating pit with a suitably installed locked grated outlet to all pipes or any other drainage structures. Grates must be of galvanised weldlock construction.

Stormwater Quality

Stormwater quality must be suitable for discharge in accordance with Department of Land and Water Conservation NSW (1998) The Constructed Wetlands Manual and Landcom (March 2004), Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction.

 

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan

 

3.       The plans and specifications to accompany the Construction Certificate application are to include a sediment and erosion control plan to indicate the measures to be employed to control erosion and loss of sediment from the site. The sediment and erosion control plan is to be designed in accordance with the requirements of the Landcom (March 2004), Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction.

 

The sediment and erosion control plan must be prepared by a suitably experienced person such as a person certified by:

 

·           The Institution of Engineers, Australia, for engineering and hydrology matters.

·           The International Erosion Control Association for soil conservation matters.

·           The Australian Society of Soil Science for collection or analysis of soil data.

 

The plan must incorporate (without being limited to) information on general site management, material handling practices, soil stabilisation, water control, sediment control, wind erosion control and access measures.

 

Traffic Control Plan

 

4.       The plans and specifications to accompany the Construction Certificate application are to include a traffic control plan to indicate the measures to be employed to control traffic during construction of the subdivision. The traffic control plan is to be designed in accordance with the requirements of the Roads and Traffic Authority’s Manual (1998), Traffic Control at Work Sites, and Australian Standard 1742.3 - 1985, Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices Part 3, ‘Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads’.

 

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

 

Splay corner required

 

          5.       A 7.5m splay corner is to be dedicated to Council at no cost to Council.

 

Sewerage and Water Mains

 

6.       Engineering plans of the proposed water supply works shall be submitted for Council’s approval prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Street Tree Planting Scheme

 

7.       The plans and specifications to accompany the Construction Certificate application are to include a street tree planting scheme which has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Policy.

 

The Plan must show all services. Plants to be used in the street tree planting scheme must:

 

a        be a minimum size of 2 metres in height and have a minimum mature height of 5m.

b        have a 50mm calliper diameter,

c        be sourced from at least a 25 litre container,

d        be protected by a suitable tree guard (eg a 750mm square tree guard made from a 3m “Acacia” panel painted “Caulfield Green”),

e        be suitably supported by two 2100mm black star picket posts,

f        provided with slow release fertiliser,

g        include the provision of 125mm flexible agricultural pipe filled with 14mm blue metal for watering of the plant, and

h        be mulched with 100mm of native tree mulch.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO SUBDIVISION WORKS COMMENCING

 

Construction Certificate 

 

8.       Subdivision work the subject of this development consent MUST NOT be commenced until:

(a)  A construction certificate for the subdivision work has been issued by council or an accredited certifier, and

(b)  The person having the benefit of the development consent has appointed a principal certifying authority for the subdivision work, and

(c)  The person having the benefit of the development consent has given Council written notice, at least two days prior to work commencing on site, of the name and details of the Principal Certifying Authority and the date construction work is proposed to commence.

Section 138 Consent

 

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

 

Erosion & Sediment Measures

 

10.     Erosion and sedimentation controls are to be in place in accordance with an approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

 

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

 

Public Liability Insurance

 

11.     The developer and/or contractor must produce evidence to the Principal Certifying Authority of public liability insurance cover for a minimum of $20 million. Council is to be nominated as an interested party on the policy. The public liability insurance cover is to be maintained for the duration of the period of the works and during any maintenance period.

Erection of Signs

 

12.     A sign must be erected on site in a prominent position containing the information prescribed by Clause 98A (2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 being the name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority for the work, and name of the principal contractor for the work and telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and stating that unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited.  This sign must be maintained on site while work is being carried out and removed when the work has been completed.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH DURING CONSTRUCTION

 

Maintenance of sediment and erosion control measures

 

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

 

Inspection of Public Works

 

14.     Development works on public property are not to proceed past the following hold points without inspection and approval by Council. Notice of required inspection must be given 24 hours prior to inspection. You must quote your construction certificate number and property description to book your inspection.

 

i         prior to commencement of site clearing and installation of erosion control facilities;

j         at completion of installation of erosion control measures;

k        at completion of installation of traffic management works;

l         at the commencement of earthworks;

m       before commencement of any filling works;

n        when the sub-grade is exposed and prior to placing of pavement materials;

o        when trenches are open, stormwater/water pipes and conduits jointed and prior to backfilling;

p        at the completion of each pavement (sub base/base) layer;

q        before pouring of concrete for kerb and guttering;

r         prior to the pouring of concrete for sewerage works;

s        on completion of road gravelling or pavement;

t         during construction of water infrastructure;

u        prior to sealing and laying of pavement surface course.

 

All works at each hold point are to be certified as compliant, in accordance with Council’s current Design and Construction Manuals and Specifications, prior to proceeding to the next hold point. Council will undertake random audits of work sites to verify compliance of public works as required.

 

Construction times

 

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

 

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

b        Saturday, from 8.00 am to 1.00 pm.

 

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

 

Builders rubbish to be contained on site

 

16.     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.

 

An ecological consultant must supervise works

 

17.     A suitably qualified and experienced ecological consultant must inspect all native trees that have been approved for removal before they are felled. If there are any koala or other fauna species in the tree, work in the vicinity is to cease until the animal has moved from the area. If it is likely that hollows are providing habitat for native species, traps are to be set for several nights and any native species found must be relocated to an appropriate nearby location.

 

Standards for demolition work

 

18.     All demolition works are to be undertaken in accordance with the provision of Australian Standard AS 2601-2001 “The Demolition of Structures”.

 

 

 

 

Discovery of a Relic

 

19.     The development is to proceed with caution. If any Aboriginal objects are found, works are to stop and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) notified. If human remains are found work is to stop, the site is to be secured and the NSW Police and OEH are to be notified.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

 

Plan of Subdivision

 

20.     An application for a Subdivision Certificate must be made on the approved form. The Subdivision Certificate fees, in accordance with Council's adopted schedule of fees and charges, must accompany such application. Three (3) copies of the plan of subdivision are to be submitted with the application for a subdivision certificate. The location of all buildings and/or other permanent improvements including fences and internal access driveways/roads must be indicated on 1 of the copies.

 

Plan of Subdivision and Section 88B Instrument Requirements

 

21.     The final plan of subdivision and an instrument prepared under section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 are to provide for the items listed in the following table. Nambucca Shire Council shall be nominated as the sole party with the power to vary or remove the required covenants.

 

Item for inclusion in Plan of Subdivision and/or Section 88B Instrument

Details of Item

Dedicated Public Road Access

Dedication of suitable public road accesses to all proposed allotments.

Dedicated Corner Splays

Dedication of 7.5m corner splays at all street junctions and intersections.

Dedication of Right of Carriageway as Public Road

The existing 20m wide right of carriage way noted as ‘B’ on Lot 64 DP 1167978 is to be dedicated to Council as a public road.

Note: This requirement is subject to obtaining final owners consent from the owners of Lot 64 DP 1167978.

Dwelling Envelope

Restrictions to limit the erection of dwellings to the nominated dwelling envelopes. The dwelling envelopes on lots 1 and 26 are to be located at least 21m from the north-western boundary for compliance with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

Drainage Easements

The creation of easements for drainage of water over all drainage pipelines and structures located within the proposed allotments in accordance with Council’s policy.

Right of Carriageway

The creation of a right of carriageway for emergency access from the proposed road over adjoining  Lot 101 DP 755550 as identified in Figure 2, titled ‘Proposed Emergency Access’, prepared by Clarke Dowdle & Associates and shall be in favour of proposed Lots 1 to 26. The right of carriageway shall extend over the access handle of lot 25. 

Right of Carriageway

In order to provide access for all allotments to the adjoining public open space, provide a right of carriageway 5m wide, or of such width as approved by Council, over proposed Lot 8 or 9 to benefit the owners of Lot 40 DP 711098 (Council). The right of carriageway is to extend from the proposed road to the boundary of Lot 40 DP 711098.

Boundary Adjustment

The boundary between proposed Lot 9 and Lot 40 DP 711098 is to be adjusted to ensure that a 1.5m access way between the dam and the allotment boundary is available for public access within the adjoining reserve. A survey plan demonstrating compliance with this condition is to be submitted to Council prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate.

Asset Protection Zone

A restriction on the land shall be placed on all lots shown on the approved plan, burdening them with the provision of an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) for future dwellings that fall outside their boundaries.

The restriction is to be worded to benefit adjoining allotments and enable future dwellings on them to obtain a bushfire attack level of at least BAL 29. These APZs shall be maintained by the owners of those lots benefited as outlined within Section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 and the NSW Rural Fire Services document Standards for Asset Protection Zones. This restriction can be extinguished upon commencement of any future proposed residential development on the adjacent lots but only if the hazard is completely removed during the course of undertaking approved works.

Hazard Reduction

A restriction to the land use pursuant to section 88B of the 'Conveyancing Act 1919' shall be placed on proposed Lots 1 to 25 and land within 60m of the dwelling envelope on Lot 26 which specifies that the proposed lots cannot be sold until they are hazard reduced with vegetation managed as an outer protection area (OPA) as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones'.

Easement for Services

Where necessary, the creation of suitable easements for services.

 

Lot Sizes

 

22.     All lots are to be no less than 1ha in area. Lot 26 is to have a minimum of 1ha of R5 Large Lot Residential zoned land and all land within the parent lot zoned RU2 Rural Landscape.

 

Completion of All Works

 

23.     All works required by this development consent and associated Construction Certificate (excluding the extension of reticulated water) are to be completed prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate.

          In the event that the proposed allotments are released in stages, each lot being released must have sealed access to an urban area as required by this consent and frontage to a sealed road, with temporary turning heads provided where necessary. Relevant services are to be provided to each lot being released.

         

Notwithstanding the above, this development consent permits Council to approve a subdivision certificate for the release of no more than 1 additional lot (either lot 1 or 26) on the approved plan without the required sealing, intersection, or footpath works being undertaken. This provision is subject to the applicant paying Council a $100,000 bond for future extensions to the Old Coast Road bitumen seal and providing a dual entrance off Old Coast Road designed in accordance with Councils engineering standards to service the two allotments (either lot 1 or 26 and residue lot).

          Note: Should subdivision works be physically commenced, the bond figure is subject to review by Council after five years from the date of this consent.

 

Erection of Street Signs

 

24.     Street signs are to be erected showing the approved street name in accordance with this development consent and the Construction Certificate approval.

 

 

 

Rural House Numbering

 

25.     Prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate, apply for and obtain a rural address number for each lot from Council.

 

Redundant Infrastructure

 

26.     Any irrigation pipes or redundant electricity wires within the road reserve to be dedicated to Council are to be removed.

 

Certificates for Engineering Works

 

27.     The submission of all test certificates, owners manuals, warranties and operating instructions for civil works, mechanical and/or electrical plant, together with a certificate from a suitably qualified engineer certifying that all works have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and Council’s Adopted Engineering Standard.

 

Works-As-Executed Plans

 

28.     Works-as-executed plans, certified by a suitably qualified engineer or a registered surveyor, are to be submitted with the application for a subdivision certificate. Where the design is carried out utilising computer aided design CAD, all cad computer files are required to be provided on CD (Compact Disc) with the final drawings. The CAD files must include all lot and road boundaries, lot numbers and easements. The data is to be supplied in accordance with the requirements of Council’s GIS Officer.

 

Certificate for Pipes, Access Driveways, etc. Within Easements

 

29.     A certificate from a registered surveyor is to be submitted to Council certifying that all pipelines, structures, access driveways and/or services are located wholly within the relevant easements/road reserve.

 

Maintenance Bond

 

30.     A maintenance bond of 10% of the value of the works constructed is to be lodged with Council. A copy of the contract construction cost of the subdivision works is to be submitted with the bond. The maintenance period is 12 months and will commence from the date of issue of the final Compliance Certificate. The security may be provided, at the applicant's choice, by way of cash bond or a satisfactory bank guarantee. An application in writing for the release of the bond must be made at the satisfactory completion of the maintenance period.

 

Record of Infrastructure

 

31.     A record of infrastructure coming into Council ownership, upon registration of the final plan of subdivision, is to be submitted to Council.

 

Bushfire Protection

 

32.     In accordance with Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the following conditions are required to be consistent with the General Terms of Approval issued by the Rural Fire Service under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997:

(a)    Asset Protection Zones

A restriction to the land use pursuant to section 88B of the 'Conveyancing Act 1919' shall be placed on proposed Lots 1 to 25 and land within 60m of the dwelling envelope on Lot 26 which specifies that the proposed lots cannot be sold until they are hazard reduced with vegetation managed as an outer protection area (OPA) as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones'.

(b)   Water and Utilities

Water and electricity are to comply with Section 4.1.3 of ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006’.

(c)    Access

i.    Public road access shall comply with Section 4.1.3 (1) of ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006’. A temporary turning circle is to be incorporated as part of any staging of the release of allotments.

ii.    The proposed emergency access road on adjoining Lot 101 DP 755550 as identified in Figure 2, titled ‘Proposed Emergency Access’, prepared by Clarke Dowdle & Associates shall:

·      Be pursuant to section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 and in favour of proposed Lots 1 to 26.

·      Be constructed in accordance with Section 4.1.3 (2) of ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006’.

 

 

Electricity Supply Certificate

 

33.     Written evidence from an electricity supply authority is to be submitted with the application for a subdivision certificate stating that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the provision of underground electricity supply throughout the subdivision.

 

Telephone Supply Certificate

 

34.     Written evidence from Telstra is to be submitted with the application for a subdivision certificate stating that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the provision of underground telephone supply throughout the subdivision.

 

Section 94 Contributions

 

35.     Contributions set out in the following schedule are to be paid to Council prior to the release of the subdivision certificate. The following contributions are current at the date of this consent. The contributions payable will be adjusted in accordance with the relevant plan and the amount payable will be calculated on the basis of the contribution rates that are applicable at the time of payment.

 

Schedule of Contributions pursuant to Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

Public amenity or service

Unit type

No of Units

Contribution Rate (Amount per Unit)

Contribution Levied

Date until which Contribution rate is applicable

Community Facilities and Open Space

Lot

25

$1,956

$48,900

June 2015

Surf Life Saving Equipment

Lot

25

$110

$2,750

June 2015

Section 94 Administration Charge

10 % of above contributions

$206.60

$5,165

June 2015

TOTAL

$2,272.60

$56,815.00

June 2015

 

 

REASONS FOR CONDITIONS

 

·      To ensure that the proposed development:

(a)      achieves the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment  Act 1979;

(b)      complies with the provisions of all relevant Environmental Planning Instruments;

(c)      is consistent with the aims and objectives of Council’s Development Control Plans, Codes and Policies.

 

·      To meet the increased demand for public amenities and services attributable to the development in accordance with Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

·      To ensure the protection of the amenity and character of land adjoining and in the locality of the proposed development.

 

·      To minimise any potential adverse environmental, social or economic impacts of the proposed development.

 

·      To ensure that all traffic, car parking and access requirements arising from the development are addressed.

 

·      To ensure the development does not conflict with the public interest.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Modification to Development Consent DA2014/198

 


























































Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Modification to Development Consent DA2014/198

 










Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     26 May 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.6      SF2222            260516         Draft North Coast Regional Plan - Review and Submission

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Grant Nelson, Coordinator Strategic Planning & Natural Resources         

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the option to make a submission to the Department of Planning and Environment’s Draft North Coast Regional Plan. A review of the Plan has been undertaken and Council staff can proceed to develop a submission based on the matters identified in this report.

 

To assist in the preparation of the Council’s submission to the draft plan, community representatives interested in the content of the plan were encouraged to provide Council with a copy of their own submissions to the Department or issues they are concerned about.

 

Submissions are due to the Department on 2 June 2016.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council make a submission to the Minister of Planning and Environment in respect to the Draft North Coast Regional Plan based on the ‘Overview and Key Issues’ section of this report.

 

2        That each of the submissions made to Council from the community be included as attachments to Councils submission.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may choose to add, amend or remove items for inclusion into the submission in respect to the Draft North Coast Regional Plan.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Background

 

The Department of Planning & Environment has placed the Draft North Coast Regional Plan on exhibition and have invited submissions to the plan. The exhibition commenced on 2 March 2016 and closes 2 June 2016.  The following is extracted from the Department’s “Have Your Say” section of its website.

 

“Plan on exhibition

We are seeking feedback on the Draft North Coast Regional Plan, which outlines a 20 year vision for the future, centred on a prosperous community, healthy environment and attractive lifestyle choices.

 

The draft plan outlines goals for the region including:

o    To protect the environment, as well as Aboriginal and historic heritage, and productive farmland

o    To provide great places to live in vibrant communities by offering housing choices in the three regional cities 

o    To provide housing to meet the changing demographic needs of the North Coast's communities 

o    To create a prosperous economy by focusing the provision of job opportunities in the growing sectors of health, education and tourism

o    To improve transport connectivity and freight networks

 

We want to know what you think about the vision, goals and actions outlined in the draft Plan.

 

For the purposes of this report it is assumed Council has some understanding of the content and purpose of the report. Broadly, the plan has been developed under the five (5) core goals being:

 

GOAL 1:      A natural environment, and Aboriginal and historic heritage that is protected, and landscapes that are productive

GOAL 2:      Focus growth opportunities to create a great place to live and work

GOAL 3:      Housing choice, with homes that meet the needs of changing communities

GOAL 4:      A prosperous economy with services and infrastructure

GOAL 5:      Improved transport connectivity and freight networks

 

For further information Council may view the entire draft plan at the following link:

 

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Plans-for-Your-Area/Regional-Plans/North-Coast

 

Councillors may also make their own submission to the plan through the links available at this website.

 

At its meeting at the Valla Community Hall on 14 April 2016 Council was greeted with an impressive representation from the community. Residents expressed concerns in respect to various parts of the plan. Some matters presented in the plan received a significant amount of attention through various forms of media, with particular concern highlighted in respect to the area identified as potential mineral resource within the draft plan.

 

At this meeting it was resolved that the community be provided with the opportunity to meet with Council staff to present their views on certain matters and also make Council aware of their concerns by providing Council with copies of their submissions to the Department.

 

Council staff arranged a meeting with interested community representatives on Monday 2 May at the Council Chambers. At this meeting staff explained the general relationship between the Draft Document and Council activities, and community representatives were provided the opportunity to comment or present their key concerns.

 

A number of other meetings have been held within the community since this time including a forum held by the Environmental Defender’s Office at Valla Beach Hall.

 

Draft North Coast Regional Plan and Council functions

 

The Draft North Coast Regional Plan is essentially a review or an update of the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy and Far North Coast Regional Strategy which have been in operation since 2009.

 

For Local Government the plan is referred to or implemented when preparing Local Growth Strategies or undertaking amendments to Local Environmental Plans.

 

When amending a Local Environmental Plan a Council must give consideration to the Minister’s Section 117 Directions issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Direction No 5.1 indicates that Council must give consideration to the implementation of Regional Strategies when preparing a Local Environmental Plan. At present this is in the form of the Mid North Coast Regional Plan, which will be replaced by the North Coast Regional Plan if adopted.

 

From time to time Council may also refer to state government strategies or plans to support grant or funding opportunities which may arise.

 

Submissions from the Community

 

Council received copies of 10 submissions from the public with respect to the draft plan. Each submission has been reviewed and is included in full within Attachment 1 to this report. Some key issues raised in the submissions are summarised below and comments are provided as necessary.

 


General Comments

 

·           The draft plan has a broad scope, and tends to generalise. A one size fits all approach across 13 Councils is inappropriate.

·           Governance of the plan is dependent upon a committee process that allows limited input from local Councils removing the most informed connection between the needs or ratepayers and state level governance.

·           The vision of the plan has some merit, however it is not supported by the content of the document. The green and clean vision ideals presented for the north coast region is why many people move to and build stability in the area. To then underpin the document with plans of mineral expansion, industrial development and housing expanse displays lack of planning.

 

Aboriginal and cultural matters

 

·           The Valla Urban Growth Area does not adequately manage Aboriginal Heritage. The proposed Valla Growth area should follow Goal 2 Direction 2.3 of the draft plan and be directed towards the least sensitive and constrained areas to protect natural assets.

Planning Comment:

In respect to this item it is noted that a heritage investigation was undertaken over the Valla Urban Growth Area during the preparation of the Local Environmental Plan. Representatives of the Nambucca Local Aboriginal Lands Council were engaged to participate in the surveys undertaken on the land during investigations. Recommendations within the heritage investigation were incorporated into the LEP and as necessary will be addressed in preparation of the development controls or development assessment.

 

·           The Valla area is a very important place in Aboriginal Culture. Direction 1.1 should be a priority and conducted in consultation with the local land Councils.

·           Concerns are expressed in relation to the average life expectancy of indigenous people in the region and proposed changes to the retirement age in Australia. The closing the gap report recommends retirement age for indigenous Australians be lowered to 55. If this was not to occur the draft plan leans to a vision that does not include aboriginal people.

·           Large areas of land, river and ocean, should be made accessible so aboriginal people can enact their traditional economic of health and well-being as well as custodianship on Country.

·           Many aboriginal people will remain in the local area, but will not participate in industry that destroys culture or country, so industry such as mining instantly marginalises aboriginal people.

·           Environmental mapping does not integrate with the cultural significance of areas and species of value to aboriginal people. More so in the marine coastal environment, the plan does not include the significance of estuaries, shoreline and oceanic features to aboriginal people. It is recommended that a comprehensive mapping exercise be undertaken in consultation with aboriginal communities to provide and understand these landscapes.

·           Non-inclusion of aboriginal representation on the coordination and monitoring committee could be deemed as another case of institutional racism. It is widely recognised that the aboriginal community has a right to manage or contribute to the management of land and resources.

·           It is unclear what the plans mean by the adaptive or sympathetic use of heritage items being promoted and available. What if a site contains skeletal remains or is a gender specific site?

 

Mining implications

 

·           The designation of the Valla area as a Potential Mineral Resource overlooks the real value of what currently exists in Valla. The real value is the primary production including macadamia nuts, mangoes, avocadoes, beans and cattle. Many of these industries are certified organic and hence sustainable. Extractive industries cannot be described as sustainable.

·           Mining conflicts with Council plans for the Valla Urban Growth Area on the eastern side of Mount England.

·           Mining is incompatible with goal 1 of the plan to protect productive farmland.

·           Methods used to mine the potential resources at Valla present unacceptable risk to waterways and conflict with Direction 1.3 (safeguard aquatic habitats and water catchments).

·           Small Rural Residential blocks in Valla have potential to contribute to multifaceted enterprises. Many people prefer the rural lifestyle to urban environments and enabling complementary activities such as accommodation, produce stalls, cafes, garden tours and rural education contribute to a dynamic social and economic community.

·           The macadamia nut industry is a significant contributor to local employment and has an estimated income value of $2.5 Million.  The industry is also estimated to contribute $8 million to the local economy. The allocation of mining licenses and designation of potential mining areas in a regional strategy can hinder investment in rural industries at Valla and does not protect these productive rural landscapes. It may also lead to the closure of the Nambucca Macnuts Co-operative due to lose of trade due to lack of throughput from affected farms.

·           Closure of the Macnuts facility would lead to greater transport costs and loss of service to the local food and retail industries.

·           The macadamia industry is supported by shared income from other professionals who are often partners in the property including teachers, nurses, accountants, barristers, government employees, engineers. Many of these positions in the community would be lost.

·           Rural industries such as the macadamia nut industry are more sensitive to the environment than extractive industries.

·           Mining or quarrying expansion comes at the cost of opportunities for investment in other complementary rural industries such as tourist and visitor accommodation.

·           Opportunity costs from mining will remove opportunities presented by other industries such as the NBN and the Pacific Highway upgrade.

·           There are no economic reasons why mining should be prioritised over other local industries – the destruction of the environment associated with mining is not good for the local economy.

·           Expansions of the Valla Quarry for future growth needs of Coffs Harbour represents poorly applied town planning principles – loss of amenity, conflicting land uses and many residents located in the transition area. Resources to support Coffs Harbour would be better placed closer to Coffs Harbour.

·           Historically the Valla Quarry represents poor planning and has resulted in land use conflicts. Valla Quarry would not be allowed to happen if a DA was applied for today because it fails to meet the planning principles of today’s standards; any expansion of Valla Quarry would be immoral and Council should seek to guard its reputation for making appropriate and considerate planning decisions.  We do not want any expansion to the existing quarry.

·           Action 4.4.2 encouraging well located employment land with suitable buffers to minimise land use conflict is supported.

·           The development of mining at Valla would conflict with tourism goals and actions of the draft plan.

·           Valla should not be designated as a Potential Mineral Resource. The designation should be removed so that existing and future residents can feel confident that mining will not adversely impact upon their future.  Residents need security in the Plan and should not be held hostage to long-running exploration licences.

·           No mining is sustainable.

·           What constitutes regionally significant farmland – There are many areas of active farmland on this map and many areas of surrounding land that are not mapped as such. This is misleading for planners and the community.

 

Provision of Employment Lands

 

·           The employment lands at the Valla Urban Growth needs to be better placed to avoid the replication of the poor appearance to the entrance to Nambucca (Newville).

 

Planning comment:

This feedback is noted - Ideally the Valla Urban Growth Area would have separate traffic access for industrial traffic and residential traffic. This will be a consideration in the preparation of a Development Control Plan for the area as will the general amenity and appearance of area through urban design.

 

General Amenity

 

·           The beautiful natural assets of our Valley and Coastline must be preserved to ensure continued health of the environment and hence the attraction of many visitors.

 

Protection of waterways, biodiversity and promotion of sustainable principle

 

·           Protection of the local waterway (Deep Creek) is critical to safeguarding productive farmland and the flora and fauna of the Valla area; Any potential threat to the health of the waterways needs to be taken seriously be it from mining, forestry, acid sulphate soils or farm run-off.

·           Existing conservation areas are not sufficient protection for such a highly biodiverse area. Many small isolated areas are refuges or corridors and hold high cultural values and significance.

·           Areas should encourage green-based energy in housing, infrastructure and commercial properties.

·           Develop renewable and reused materials industries.

·           Develop models for development using recycled, repurposed and sustainable materials. Work with local government to develop these models.

·           Encourage new and sustainable industries, for example, industrial estates with solar power and wind generation.

·           Move to renewable resources and provide incentives for this type of innovation.

·           Address climate change resilience issues.

 

Developing a prosperous Economy

 

·           Endorse Direction 4.1 - expanding the tourism sector - and action 4.1.1 - facilitate nature based events, and cultural tourism sectors. Tourism creates a significant opportunity for employment and income for local residents. The development of an aboriginal nature/culture tourism section would further enhance our tourism economy;

·           Endorse plans to develop health and education precincts in Coffs Harbour and to plan for well-located employment land with suitable buffers along the highway at Valla.

 

Additional Growth Areas

 

·           The Urban growth area maps associated with the Draft North Coast Regional Plan be amended to include additional Urban Land in the Rural Village Area of Eungai Creek;

Planning Comment:

Staff have had limited opportunity to investigate this proposal, however it is proposed that the North Coast Plan include provisions that allow Councils to examine these types of requests for extensions to existing urban areas or employment land on their merit and in a local context without the requirement for them to be included in a local growth management strategy or identified as an agreed growth area.

 

·           The Urban growth area maps associated with the Draft North Coast Regional Plan be amended to include 10HA of additional Urban Land at Lot 1046 DP826440 14 Harriman’s Lane Macksville.

Planning Comment:

Based on a preliminary review this request is not supported for the following reasons: it would be expanding on existing conflicting landuses which arise between residential development in the area and the adjoining industrial zoned land; the land is unsuitably located between the North Coast Rail and flooding associated with Warrell Creek. There is more suitably located and appropriately zoned urban land elsewhere in Macksville. 

 

 

·           The Urban growth area maps associated with the Draft North Coast Regional Plan be amended to include 10HA of additional employment Land at Lot 121 DP755539 Macksville Industrial Estate.

Planning Comment:

The area immediately adjoins an existing industrial areas surrounding by rural zoned land and may provide a feasible/ logical extension to the existing industrial area at Macksville should it avoid flooding and environmentally sensitive land. However, staff have had limited opportunity to investigate this proposal. It is proposed that the North Coast Plan include provisions that allow Councils to examine these types of requests for extensions to existing urban areas or employment land on their merit and in a local context without the requirement for them to be included in a local growth management strategy or identified as an agreed growth area.

 

As appropriate the matters raised by the community will be included in the content for submission section of this report. Council will note that some matters may not be included below due to their relationship with other processes such as development or regulatory control.

 

Overview and Key Issues for inclusion in submission

 

The following items are proposed for inclusion in the submission to the Department.

 

Preliminaries, governance and delivery of the Plan

 

·           The vision of the plan has merit and aims for sustainable future for the region however the content of the of the document often lacks consideration to environmental, cultural attributes and misplaces economic values of existing industries such as agriculture and tourism with unknown and less  sustainable and more intrusive industry such the potential for mining.

·           The draft plan indicates that there will a Committee overseeing the delivery of the plan, which include representatives from various state government agencies and include two (2) representatives from local government. The lack of local government representation on the committee is of concern given that many of the actions are identified for Council implementation. Discussion with Department representatives indicates that the local government representatives may be rotated on an annual basis.  Further to this the committee appears to lack representation from the aboriginal community as identified in comments from the Nambucca Local Aboriginal Lands Council and the Gumma Indigenous Protected Area (see attached).

·           The draft plan identifies various actions through the plan and the implementation of these actions is often written in one of the following formats:

 

the state government will

 

       Require Councils to…

       Assist Councils to…

       Work with Councils to…

 

The expectation of these requirements is not clearly defined in the document. What assistance will be required, how will the state government work with Council or other landholders to implement actions and what resources will Councils be required to allocate to implement these action?. The implementation of any such action will require clarification in the draft plan. The plan should also indicate what context the plan will require these actions to be implemented. At present Councils typically only refer to the draft plan through the Minister’s Section 117 Directions when preparing a Local Environmental Plan.

·           It is proposed that an annual report identifying funding priorities will be presented by the coordinating committee. What funding is being prioritised, what agencies will be providing the funding and it is assumed there will be little on offer for the non-regional cities.

·           How will the draft plan provide for infrastructure delivery? The Mid North Coast Regional Strategy was finalised in 2009 with a number of recommendations, but lacks resource allocation to implement actions particularly in relation to the delivery of the Agreed Growth Areas. What funding is being provided to support the delivery of actions in the plan, particularly the priority infrastructure?

 

GOAL 1 –    A natural environment, and Aboriginal and historic heritage that is protected, and landscapes that are productive

 

·           Direction 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4  Protect the environment, aboriginal and historic heritage, aquatic habitats climate change adaptation is generally support by Council, some recommendations in respect to these directions are presented below. However, concern is expressed at the lack of relationship between these directions and Direction 1.5 Deliver Economic growth through sustainable use of and access to mineral and energy resources which includes significant extents of unconstrained mapped potential resources areas – further comment in respect this matter is provided in the below points.

·           Action 1.1.2 Identify and Map areas of potential high environmental value and Aboriginal and historic heritage in proposed urban and employment land – This action is supported however the state government should consult with local Council and local aboriginal community as this process commences.

·           Mapping to recognise significant cultural landscapes, sites, areas through consultation with the local aboriginal community is supported. 

·           The Gumbaynggirr people have been recognised as the tradditional owners of land in the Nambucca Shire under the Native Title Act 2003. The Department should be aware of this and undertake appropriate consultation with the traditional owners as required under the Native Title Act.

·           Preparation of policies or controls for the purpose of adaptive or  sympathetic re-use of heritage items should include consultation with local aboriginal communities.

·           Biosecurity and Buffers – The plan identifies risks associated with the interface between urban, rural and natural areas, and associated potential health or environmental issues. It is unclear what this means for existing issues. For instance, local government is often responsible for the management of biosecurity issues but often lacks the resources or expertise to respond to issues. At present Nambucca Shire has 2-3 flying fox camps adjoining urban areas and is also addressing poor water quality arising from a waterbird colony in an urban area. Both these issues are entrenched in legislative requirements.  How is the state government proposing to work with Councils in respect to these matters?

·           The Mid North Coast Farmland Mapping Project is implemented through the Minister’s Section 117 Directions during preparation of a Local Environmental Plan. The mapping was prepared largely based on soil type and often follows major watercourses. The relevance of this mapping is questioned in respect to actual agricultural enterprise.  It is clear from comments made to Council (attached) that parts of the community are also questioning the relevance of this mapping. The Nambucca LGA has a number of successful rural industries not accurately represented by the farmland mapping. The Macadamia Nut industry in Nambucca is estimated to contribute approximately $8 million to the local economy, as well as contributing significantly to employment and other local industries and services. It is assumed other Councils with trending rural industries would question the applicability of the farmland mapping to what is actually happening on-ground. It is suggested that the farmland mapping be removed as an applicable layer for consideration during the LEP process and replaced with more generalised considerations to rural land capability. Alternatively the suggested review of the mapping should be more inclusive of other attributes which are more holistically representative of rural industries in the shire.

·           The draft plan lacks reference to existing strategic plans and strategies already developed by Council and being implemented. For instance the following plans and strategies are successfully being implemented by Nambucca Shire Council and the regional plan should support their implementation through various funding regimes:

 

-      Nambucca River Estuary Management plan

-      Nambucca Coastline Coastal Zone Management Plan

-      The Deep Creek Entrance Management Policy

-      The Nambucca River River Masterplan

-      The Nambucca Climate Change Adaptation Strategy

-      The Nambucca Local Growth Management Strategy - Employment Land

-      The Nambucca Local Growth Management Strategy – Rural Residential Land

-      Flood Risk Management Study and Plans.

 

Where these types of plans are in place the draft plan should acknowledge their importance and commit resources to their implementation or if necessary review or assist councils to address any gaps.

 

·           Action 1.5.1 Facilitate investment in the resources and energy sector.  This action and the associated Figure 7 of the draft plan generated significant interest and concern from the local community, particularly the Valla community.

 

Figure 7 shows a significant area of land cross hatched as Potential Mineral Resource (see below).

 

 

It is understood that the hatched area is taken from the NSW Government’s Mineral Resource Audit. For the planning purposes, when preparing a LEP, Council is required to refer any draft LEP that corresponds with area identified in the Mineral Resource Audit to the Department of Industry and Investment for comment in accordance with relevant Section 117 Directions, regardless of the audits appearance in a regional strategy. The Mid North Coast Regional Strategy (2009) did not identify this mapping on any diagrams included within the document which has been implemented by Councils and the Department of Planning and Environment for several years. It is unnecessary to illustrate the NSW Mineral Resource Audit in the North Coast Regional Plan as it referred to by relevant Section 117 Directions.

 

It is recognised that this mineral audit mapping has been available for some time and was recently updated in 2015, nevertheless the mapping shows a number of inaccuracies and conflicts with other state government resources. To embrace the sustainability vision the state holds for the north coast area, the audit should be further reviewed and updated to acknowledge other significant attributes of the landscape and ensure appropriate separation to these areas. The Audit should make reference to the following government identified attributes of the landscape:

 

-      State Government Conservation Reserves and Forestry Lands

-      Federally recognised conservation reserves or cultural lands including but not limited to the Gumma Indigenous Protected Area

-      State Environmental Planning Policies no. 14, 26 and 71;

-      Existing Urban and Future Growth Areas

-      Nambucca LEP non-rural zones including both short term and long term identified Rural Residential Land (Local Growth Management Strategy – Rural Residential Land)

-      Regionally significant Farmland and draft Frost Free Horticultural Land

-      Recently Mapped potential Koala habitat

-      Potential Threatened Ecological Communities (both the TSC Act and EPBC Act considerations)

-      Potential High Ecological Value Mapping

-      Biophysical Mapping

-      Cultural Landscapes, items and places of significance.

 

In summary, the mineral resource audit maps create an unrealistic expectation for the mining industry and also create uncertainty for the community and investment in the area, such as identified rural-residential development, rural tourism, agricultural pursuits and also land value.  The following recommendations are made in respect to this item:

 

Potential Mineral Resources be removed from Figure 7 of the Draft North Coast Plan; and

The Department of Planning and Environment and the Department of industry and Investment be requested to review the Mineral Resource Audit as it applies to the Nambucca Shire and relevant 117 Directions. The review should include appropriate consideration of land tenure; landuse planning; environmental and cultural attributes of the landscape. This review should be undertaken with appropriate consultation with the community and representatives from relative state agencies. It is anticipated that such a review would assist the Draft North Coast Plan meet its vision for a sustainable future for the region.

 

GOAL 2 – Focus growth opportunities to create a great place to live and work

 

·           The draft plan has considerable focus on the regional cities being Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie and Tweed. The actions presented from Page 35 – 45 are largely only directed to regional cities. The trends in growth in the regional cities are acknowledged as are the higher level services provided by these localities and target for expansion such as health and education precincts. However, many of the smaller towns and villages will often be the place of residence for persons working in the regional cities and there will be greater pressure and demand on these areas as the Pacific Highway nears completion. The plan should have a more balanced and regionally strategic view on the integration between the regional cities and surrounding towns and villages. Should the draft plan be finalised in its present form it is anticipated that the regional cities would be the focus of funding opportunities. A more balanced approach to the regional plan is recommended and this should be reflected within it goals and actions for various themes from infrastructure provision and servicing to liveability and Urban Design. As an example Goal 2 ‘Focus growth opportunities to create great places to live and work’ – Action 2.4.2 indicates that the NSW government will work with Council to implement programs that improve walking and cycling in Regional Cities. The importance of safe cycling and walking in other towns and villages is just as relevant to liveability in the region. 

·           Action 2.3.1 Focus future growth in the mapped urban growth areas – Councils previously identified growth areas are included in the draft plan and this is supported (refer to figure 34). The variation principles to the agreed growth areas have more flexibility than previous requirements. Council would also like the flexibility to undertake appropriate LEP amendments in the absence of an approved growth management strategy should the requirement arise. Council has received a number of submissions to the draft North Coast Regional Plan requesting that consideration be given to various rezonings and extensions to existing urban areas. Councils should have the ability to review these requests on their merit and in a local context.

·           As previously indicated, improvements to the public domain should not be limited to regional cities. Improved amenity and function of open spaces and the public domain are strategies generally accepted to assist smaller towns and villages to address economic change such as the highway bypass of Towns as well promote the general health and wellbeing of residents;

·           Action 2.4.2 Encourage healthy living by increasing options for public transport, walking and cycling  - The importance of connected communities is well documented and Nambucca Shire Council has prepared Cycleway Plans and Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plans to give direction to future works of this type. However pedestrian and cycleway paths are not considered to be priority assets and Council often relies on funding assistance to implement many of these types of these planned programs. The draft plan is likely to favour larger more resourced cities for external funding.

·           Action 2.4.3 Review the North Coast Urban Design Guidelines - the draft indicates that the state government will review the North Coast Urban Design Guidelines. The value of any such review is questionable. This document has no statutory standing and is rarely referred to by local government. Resources allocated to such a review would more suitably allocated to place based design investigations referred to under Action 2.4.1 - Support Council-led precinct planning.

·           Action 2.4.1 Support Council-led precinct planning is supported by Council. Council’s Local Growth Management Strategy – Employment Lands endorsed by the Minister of Planning provided strategies to mitigate the impacts of the highway bypass. Based on these strategies, Council has in progress urban design revitalisation plans for Macksville; proposed LEP amendments aimed consolidating commercial activity to the town centres and a number of other initiatives. Council would be interested to know what assistance may be provided to support the implementation of these strategies and prepare for impending highway bypass. Council is also interested to know what support is available for other precinct planning such preparation of Development Control Plans and LEP refinements for our growth areas including the Valla Urban Growth Area.

 

GOAL 3 – Housing choice, with homes that meet the needs of changing communities

 

Action 3.1.2 Accelerate the supply of proposed urban land to meet the demand in high growth areas – Council supports the identification of the Valla Urban Growth Area in Appendix A Infrastructure Investigation Locations for priority land release areas. It is notable that the Valla Growth Areas is the only listed area between Port Macquarie and Clarence Valley. It is also noted that the 800 potential no. of lots identified in the plan only relates the recently zoned stage 1 area. The total additional potential lot yield of the Valla Growth Areas is estimated at approximately 1500 providing a total of 2300 additional lots subject investigations.

 

Action 3.2.2 Work with aboriginal land councils to conduct strategic assessment of their landholdings to identify priority sites for further investigations of their economic opportunities – Council is supportive of this action should the local land councils be agreeable. The department should identify what type of assistance will be provided to support this action.

 

GOAL 4 – A prosperous economy with services and infrastructure

 

Action 4.5.1 Plan for future retail and commercial needs – Council supports the principles outlined in this section including, enhance the value of the public domain. This action indicates that the NSW Government will work with Councils to focus retail activity in existing commercial centre. Council has resolved to support in principle LEP amendments to do just this, in preparation for the impending highway bypass. Council is interested to know what assistance will be provided to support the amendments.

 

Endorse Direction 4.1 - expanding the tourism sector - and action 4.1.1 - facilitate nature based events, and cultural tourism sectors. Tourism creates a significant opportunity for employment and income for local residents. The development of an aboriginal nature/culture tourism sector would further enhance our tourism economy.

 

As expressed by the Nambucca Local Aboriginal Lands Council many aboriginal people will remain in the local area but not participate in industries that destroys culture or country, as such industries such as mining would marginalise aboriginal people. Industries promoted within Action 4.1.1 would provide greater opportunities for employment within the local aboriginal community which is supported by Council.

 

Within our region there is expanding local food and produce industry, providing sustainable and healthy living outcomes for communities. There is little information provided in the regional strategy that supports these types of industries. It is suggested the Department consultant with the numerous local food networks present in the region to determine what actions and directions may be available to support these industries. Other sustainable industries should also be promoted.

 

GOAL 5 – Improved transport connectivity and freight networks

 

Action 5.1.2 Designate highway service centres along the Pacific Highway – Council supports the identification of the Nambucca Heads interchange as a location for a Service Centre.

 

Action 5.1.5 identify freight transport facilities along the Pacific Highway – Council supports in principle the freight Transport Facilities Location Guidelines, although it is noted that they are very generalised.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Community Representatives

General Manager

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Various environmental issues are discussed in the body of this report

 

Social

 

Various social issues are discussed in the body of this report

 

Economic

 

Various economic issues are discussed in the body of this report

 

Risk

 

Risks associated with the content of the plan are discussed in the body of this report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

It difficult to understand the financial implications for Council as the document is unclear in respect to what Council resources will be required to implement the plan.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

Given the relative limited use of this document in Council’s day to day operations a substantial commitment has been made by Council to review the plan. This time has been in place of other programs and projects Council has committed to.

 

 

Attachments:

1

N:\cs\Grant Att 1.pdf - Attachment 1

 

2

N:\cs\Grant Atta 2.pdf - Attachment 2

 

3

N:\cs\Grant Att 3.pdf - Attachment 3

 

4

16477/2016 - Attachment 4

 

5

N:\cs\Grant Atta 6.docx - Attachment 6

 

6

N:\cs\Grant Att 7.pdf - Attachment 7

 

7

N:\cs\Grant Att 8.pdf - Attachment 8

 

8

N:\cs\Grant Att 9.pdf - Attachment 9

 

9

N:\cs\Grant Att 10.docx - Attachment 10

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Draft North Coast Regional Plan - Review and Submission

 






Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Draft North Coast Regional Plan - Review and Submission

 





Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Draft North Coast Regional Plan - Review and Submission

 








Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Draft North Coast Regional Plan - Review and Submission

 




Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Draft North Coast Regional Plan - Review and Submission

 

Good evening, or, if you read this tomorrow, good morning Grant.

My name is Christina Barry and my property lies on East West Rd Valla...number 98.

After viewing the Draft North Coast Regional Plan document, I'm prompted to write to you in relation to the beautiful, natural assets of our Valley and Coastline.

These assets must be preserved to ensure continued health of the environment, and hence the attraction of many visitors due to the spectacular, pristine beauty of the Nambucca Valley.

My property is organic/chemical free with a focus on self sufficiency education and sustainable living. Many visitors come to enjoy the simple, peaceful environment we live in. 

I also grow Macadamia nuts, (1000 trees) and house people in my large, Turn of the Century, renovated home. This is affordable housing, which is very hard to come by in this area. 

There is also a koala corridor on my property, which has special significance, not only for locals, but for the many visitors to "Guunuwa". The above points are considered Goals1,2, and 3.

I hope my brief description of my way of life, can be considered in any future plans for our stunning home in the Nambucca Valley. 

Sincerely

Christina Barry

-------------------------------Safe Stamp-----------------------------------
Your Anti-virus Service scanned this email. It is safe from known viruses.
For more information regarding this service, please contact your service provider.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Draft North Coast Regional Plan - Review and Submission

 




Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Draft North Coast Regional Plan - Review and Submission

 





Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Draft North Coast Regional Plan - Review and Submission

 




Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Draft North Coast Regional Plan - Review and Submission

 

To:  Grant Nelson, Nambucca Shire Council - Key points from VBCA   Friday 13 May, 2016

RE: DRAFT NORTH COAST REGIONAL PLAN

Key concerns

Valla community is highly diverse, with residents and tourists attracted to peaceful living/rural lifestyle;  many organic agricultural businesses, dependent on protection of natural environment, soils and particularly, our waterways – diversity of activities in Valla area affords its high level of cohesiveness;

Valla Beach in particular, has seen considerable growth in the past ten years with new housing. Valla Rural has seen the development of a vibrant macadamia nut industry over the past 20 years.

Introduction of NBN, and impending opening of upgraded Pacific Highway, make Valla area even more attractive for both living and working. We wish to preserve the elements of Valla that have attracted people in the first place and to discourage inappropriate development that would degrade the area.  Our key concerns are based on this approach:

Sustainable enterprises

The proposal of Action 1.2.1 (Investigate complementary activities in rural zones) is a positive proposal that will see a ready uptake in the Valla area. Valla contains many small farms and many 1 - 5 Ha rural-residential blocks.  Access to fixed wireless broadband and upgrade of Pacific Highway will enable such farms to run multifaceted enterprises, previously not possible.

While a focus of the Draft Plan is to consolidate housing into regional centres it has to be realised that a lot of people prefer to live on rural-residential blocks. In the past Council has imposed impediments to enterprising activities in the form of excessive Section 94 contributions.  VBCA believes that enabling complementary activities (such as accommodation, produce stalls, pop-up cafes, garden tours, organic farming education tours, etc) contribute to a dynamic social and economic community.

The Council has plans for an Urban Growth Area in Valla. While there are a number of issues with this development (Aboriginal heritage areas, old mine sites, flood plain area) the idea of containing urban growth in this area is generally supported. However, the main land use conflict with this area is that it is fully contained within the area marked as a Potential Mineral Resource. This conflict needs to be properly resolved between the appropriate government departments so that the Urban Growth Area can proceed without creating future land use conflicts.

Aboriginal heritage

The Valla area is rich in local Aboriginal sites and culture, which need to be protected. Potential for tourism, to expose the wider population to local Aboriginal stories and culture, and connection to Land.  Such endeavours can build mutual respect and understanding and provide employment for local Aboriginal people who have traditionally been marginalised. To this end the actions in Direction 1.1 should be a priority and be conducted in consultation with the Local Aboriginal Lands Councils.

Expansion of mining

We are concerned that the whole of the Valla area has been designated as a Potential Mineral Resource.

VBCA believes that this designation overlooks the real value of what currently exists in Valla. The real value is the primary production that occurs on top of the land – macadamia farms, mangoes, avocados, beans, and cattle. These industries employ a large number of people in small businesses, providing independence and agency. Many of these industries are certified organic meaning that they are truly sustainable. Mining is, by its very nature, an extractive industry that can never be described as sustainable.  It is wrong to describe mining as sustainable in Direction 1.5.

Designation of Valla as a Potential Mineral Resource conflicts with existing Council plans for the Valla Urban Growth Area on the eastern side of Mt England.  Existing rural and rural-residential development within the Potential Mineral Resource area means that any development of mining will create land use conflicts.

Mining is incompatible with Goal 1, that of protecting productive farmland. The type of mining that is proposed in EL-6702 is for the locally occurring minerals of molybdenum, arsenic and antimony, all very toxic minerals that are best left in the ground. Extraction and processing of this ore would pose an unacceptable risk to the natural waterways and would violate Direction 1.3 (Safeguard aquatic habitats and water catchments).

We believe that the designation of Valla as a Potential Mineral Resource should be removed so that existing and future residents can feel confident that mining will not adversely impact upon their future.  Residents need security in the Plan and should not be held hostage to long-running exploration licences.

Protection of waterways

The main waterway in Valla is Deep Creek and its tributaries;  protection of this waterway, outlined in Direction 1.3, is critical to safeguard productive farmland, flora and fauna that make Valla a highly desirable place to live, as well as being integral to the tourist industry, fishing, boating, water recreation, and visitor experience.  Any threat to health of our waterways needs to be taken seriously, be it from mining, forestry, ASS or farm run-off.

Developing a prosperous economy

Tourism is a vital part of Valla’s economy. VBCA’s activities (markets, building of community facilities) are as much aimed at visitors as at residents.

Valla attracts hundreds of participants and thousands of spectators.  (Bi-annual VW Spectacular, and this year marks the fortieth annual Drag-Ens Hot Rod run to Valla.)

VBCA endorses Direction 4.1 (Expand the tourism sector) and Action 4.1.1 (Facilitate the nature-based, events and cultural tourism sectors). This Direction / Action will provide opportunities for long term employment / income for local residents.  Such tourism depends on protection of our natural environment, forests, waterways and our rural character / seaside village. Development of an Aboriginal cultural tourism sector would further enhance Valla’s tourism economy.  Development of mining in the Valla area would conflict with this goal.

Services and infrastructure

Valla Beach has known growth restrictions.  However, relative lack of services are generally seen as an asset, because the lack of commercialisation in Valla Beach is what ensures its natural seaside characte and appeal. Similarly, Valla Rural has no shops. This is what gives it its attractive rural character, along with the Valla Hall, which serves as the hub of social cohesion. These features are what make Valla such an attractive place to live and work. Over-development would ruin the very thing that makes Valla beautiful.

Fortunately we will soon have an upgraded Pacific Highway. We endorse the aims of the Plan to develop health and education precincts in nearby Coffs Harbour (Direction 4.2) and to plan well located employment land with suitable buffers (Direction 4.4.2) along the highway in the Valla Urban Expansion Area.

Summary

VBCA is generally supportive of the Plan with certain caveats:  we urge protection of the rural character of Valla and the seaside village atmosphere of Valla Beach.

We would like to remove the threat of mining from Valla, as it creates undue uncertainty and conflicts with many of the Goals and Directions in the Plan.                                                          John Windmill,  President, Valla Beach Community Association


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     26 May 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.7      SF382              260516         Scotts Head - Public Space Landscape Plan

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Grant Nelson, Coordinator Strategic Planning & Natural Resources         

 

Summary:

 

Representations made to Council by from Scotts Head Community Group, have resulted in staff receiving 2 (two) quotes from qualified landscape architects to examine the area including the new town green, detention basin and public space connecting these area to other parts of the Scott Head community.

 

The purpose of this report for Council to consider the request to prepare a landscape plan for this area  and a potential funding allocation to prepare the plan or undertake on ground landscaping improvements.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council allocate $7,000 from Council’s Environmental Levy to support the improvements to the Scotts Head public reserve and day area in the form of either a landscape plan or on-ground landscaping.

 

2        That staff develop a plan for landscaping in public reserve and day area in consultation with the Scott Head Community Group using the recommended funding allocation to implement on-ground improvements.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

·   Council engage Rupert Milne to prepare a landscape for future landscaping improvements in Scotts Head Reserve and Day Use Area.

·      Council may choose not to allocate funding to the project;

·      Council may choose to fund the plan from an alternative source;

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has initiated and budgeted for works to complete a detention basin in the Scotts Head Town Green, location shown in the attached images. The detention basin will be predominately dry and will therefore have a secondary function as open space.

 

The detention basin has been designed to engineering specifications and there is little scope to modify this design. On the 12 February 2016, the executives of the Scotts Head Community Group made representations to the Mayor and General Manager in respect to a number of matters in relation to this and other projects in Scotts Head.

 

One of those concerns was the lack of landscaping included in the detention basin design and integration/ connectivity to the broader community and a recommendation was made to Council that a landscape architect be engaged to provide direction to the landscaping in the area. As a result Council staff were requested to seek expressions of interest to prepare a plan. Based on the estimated cost of the works quotes were sought from two (2) qualified landscape architects to examine the area to develop a simple concept plan in accordance with Council’s procurement procedures.

 

The following quotes were received:

 

Rupert G. H. Milne Home,

AILA Registered Landscape Architect.

 

Stage 1 Concept Sketch 2-3 options ($3520 inc GST)

-     Site inspection

-     Consultation with stakeholders community groups

-     Prepare rough Sketch 2-3 options

 

Stage 2 Final Sketch ($3630)

-   Design development of selected options to draft sketch plan inc short st traffic and parking arrangements to best accommodate pedestrian access;

-     Consultation with community;

-     Amend plans appropriately

-     Site visit with Council to discuss design

 

Total = $7,150 inc GST

 

Red Belly Landscape Architecture and Urban Design

 

-     Site visit and meeting

-     Landscape analysis

-     Draft Landscape Plan

-     Review Meeting

-     Final Landscape plan

 

This proposal separates the Day Use area from the overall reserve and proposes separate fees for each being: Landscape Plan for the Reserve ($3872 inc GST) and Landscape Plan for the Day-Use area ($2508 inc GST).

 

Total = $6380 inc GST

 

Should Council wish to proceed with the procurement of a landscape architect to examine the area it is recommended the proposal offered by R. Milne be accepted primarily due to design detail level of plans that would be provided for a similar cost to the other fee proposal. The Milne proposal also includes an examination of the traffic and parking arrangements at Short Street, this could present Council with some future options for this area.

 

Alternative Option and recommendation

 

It is noted that the community have presented views/sketches in respect to the proposed landscaping works which have been attached to this report. Further representatives from North Coast Holiday Parks have also offered some options in respect to landscaping in this area.

 

It is possible that Council staff could interpret these landscape recommendations for inclusion into the design for the detention basin and use the equivalent funds to contribute to on site landscaping upon completion of the detention basin.  Staff would consult closely with the community group representatives when preparing the plan, a suggest site walkover would be beneficial.

 

The landscaping plan works could be actioned by Councils Green Space Coordinator with the assistance of Councils Coordinator of Strategic Planning and Natural Resources and Councils Engineering Designer and Manager of Technical Services in respect to connecting footpaths and the detention basin design.

 

It respect to this option it is acknowledged that landscape architects are specialised professionals who may offer more to a plan than what could be prepared by Council with Community input, nevertheless the site is has limited scope for major change because:

 

-     It is a detention basin

-   Pedestrian connectivity between West street and Short Street is constrained by landform and shape

-     The area is being considered for Market event activities and will need to suit this use

-     It borders the Caravan Park and requires appropriate separation

-     Provision of landscape elements at appropriate access locations

-     The land is constrained by the caravan park, Adin St and the bowling club.

 

Funding

 

There is no allocated funding to support the landscaping design or works in the plan for this area in 2015/16 budget. There is an annual budget allocated to Water Quality River Health Monitoring through the Environmental Levy which is anticipated to be underspent this financial year, largely due to the commencement of the Ecohealth Monitoring program and the lack of site specific matters needing investigation. There is approximately $8,000 retained in this budget. Of this $7,000 could be allocated to the landscape improvements at Scotts Head.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services

Coordinator Green Spaces

Representative from the Scotts Head Community Group (R. Simmons)

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Landscaping improvements in urban areas have a number of environmental benefits. Any improvements would focus on using low maintenance native species.

 

Social

 

Landscaping improvements contribute to the liveability of locality, improving the amenity, function and connectivity in public areas.

 

Economic

 

As no budget is allocated, Council would be required to endorse amendments to the environmental levy or general budget.

 

Risk

 

Council is aware of the lengthy process that followed the approval of the Masterplan for the Scotts Head Crown Reserve. It is noted that there is no legislative requirement for Council to exhibit a landscape plan of this nature and it is recommended that Council streamline this process, relying on selective representatives from the Scotts Head community to have input into the plan prior to works. This process could also be adopted should Council staff prepare the plan.

 

Staff will make recommendations to Council in a future report highlighting practical implementation of landscaping and possible future works or improvements (subject to allocation of funding). The report will highlight the any consultation and feedback from the selected community representatives.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Council will be required to allocate a budget to either landscaping design or works to support this project.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

None identified.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

The design of the detention basin has been modified for various reasons multiple times and the design at present is considered a working plan. No changes are proposed to the design. The engagement of a landscape architect or use of Council staff time to prepare a plan for the area would be working with the design of the existing detention basin.

 

Staff time will be required to develop a plan for the area should Council not wish to engage an architect. It is possible that representatives from the community group have skills that could assist in the plan development, such as sketches being developed with the guidance of staff.

 

 

Attachments:

1

16301/2016 - Village Green comments - Russell Simmons

 

2

16298/2016 - Town Green detention basin and paths -neville green

 

3

5935/2016 - Sketches of Adin Street Reserve, Scotts Head

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Scotts Head - Public Space Landscape Plan

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Scotts Head - Public Space Landscape Plan

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Scotts Head - Public Space Landscape Plan

 



Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     26 May 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.8      SF2173            260516         Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months or where submissions received - 6 Mayl 2016 - 19 May 2016

 

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

 

Summary:

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the information be noted by Council.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/099

2 July 2015

132 Lot Residential Subdivision

Lot 1 DP 1119830, Marshall Way, Nambucca Heads

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED

Two public submissions has been received – they oppose the development:

 

·        The increase in expected traffic raises major concerns re safety (particularly for the elderly and the young), congestion, parking within the Plaza and speeding.

·        Concerned that there isn’t enough local infrastructure and services to support new residents eg doctors.

·        A community forum should be held to gauge dissatisfaction with the proposal

·        Spring Street isn’t wide enough to cope with the increased traffic

·        Stormwater in Spring Street and surrounding areas is already a problem

·        Concerned about the safety of turning out of Spring Street, when Marshall Way is a through road

STATUS:

Council resolved on 31 March 2016 to accept APZ on road reservation and adjoining reserve.  Letter sent to applicant 3 May 2016 giving 30 days to lodge outstanding information.

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/197

26/11/2015

Piggery

Lot 22 DP 828660, 652 Boat Harbour Road, Yarranbella

Two submissions have been received by Council – they oppose the proposal

·             Not enough information in application

·             Concerned about run-off, odours, contamination, fencing and noise from the development

·             Untidy huts and pigs are already located on the property

STATUS:  Additional information has been received from applicant and referred to DPI on 9 May 2016.

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2014/198/01

04/12/2015

26 Lot Subdivision

Lot 42 DP 711098, Old Coast Road, North Macksville

Thirty-two submissions have been received by Council – they oppose the modification

·          Connecting Florence Wilmont Drive and Old Coast Road will bring too much traffic and noise into the community.

·           Lumsdens Lane should be used instead

·           Florence Wilmont Drive is already in poor condition in some spots – this would make it worse

·          All residents of Kingsworth Estate should have been notified, not just properties fronting Florence Wilmont Drive

·           Linking Florence Wilmont Drive to Old Coast Road will provide many short-cut opportunities

·           Detrimental to koala habitat and to other native fauna

·           Benefits new developer at expense of current residents of Kingsworth Estate

·           Old Coast Road still won’t be fully sealed

STATUS:  Ecological report received. Being reported to Council on 26 May 2016

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/214

14/12/2015

Demolish existing dual occupancy and erect new dual occupancy

Lot 11 Section D DP 17707, 22 Waratah Street, Scotts Head

Four people lodged submissions to the original plans lodged with Council and three of them have lodged submissions (the fourth objector is not very unwell) about the amended plans lodged with Council – they all oppose the proposal, both the initial and amended plans.

·           Excessive site coverage could lead to runoff problems for properties below the development

·           8.5m height limit is exceeded – overshadowing impacts. Ground level has been artificially raised

·           Notification period should be extended – difficult to obtain professional advice about the proposal over the Christmas/New Year period

·           Not enough information on Council’s website

·           Floor area calculations include external open areas which would be easy to enclose at a later date

·           View loss for adjoining property

·           Unclear as to whether deep soil zone, setback and excavation requirements in DCP will be complied with

·           Current building contains asbestos – removal needs to be done according to requirements

·           Safety concerns with access to the site

·           Proposed design out of character with Scotts Head village

·           Too many variations to Council’s DCP

·           Three storey, not two storey dwelling

·           Setback inadequate

·           Southern setback deficient

·           Deep soil zone deficient

·           Total footprint is misleading

·           Proposed excavations too great

·           Updated plans still show a three storey building, not two storeys and an attic

·           Setbacks deficient, footprint has been underestimated, DSZ deficient, not compliant with height, bulk and scale, still restricts views, excavations still excessive, no stormwater plans, does not fulfil the aesthetic criteria of the DCP

·           Variations from DCP are significant – revised plans have only been amended minimally

·           Applicant has paid little or no regard to issues raised by objectors

·           Proposed communal fencing unsatisfactory

·           Proposed retaining wall may lead to drainage issues

STATUS:  Amended plans submitted – adjoining owners re-notified. Being assessed

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2016/010

27/01/2016

45 Lot Residential Subdivision

Lot 2 DP 1076480 & Lot 21 DP 1084161, Upper Warrell Creek Road, Macksville

Six submissions have been received

 

·           One submission raises site-specific concerns about an on-site sewage management system

·           Additional properties could increase stormwater and flooding issues at Kings Point.

·           Four submissions request the erection of a colourbond fence at the applicant’s cost prior to earthworks commencing due to dust and noise concerns

·           No objection to the DA, however town water and sewer should be connected to his property by the applicant prior to subdivision being released.

STATUS: Additional information  due 25 March 2016 – still outstanding – some has now been received.

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2016/027

12/02/2016

Retail & Multi-dwelling Housing

 

Lot 91 DP 800950, 66 Waratah Street, Scotts Head

Fifty-three submissions have been received – they oppose the development

·           View loss, overshadowing, building exceeds height limit

·           Rubbish bins to be stored under bedroom window of adjoining property.

·           Out of character with the area – village atmosphere will be affected

·           Will increase traffic during and after construction

·           Shops will be lost – supermarket may close meaning jobs will be lost

·           Concerns for pedestrian safety

·           Parking problems as caravan park is already over-developed

·           Bulk and scale too much – will have a severe impact on 64 Waratah Street and the surrounding area in general

·           Additional pressures on water and sewerage

·           May damage nearby buildings during construction

·           Will set a precedent for high-rise development

·           Doesn’t comply with planning provisions and controls

·           Not enough information with application

·           Plans lack an honest showing of dimensions

·           Existing and future impact of development have not been considered by the applicant

·           There is already enough holiday accommodation in Scotts Head

·           Parking provisions for the development appear inadequate

·           Traffic information with application inadequate

·           Shadow diagrams incomplete

·           As shops will be closed for the period of construction, Council should provide a free daily bus service between Scotts Head and Macksville to compensate residents and holiday makers for the inconvenience

·           Council should hold a community/site meeting to discuss the proposal

·           May create stormwater issues

·           Can the application be Photoshopped to give a realistic view of appearance and scale

·           Height poles should be placed to demonstrate the actual height of the building

·           No detail on how ESD principles have been incorporated into design

·           Will any of the apartments be set aside as affordable housing?

·           Value of works appears to be understated

·           Not enough detail in the application

·           Safety issues with gas bottles too close to adjoining residential property

STATUS: Being assessed – additional information required from applicant. Letter sent to applicant 16 May 2016 requiring additional information within 30 days.

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2015/093/01

1 March 2016

Depot (Modification)

Lot 202 DP 841112, 765 Wilson Road, Congarinni North

One submission has been received – it opposes the proposed modifications

·           Proposed changes make the development prohibited development and will affect the amenity of the area

·           Sealed driveway requirement should be changed as it is a requirement under the Roads Act

·           Servicing of trucks/machinery will create excessive noise

·           Pacifico’s hours of operations mentioned by the applicant are incorrect

·           “No financial gain” to owner should not be relevant

STATUS:  Reported to Council’s meeting on 14 April 2016 – Council has requested further information

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2016/050

31 March 2016

Dwelling-House & Shed

Lot 114 DP 861793, Valla Road, Valla

One submission has been received – it opposes the proposal

·             Location of proposed residence and shed is within the 140 metre Rural Buffer shown on the 88b instrument

·           Owners of adjoining property already undertake agricultural activities and intend to keep doing so right up to their boundary

STATUS: Being assessed

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

ADDRESS

2014/196/01

7 April 2016

Depot – modify hours of operation from 6am – 6pm to 24/7

Lot 4 DP 1140719, 7 Centra Park Street, Macksville

A petition – signed by twenty petitioners - and six submissions have been received: they oppose the proposal

·           Negative environmental impacts re noise, vibration and air pollution

·           Will cause property values to decrease

·           There is already out of hours noise from other industries which becomes unbearable at times – this shouldn’t be made worse

·           Additional heavy truck movements will add to traffic pressures

·           Additional noise from Pre-Cast Solutions has already made it almost unliveable for local residents

·           Fortade’s sheds are not insulated

·           Will set a precedent for other industries to follow

·           Residential areas should not be subject to such noise and traffic impacts

·           An acoustic report from an appropriately qualified person should have accompanied the application

·           A list of proposed activities to be conducted after hours should be included

STATUS: Being assessed – additional information received from applicant on 14 May 2016

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

ADDRESS

2016/062

19 April 2016

Dwelling-House

Lot 316 DP 755550, 3 Millers Road, Newee Creek

One submission has been received – it opposes the proposal

·           Future verandah noted on plans should not be built and no future extensions/additions should be allowed

·           Current shed should be removed

STATUS : Being assessed

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     26 May 2016

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.9      SF1031            260516         Review of Compliance, Enforcement and Prosecution Policy

 

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

 

Summary:

 

In December 2015 the NSW Ombudsman released updated “Enforcement Guidelines for Councils” which contained a model Enforcement Policy. At Council’s meeting of 28 January 2016, Council resolved to review its Compliance, Enforcement and Prosecution Policy based on these guidelines and model Policy. This report contains a new draft Policy for Council’s consideration.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council publicly exhibit the attached Draft Compliance, Enforcement and Prosecution Policy for a period of 28 days with a view to adopting the draft policy once any public submissions are considered.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can elect to modify the draft Policy prior to placing it on public exhibition.

 

Council can elect to keep their current Compliance, Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The staff of Council’s Development and Environment Section have been undertaking a review of all policies for which they are responsible. The Compliance, Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is the last one to be reviewed.

 

The timely release of the NSW Ombudsman’s 2015 Enforcement Guidelines for Councils has made the task of revising the policy much easier. The Ombudsman’s Model Policy forms the foundation for Council’s new draft policy, which is attached. The draft policy was forwarded to all Councillors three weeks ago to provide plenty of time for the policy to be reviewed. The current policy is also attached.

 

Two additional appendices have been added – Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 – to provide staff, Councillors and the public with guidelines relating to the probable compliance action that Council will take in different circumstances (Appendix 2) and the expected timeframe within which Council will respond to an allegation of unlawful activity (Appendix 3).

 

Appendix 2 is based on the City of Sydney’s Policy and Appendix 3 is based on Coffs Harbour City Council's Policy.

 

It is important to note that the probable compliance actions and response timeframes are guidelines only. Council staff must treat each case on its own merits and take all facts into consideration when considering how quickly to respond and what response action to take. However, staff believe they will provide a useful starting point when investigating matters.

 

Staff are developing a template which will be used to record all information about investigations into alleged unlawful activities. It will be based on best practice guidelines in the Ombudsman’s document which should help Council staff ensure that matters are being dealt with correctly and will also be useful if evidence is required in court cases.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Manager Development & Environment

Senior and Area Health & Building Surveyors

Senior Town Planner

Ranger

Plumbing & Drainage Inspector

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

If the policy is implemented, it should lead to better protection of the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no direct social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic considerations.

 

Risk

 

The Ombudsman’s Guidelines and Council’s policy are concerned with implementing good administrative practices. But ultimately the implementation of good administrative practice is about minimising financial and reputational risks to Council in undertaking enforcement action. Whilst there will always be some subjectivity in relation to the application of such Guidelines, using best practice will reduce reputational and financial risk.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no budgetary implications

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There are no implications for working funds

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

If the draft policy is adopted, it will provide information and guidance to the public, Councillors and staff as to how Council’s resources will be used to respond to investigating alleged unlawful activities.

 

Attachments:

1

1554/2016 - Draft Policy - Compliance, Enforcement and Prosecution

 

2

4621/2009 - Current Compliance, Enforcement and Prosecution Policy

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 26 May 2016

Review of Compliance, Enforcement and Prosecution Policy

 

 

 

 

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

COMPLIANCE, ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTION DRAFT POLICY

 

 

 

Function: Development and Environment

 

 

Adopted: 18 March 2009

Last reviewed: 20 October 2010

May 2016

 

 

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     Introduction

 

Council’s regulatory responsibilities are applicable to actual unlawful activity, as well as a failure to take action (in order to be compliant with certain legal requirements). For simplicity, this policy refers to both an act and/or an omission by an alleged offender as ‘unlawful activity’.

 

This policy distinguishes between a ‘report alleging unlawful activity’ and a ‘complaint’.

 

For the purposes of this policy, a report alleging unlawful activity is where an individual expresses concern in relation to alleged unlawful activity, or they request service from council about such matters. Council considers that a response or resolution to a report alleging unlawful activity is explicitly or implicitly expected by the individual, or may be legally required.

 

A complaint is where an individual expresses dissatisfaction about council services, staff or the handling of a previous complaint. Therefore, a complaint may arise where an individual claims that council staff have failed to take action in relation to a report alleging unlawful activity. A complaint will be recorded separately and responded to in accordance with council’s complaints management policy and procedures.

 

 

2     Purpose and scope

 

This policy provides information for all internal and external stakeholders and interested parties about council’s position on compliance and enforcement matters in the local government area.

 

The purpose of this policy is to provide structure for consistency and transparency in decision making, and to facilitate a proportional approach to compliance and enforcement. It is also intended to assist council staff to act promptly, effectively and consistently in response to allegations of unlawful activity.

 

This policy outlines matters to be considered at the various stages of the enforcement process from the receipt and investigation of reports alleging unlawful activity, through to what enforcement option council will choose and whether to commence criminal or civil proceedings.

 

In certain circumstances council will have shared enforcement responsibilities with other regulatory authorities. This policy sets out a collaborative and cooperative approach to such matters. Advice and guidance is also provided on the role of council in building and construction compliance matters where there is a private certifier, and the role of councillors in enforcement.

 

Responsible council staff are not limited by this policy in their use of discretion and exercise of official functions. The full circumstances and facts of each case need to be considered and a decision made on the merits.

 

 

3     Organisational approach

 

Council undertakes compliance and enforcement for the following reasons:

•        to prevent or minimise harm to health, welfare, safety, property or the environment

•        to improve the safety and amenity of residents and visitors to the area

•        for the collective good, the welfare of the community or the public interest

•        to promote social policies (eg to preserve or protect the environment)

•        to manage risks

•        to uphold social order

•        to meet the expectations of the community

•        to encourage reports about possible unlawful activity from the community

•        to make the regulated community aware of their legal obligations and how to comply

 

The objects section of an Act will often list the specific nature of the harm that is being addressed and explicitly state the regulatory purposes of the legislation. For example, under section 8 of the Local Government Act 1993 councils are obliged to ensure that regulatory functions are exercised consistently and without bias.

 

Council has the authority to regulate many activities, including (but not limited to):

•        development and building control

•        pollution control

•        environmental health

•        public health and safety

•        noxious weeds

•        water and sewer

•        septic systems

•        control over animals

•        food safety

•        fire safety

•        parking and traffic matters

 

Council undertakes both proactive and reactive compliance and enforcement activities, including

•        regular inspections of food premises, skin penetration premises, pool barriers and onsite sewage management systems

•        the provision of information about compliance issues

•        audits of commercial properties to check compliance issues

•        assessing and investigating reports alleging unlawful activities

•        educating people at risk of non-compliance

•        issuing warnings, notices, orders and penalty infringement notices

•        taking legal action

 

4     Definitions

 

The following are the definitions of key terms in this policy:

Term Meaning

Complaint

A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction made about council services, staff or the handling of a previous complaint, where a response or resolution is explicitly or implicitly expected or legally required.

 


For the purposes of this policy, a complaint does not include:

•       a report alleging unlawful activity (see definition below)

•       a request for information about a council policy or procedure

•       a request for an explanation of actions taken by council

•       a request for internal review of a council decision.

 

Enforcement

Actions taken in response to serious or deliberate contraventions of laws.

 

Regulation

Using a variety of tools and strategies to influence and change behaviour to achieve the objectives of an Act, Regulation or other statutory instrument administered by council.

 

Report alleging unlawful activity

An expression of concern or a request for service in relation to alleged unlawful activity, where a response or resolution is explicitly or implicitly expected or legally required.

 

Unlawful activity

Any activity or work that has been or is being carried out contrary to the below and/or failure to take required action in order to be compliant with:

•       terms or conditions of a development consent, approval, permit or licence

•       an environmental planning instrument that regulates the activities or work that can be carried out on particular land

•       a legislative provision regulating a particular activity or work

•       a required development consent, approval, permission or licence.

 

5     Policy objectives

 

The intent of this policy is to establish clear guidelines and protocols for council staff in the management of council’s regulatory activities.

 

It provides workable guidelines on:

•        responding to reports alleging unlawful activity

•        assessing whether reports alleging unlawful activity require investigation

•        deciding on whether enforcement action is warranted

•        options for dealing with confirmed cases of unlawful activity

•        taking legal action

•        implementing shared enforcement responsibilities.

 

The policy also provides advice and guidance on:

•        the role of the Principal Certifying Authority and

•        the role of councillors in enforcement.

 

 

6     Application

 

This policy applies to regulatory issues within council’s area of responsibility including, but not limited to:

•        development and building control

•        pollution control

•        environmental health

•        public health and safety

•        noxious weeds

•        water and sewer

•        septic systems

•        control over animals

•        food safety

•        fire safety

•        parking and traffic matters


7     Compliance and enforcement principles

 

The following are the principles that underpin council actions relating to compliance and enforcement:

Principle Action

Accountable and transparent

·           acting in the best interests of public health and safety and in the best interests of the environment

·           ensuring accountability for decisions to take or not take action

·           acting fairly and impartially and without bias or unlawful discrimination

·           providing information about compliance and enforcement priorities and reasons for decisions to improve understanding and certainty and promote trust by the regulated community

·           ensuring meaningful reasons for decisions are given to all relevant parties, particularly when there is a departure from this policy

·           acting on any complaints or concerns about the conduct of compliance officers in accordance with council’s complaints management policy and procedures

·           advising people and organisations subject to enforcement action of any avenues available to seek an internal or external review of a decision

 

Consistent

·           ensuring all compliance and enforcement action is implemented consistently

·           encouraging reports about possible unlawful activity by acting reasonably in response to the circumstances and facts of each matter.

 

Proportional

·           ensuring the level of enforcement action is proportionate to the level of risk and seriousness of the breach

·           making cost-effective decisions about enforcement action

·           taking action to address harm and deter future unlawful activity.

 

Timely

·           ensuring responses to reports alleging unlawful activity and decision making in relation to those is timely

 

 

8     Responsibility

 

Council receives information about alleged unlawful activity from members of the public, contact from other government agencies and information gathered by its officers during proactive inspections.

 

All council staff who deal with reports alleging unlawful activity are responsible for implementing this policy. Council staff are also responsible for ensuring that any other possible unlawful activity identified as a result of an inspection, proactive enforcement or other activity is brought to the attention of the appropriate business unit of council.

 

Council staff are required to:

•        treat all relevant parties with courtesy and respect

•        communicate with all relevant parties and provide feedback on the progress of an investigation and any reasons for delay without compromising the integrity of the investigation

•        make full and proper records in relation to the assessment and investigation of reports alleging unlawful activity, including reasons for any decisions

•        inform all relevant parties of reasons for decisions

•        provide as much information as possible to all relevant parties about the outcomes of investigations to show that adequate and appropriate action was taken and/or is proposed to be taken in response to a report of alleged unlawful activity

•        provide information to all relevant parties about any avenues to seek an internal or external review of a decision.

 

All reports alleging unlawful activity are to be entered into council’s customer service request system and directed to the appropriate officer in a timely manner by council’s Business Services Unit.

 

Only council staff with appropriate delegations from the general manager can undertake investigations or compliance and enforcement action in relation to this policy.

 

 

9     Responding to concerns about unlawful activity

 

How reports alleging unlawful activity will be dealt with by council

 

Council will record and assess every report alleging unlawful activity.

 

Council will respond to every such report unless the person raising the matter has indicated they do not wish to receive a response about council’s handling of the matter, or the report is anonymous.

 

Generally speaking, council’s objectives when dealing with reports alleging unlawful activity are to:

•        maintain the collective good and welfare of the community

•        prevent or minimise harm to health, welfare, safety, property or the environment

•        consider the broader public interest having regard to council’s priorities and any resource limitations

•        consider the report fairly and impartially.

 

Not all reports will need to be investigated. A preliminary assessment of all matters will be made to determine the priority for a response, and whether investigation or other action is required.

 

An investigation of alleged unlawful activity may take a significant amount of time to complete, particularly where the issues are complex. If council decides to investigate, staff will give the person who reported the alleged unlawful activity regular feedback on the progress of the investigation, and any reasons for delay. This does not mean that the individual can expect to be given details about every aspect of the investigation or information that would compromise the integrity of the investigation.

 

Decisions about what action should be taken by council are made at the council’s discretion. This means the objective is that reports alleging unlawful activity will be resolved to the satisfaction of council, not necessarily the person raising the matter. Council will generally try to resolve matters as quickly and informally as possible so as to avoid the need to take formal action.

 

Council staff will endeavour to manage the expectations of people who report alleged unlawful activity, and in particular explain that in the absence of sufficient evidence of unlawful activity, council may be unable to take further action. They will also explain that council does not have unlimited resources and powers to deal with reports alleging unlawful activity. If council is unable to fully investigate or take action on a matter because it is restricted by any legal or resource limitations this will be explained to the individual.

 

While there are certain statutory requirements that must be met in relation to notices and orders, council staff will ensure that all explanatory communications are made in plain English and explain any technical language the law requires to be used.

 

Confidentiality of people who report allegations of unlawful activity

 

People who report allegations of unlawful activity should not expect that their identities will remain confidential from the subject of their report in all circumstances. Council may have to disclose information that identifies them in the following cases:

•        the disclosure is necessary to investigate the matter

•        their identity has already been disclosed to the subject of their report directly or in a publicly available document

•        the individual was consulted following receipt of a Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 application and did not object to the disclosure

•        the individual consents in writing to their identity being disclosed

•        the disclosure is required to comply with principles of procedural fairness

•        the matter proceeds to court.

 

Council will take seriously any concerns an individual may have about their physical safety being endangered as a result of making a report. However, this may limit council’s ability to investigate the matter.

 

What council expects from people who report allegations of unlawful activity

 

Council expects that people who report allegations of unlawful activity will cooperate and act in good faith in respect of any investigations conducted by council. This includes:

•        providing a clear description of the problem (and the resolution sought, if relevant)

•        giving all available and relevant information to council, including any new information about the alleged activity that may become known to the person following the making of their report

•        not giving any information that is intentionally misleading or wrong

•        cooperating with council’s inquiries and giving timely responses to questions and requests for information

•        treating council’s staff with courtesy and respect

•        allowing the investigation to be completed without prematurely taking the matter to other agencies unless referred to by council.

 

If these expectations of the individual are not met, council may need to set limits or conditions on the continuation of the investigation or may need to restrict any further communications with the individual.

 

Any unreasonable conduct will be dealt with in accordance with the principles of the NSW Ombudsman’s Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Manual 2012 and any applicable council policy.

 

What parties can expect from council staff

 

People who report alleged unlawful activity, as well as individuals or businesses that are subject to investigation and any enforcement action, can expect that council staff will:

•        treat them with courtesy and respect

•        advise them of the outcome of the allegation reported, including a full explanation of the reasons why that outcome was considered to be reasonable in the circumstances

•        clearly explain decisions in plain English

•        provide information about any relevant internal and external appeal processes that may be available

•        carefully assess any new information provided by any party after a decision has been made and advise whether further action will be taken.

 

Complaints about council’s enforcement actions

 

Any complaints about council’s handling of reports alleging unlawful activity will be recorded separately and handled in accordance with council’s complaints management policy and procedures.

 

Where a person or organisation subject to enforcement action merely disputes council’s decision to take enforcement against them, they will be directed to make representations in accordance with any relevant internal and external appeal processes.

 

Council staff will act on any complaints about the conduct of compliance officers in accordance with council’s complaints management policy and procedures and the code of conduct.

 

Anonymous reports

 

Anonymous reports will be recorded and assessed in accordance with the above requirements. However, because it is not possible to seek clarification or additional information about a matter, it may be more difficult to evaluate the allegations and therefore these reports are less likely to warrant investigation.

 


Unlawful activity outside business hours

 

Unlawful activity can occur outside business hours. In particular, council may receive reports about matters such as offensive noise and failure to comply with limitations on hours of operation during nights and weekends.

 

Due to resource and operational capability restraints on council, investigations into alleged unlawful activity outside business hours will be assessed on the basis of risk of harm to health, welfare, safety, property or the environment or if it is in the public interest to take such action.

 

Neighbour disputes

 

Council will at times receive reports from parties involved in neighbour disputes seeking council’s involvement. When a dispute between two neighbours is a civil matter, council will often have no authority to resolve the issue in dispute. Some reports will raise several matters, some of which will require council’s involvement and some of which will be personal to the parties.

 

Council staff will thoroughly assess such reports to determine whether there is evidence of any possible unlawful activity requiring action by council. Care will be taken to explain which aspects of a report council can deal with and which cannot be dealt with and why. Where possible, individuals will be provided with information about how to resolve neighbour disputes including referral information resources such as LawAccess NSW and Community Justice Centres.

 

It is possible that one party will provide further information about a matter which changes council’s decision about whether it will become involved. In such circumstances, council staff will carefully consider the matter before taking action and document reasons for the new decision. Relevant parties will be advised about the reasons council has changed its position on a matter. Council staff will not change a decision about whether or not council should be involved purely as a response to the conduct of an individual such as persistent demands or threats.

 

Please refer to Council’s website for information on how Council will typically respond to common reports, including overgrown properties and stormwater runoff issues.

 

 

10   Investigating alleged unlawful activity

 

Not all reports alleging unlawful activity will warrant investigation. A preliminary assessment of all matters will be made to determine whether investigation or other action is required. Council will prioritise matters on the basis of risk to public safety, human health and environment.

 

Please refer to Appendix 3 – Prioritising Council’s response for information about how Council categorises reports about various activities.

 

If there is insufficient information in the report to undertake a preliminary assessment, further information may need to be sought from the person who made the report or an inspection undertaken. Staff may also need to consult council records and other internal business units to understand the relevant history and context of a matter.

 

Circumstances where no action will be taken:

 

Council will take no further action if, following a preliminary assessment, it is identified that:

•        council does not have jurisdiction to investigate or is not the appropriate authority to take action on the issues raised. Where there is another appropriate authority or course of action, council may bring the matter to the attention of the authority or provide information and contact details to the individual. For example NSW WorkCover for workplace safety matters, the NSW Environment Protection Authority for possible environmental offences and Community Justice Centres NSW for personal disputes

•       
the report relates substantially to a matter previously determined by council and no new or compelling information is presented which would cause council to change its earlier decision. In this case, staff will acknowledge the report and advise that no further action will be taken as no new information had been provided (other than where the person has previously been advised they would receive no further response)

•        the allegations relate to a lawful activity (eg where there is an existing approval or the activity is permissible without council approval or consent being required)

•        the report is not supported with evidence or appears to have no substance

•        the relevant manager, director or the general manager determines that investigation or other action would have an unreasonable impact on resources and/or is unlikely to achieve an outcome sufficient to justify the expenditure of resources.

 

Relevant factors guiding decisions as to whether to take action:

 

When deciding whether to investigate, council will consider a range of factors including whether:

•        the activity is having a significant detrimental effect on the environment or it constitutes a risk to public safety

•        the report is premature as it relates to some unfinished aspect of work that is still in progress

•        the activity or work is permissible with or without permission

•        all conditions of consent are being complied with

•        much time has elapsed since the events the subject of the report took place

•        another body is a more appropriate agency to investigate and deal with the matter

•        it appears there is a pattern of conduct or evidence of a possible widespread problem

•        the person or organisation reported has been the subject of previous reports

•        the report raises matters of special significance in terms of the council’s existing priorities

•        there are significant resource implications in relation to an investigation and any subsequent enforcement action

•        it is in the public interest to investigate the report.

 

The above are factors for council to consider and weigh in making a determination. Council staff are not limited in their use of discretion by these considerations and may decide to investigate based on these and other factors.

 

The objective of the processes council staff use when investigating incidents of alleged unlawful activity is to:

•        determine the cause of the incident

•        determine if there has been a contravention of law, policy or standards

•        gather evidence to the required standard to support any required enforcement action

•        determine any necessary action to mitigate the possibility of reoccurrence of similar incidents.

 

Any decision not to investigate an allegation of unlawful activity will be recorded and the reasons for that decision clearly stated.

 

 

11   Taking enforcement action

 

When deciding whether to take enforcement action in relation to a confirmed case of unlawful activity, council will consider the full circumstances and facts of the matter and the public interest. The following common considerations will assist council staff in determining the most appropriate response in the public interest:

 

Considerations about the alleged offence and impact:

 

•        the nature, extent and severity of the unlawful activity, including whether the activity is continuing

•        the harm or potential harm to the environment or public health, safety or amenity caused by the unlawful activity

•        the seriousness of the breach, including whether the breach is merely technical, inconsequential or minor in nature

•        the time period that has lapsed since the date of the unlawful activity.

 

Considerations about the alleged offender:

 

•        any prior warnings, instructions, advice that was issued to the person or organisation reported or previous

•        enforcement action taken against them

•        whether the offence was committed with intent

•        whether the person or organisation reported has been proactive in the resolution of the matter and assisted with any council requirements and instructions

•        any mitigating or aggravating circumstances demonstrated by the alleged offender

•        any particular circumstances of hardship affecting the person or organisation reported.

 

Considerations about the impact of any enforcement action:

 

•        the need to deter any future unlawful activity

•        whether an educative approach would be more appropriate than a coercive approach in resolving the matter

•        the prospect of success if the proposed enforcement action was challenged in court

•        the costs and benefits of taking formal enforcement action as opposed to taking informal or no action

•        what action would be proportionate and reasonable in response to the unlawful activity

•        whether council is prevented from taking action based on earlier advice given, ie whether an estoppel situation has been created.

 

Considerations about the potential for remedy:

 

•        whether the breach can be easily remedied

•        whether it is likely consent would have been given for the activity if it had been sought

•        whether there is a draft planning instrument on exhibition that would make the unauthorised use legal.

 

A further explanation of the above considerations is provided in Appendix 1.

 

Legal or technical issues

 

Where legal and/or technical issues are in question, council staff will consider whether legal advice or professional advice from duly qualified staff or other experts should be obtained and considered. Council may also require a person subject to possible enforcement action to obtain professional advice in relation to issues of concern to council for assessment as to whether further action is required.

 

Requirements of council staff considering enforcement action

 

Prior to taking enforcement action, council staff will take into account the above considerations as well as the evidence gathered during their investigation. Council staff must act impartially, be mindful of their obligations under council’s code of conduct and not act as a decision-maker in relation to any matter in which they have a personal interest. Enforcement action will not be taken purely as a response to the conduct of an individual such as persistent demands or threats.

 

Council staff are required to maintain records about critical thinking and decision-making processes in relation to reports alleging unlawful activity and any enforcement action, as well as records of interactions with relevant parties.

 


Council staff will take steps to ensure that any enforcement action is taken against the correct person or organisation. Where there are multiple possible parties to an alleged unlawful activity, it will generally not be appropriate to take enforcement action against every person who may be liable for the alleged unlawful activity. In such circumstances, council staff will be guided by legal advice in determining the appropriate persons to pursue.

 

Please see Appendix 2 for information about what type/s of enforcement action is likely to be undertaken for particular activities. Please note that each case will be dealt with on its merits and different actions may be taken by council as a result.

 

12   Options for dealing with confirmed cases of unlawful activity

 

Council will try to use the quickest and most informal option to deal with unlawful activity wherever possible unless there is little likelihood of compliance with such options. Council staff will use discretion to determine the most appropriate response to confirmed cases of unlawful activity and may take more than one approach. Any enforcement action taken by council will depend on the full circumstances and facts of each case, with any decision being made on the merits.

 

At all times, council’s key concerns are:

•        to prevent or minimise harm to health, welfare, safety, property or the environment

•        to influence behaviour change for the common good and on behalf of the community.

 

The following enforcement options to be considered by council are ordered to reflect an escalation in response that is proportionate to the level of risk, the seriousness of the confirmed breach or the need for a deterrent:

Level of risk Enforcement options

Very low:          taking no action on the basis of a lack of evidence or some other appropriate reason; and/or

providing information/advice on how to be compliant.

Low:                 negotiating with the person to obtain voluntary undertakings or an agreement to address the issues of concern; and/or

issuing a warning or a formal caution.

Medium:           issuing a letter requiring work to be done or activity to cease in lieu of more formal action; and/or

issuing a notice of intention to serve an order or notice under relevant legislation, and then serving an order or notice if appropriate.

High:           issuing a penalty notice; and/or

carrying out the works specified in an order at the cost of the person served with the order.

Very high:         seeking an injunction through the courts to prevent future or continuing unlawful activity; and/or

commencing legal proceedings for an offence against the relevant Act or Regulation.

 

Please refer to Appendix 2 for examples of how these categories may be applied.

 

Following up enforcement action

 

All enforcement action will be reviewed and monitored to ensure compliance with any undertakings given by the subject of enforcement action or advice, directions or orders issued by council. Reports alleging continuing unlawful activity will be assessed and further action taken if necessary. If the unlawful activity has ceased or the work has been rectified, the matter will be resubmitted for follow up action to ensure compliance outcomes are met. Should initial enforcement action be found to have been ineffective, council staff will consider other enforcement options.

 

 

13   Taking legal action

 

The council and its delegated staff will be guided by legal advice in deciding whether to commence criminal or civil proceedings and will consider the following:

•        whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a case to the required standard of proof

•        whether there is a reasonable prospect of success before a court

•        whether the public interest warrants legal action being pursued.


Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a case to the required standard of proof

 

Council considers the decision to take legal action a serious matter, and as such will only initiate and continue proceedings once it has been established that there is admissible, substantial and reliable evidence to the required standard of proof.

 

The basic requirement of any criminal prosecution is that the available evidence establishes a prima facie case. The prosecutor is required to prove the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

 

In civil enforcement proceedings, council will require sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that an actual or threatened breach has occurred on the balance of probabilities.

 

Whether there is a reasonable prospect of success before a court

 

Given the expense of legal action council will not take legal action unless there is a reasonable prospect of success before a court. In making this assessment, council staff will consider the availability, competence and credibility of witnesses, the admissibility of the evidence, all possible defences, and any other factors which could affect the likelihood of a successful outcome.

 

Whether the public interest requires legal action be pursued

 

The principal consideration in deciding whether to commence legal proceedings is whether to do so is in the public interest. In making this determination, the same factors to be considered when taking enforcement action apply.

 

The following considerations relate more specifically to the decision to commence legal proceedings and will assist council and its delegated staff in making this determination:

•        the availability of any alternatives to legal action

•        whether an urgent resolution is required (court proceedings may take some time)

•        the possible length and expense of court proceedings

•        any possible counter-productive outcomes of prosecution

•        what the effective sentencing options are available to the court in the event of conviction

•        whether the proceedings or the consequences of any resulting conviction would be unduly harsh or oppressive

 

Time within which to commence proceedings

 

Council staff must be aware of legislative time limits in which enforcement proceedings must be commenced. Sometimes legal action will be statute barred despite good evidence that unlawful activity has occurred.

 

14   Shared enforcement responsibilities

 

Some reports will raise matters involving shared regulatory responsibilities between council and other authorities including the Environment Protection Authority, the NSW Police Force, the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing, NSW Fair Trading, NSW Food Authority and Crown Lands.

 

Council recognises that collaboration and cooperation between authorities to address issues of shared regulatory responsibility is the best approach. To this end, where there are shared legislative responsibilities, council staff will liaise with relevant authorities to establish:

•        which authority will take the leading role on any joint investigation

•        which activities each authority will carry out

•        responsibilities for updating an individual where relevant

•        protocols for exchanging confidential information between the relevant authorities.

 

Council will reasonably endeavour to respond to requests for information or assistance on joint regulatory matters in a timely manner.


15   Role of council where there is a private certifier

 

Council retains its regulatory role and enforcement powers where a private certifier has been appointed the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA). However, if a private certifier is appointed the PCA, it is not council’s responsibility to ensure building and construction compliance.

 

Private certifiers have limited enforcement powers as the PCA. They have the power to issue a notice of intention to issue an order to the owner or builder to comply with the conditions of consent or rectify any breaches. A copy of any notice of intention issued by a private certifier must be provided to council for assessment as to whether council will enforce the notice by issuing an order.

 

Council and private certifiers will work together to resolve any issues when they arise to achieve compliance with the development consent or complying development certificate. Council staff will take steps to ensure individuals are clear about which agency performs which role.

 

 

16   Role of councillors in enforcement

 

Decision-making relating to the investigation of reports alleging unlawful activity and taking enforcement action is the responsibility of appropriately authorised council staff or the council itself.

 

Individual councillors do not have the right to direct council staff in their day-to-day activities. Councillors can help individuals who raise concerns with them by satisfying themselves that their council’s policies are being carried out correctly, however they cannot ignore or alter a policy in order to satisfy the demands of special groups.

 

The general manager may present certain decisions to be ratified by the elected council if this is necessary or desirable, and the councillors may also have the right to call for a report about particular issues to a council meeting.

 

 

17   Delegations

 

Council staff delegations for taking action under this policy are included in council’s Delegation Register

 

 

18   Other resources

 

The NSW Ombudsman website has the following helpful resources at www.ombo.nsw.gov.au:

•        Managing unreasonable complainant conduct – a model policy and procedure

•        Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Manual 2012

•        The Rights Stuff – Tips for making complaints and solving problems

•        Effective complaint handling guidelines – 2nd edition

•        Managing information arising out of an investigation – Balancing openness and confidentiality

•        Reporting of progress and results of investigations

•        Good Conduct and Administrative Practice

•        Options for Redress

•        Investigating Complaints – A manual for investigators

•        Enforcement guidelines for councils

•        Better Service and Communication for Council

 

See also:

•        Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (2014), Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth: Guidelines for the making of decisions in the prosecution process

•        NSW Planning (2010), Prosecution Guidelines.

•       

Appendix 1

 

Taking enforcement action

 

When deciding whether to take enforcement action in relation to a confirmed case of unlawful activity, council will consider all the circumstances of the matter. The section below is intended to assist staff by providing a further explanation of matters to be taken into consideration when deciding whether to take enforcement action.

 

 

Considerations about the alleged offence and impact:

 

The nature, extent and severity of the unlawful activity including whether the activity continued

The harm or potential harm to the environment or public health, safety or amenity caused by the unlawful activity

 

Consideration should be given to the nature, extent and severity of any actual or potential impact of the unlawful activity. If there is actual or potential detriment to the natural or built environment, to the health or safety of residents or the amenity of an area, this would normally warrant a decision to take action to remedy or restrain the breach. It is also important to consider whether the unlawful activity is ongoing or has ceased.

 

The seriousness of the breach, including whether the breach is merely technical, inconsequential or minor in nature

The costs and benefits of taking formal enforcement action as opposed to taking informal or no action

 

Consideration should be given to whether the likely costs and benefits of any enforcement action is justifiable where breaches result in no material impacts upon any other party or the health, safety and amenity of the environment and community. A breach of a technical, inconsequential or minor nature, in the absence of any other aggravating factor, will generally not warrant a decision to take action to remedy or restrain the breach.

 

The time period that has lapsed since the date of the unlawful activity.

 

Legislation may provide time limits in which to commence proceedings and take enforcement action, and sometimes prosecution will be statute barred despite good evidence that unlawful activity has taken place.

 

In addition, consideration should be given to the time which the offence or breach occurred and the ‘reasonableness’ of taking enforcement action if a significant time has lapsed since the time of the offence or breach.

 

 

Considerations about the alleged offender

 

Any prior warnings, instructions, advice that was issued to the person or organisation reported or previous enforcement action taken against them

 

Consideration should be given to the previous history of the offender. If prior warnings, instructions or advice has been issued to the person or organisation reported which was not followed, a more formal and coercive enforcement approach would appear more appropriate.

 

Whether the offence was committed with intent

 

Consideration should be given to whether the offence was committed deliberately, recklessly or with gross negligence. It may be appropriate that cases of this nature are more likely to result in prosecution. Where an offence was committed as a result of an accident or genuine mistake, providing education and guidance or a formal warning may be more suitable in achieving desired outcomes.


Whether the person or organisation reported has been proactive in the resolution of the matter and assisted with any council requirements and instructions

 

Where the offender has been proactive in the resolution of the matter and has assisted council in the resolution of the matter, it may be that the public interest would not be best served by prosecuting the offender, especially if the offending conduct or work has been rectified. If the offender has demonstrated a lack of contrition and is uncooperative with the investigation or remediation, a prosecution or monetary penalty would appear more appropriate.

 

Any mitigating or aggravating circumstances demonstrated by the subject of the report

Any particular circumstances of hardship affecting the person or organisation reported.

 

Consideration should be given to any genuine mitigating circumstances of the offender such as age, physical or mental health, disability and any financial hardship of the offender resulting in an inability to pay.

 

 

Considerations about the impact of the enforcement action

 

The need to deter any future unlawful activity

 

Consideration should be given to the deterrent effect, both on the offender and others. Prosecutions, because of their great stigma if a conviction is secured, may be appropriate even for minor unlawful activity where they might contribute to a greater level of overall deterrence.

 

Whether an educative approach be more appropriate than a coercive approach in resolving the matter

 

When deciding whether to take an educative approach or enforcement approach, consideration should be given to the following matters:

•        the reasonable likelihood that the person may have known or should have known the relevant requirements or rules

•        the level of contrition shown by the responsible person

•        whether the parties have previously been advised of the regulatory requirements or provisions

•        whether or not any previous warnings or instructions have been provided

•        the apparent level of intent shown by the responsible person.

 

The prospect of success if the proposed enforcement action was challenged in court

 

It may not be appropriate to take enforcement action if the chances of success, in the event of an appeal or hearing, are unlikely. In such situations, you would need to identify the causes of that likelihood and address them in the particular case or as a general issue.

 

The costs and benefits of taking formal enforcement action as opposed to taking informal or no action

 

Legal proceedings are expensive. When doing a cost-benefit analysis, costs and benefits should be assessed broadly and indirect costs and benefits should also be considered.

 

What action would be proportionate and reasonable in response to the unlawful activity?

 

Consideration should be given to what is reasonable in the particular circumstances that apply. This includes a reasonable proportionality between the ends to be achieved and the means used to achieve them.

 

Consideration is to be given to what is reasonable in the circumstances and ensure the action is not disproportionate to the level of harm or damage arising from the breach.

 


Whether the council has created an estoppel situation.

 

Estoppel is a legal rule which prevents a person from later denying something which may have previously been relied on, and acted upon by another person.

 

Consideration should be given to whether the actions of council have created a reasonable expectation that no enforcement action would be taken.

 

 

Considerations about the potential for remedy

 

Whether the breach can be easily remedied.

 

If there is evidence of a significant issue of unlawful activity and that matter can be easily remedied by some action on the part of the person the subject of the report, there is a less compelling case for enforcement action, depending on the other circumstances of the case such as the conduct of the offender.

 

Whether it is likely consent would have been given for the activity if it had been sought.

 

If retrospective approval is possible, it may be reasonable to allow an opportunity to obtain this prior to taking other enforcement action. In some cases, compliance by informal means may be the most efficient way to resolve the matter and other enforcement action may not be necessary.

 

This needs to be balanced with other considerations such as the public interest in enforcing the law.

 

Whether there is a draft planning instrument on exhibition that would make the unauthorised use legal.

 


 

Appendix 2

 

Compliance Guideline

 

Purpose

This appendix is designed to give the public and council stakeholders a broad outline of the way different enforcement powers may be used by council in different circumstances. It aims to make more transparent the work that council undertakes and assist officers in achieving consistent outcomes. 

 

The document is a guide only and each case is considered and determined on its merits. Where justified in the individual circumstances of the matter council is not bound by the Guideline and can depart from it at any time.

 

This compliance guideline is built on and is consistent with the higher level principles contained within council’s Compliance Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.

 

 

Scope

This Compliance Guideline has been drafted to cover the range of works undertaken by council which includes the following:

 

-     Food safety, including both temporary and permanent food businesses

-     Fire safety and essential services

-     Compliance with planning legislation, including compliance with conditions of development consent and unapproved works and uses

-     Public health matters including skin penetration and swimming pools

-     Pollution incidents, including noise and water pollution

-     Unsafe structures and unhealthy premises

 

Responses to issues relating to companion animals, parking offences and abandoned vehicles will be dealt with in accordance with the Companion Animals Act, the Roads Act, the Impounding Act, associated Regulations and other relevant legislation. Accordingly, they are not covered in this Appendix.

 

Unauthorised building works

 

Council uses the principles contained within its Compliance Enforcement and Prosecution Policy to address non-compliance. Some examples of how council officers may decide to act in particular circumstances are outlined below. This table is not comprehensive and each matter will be dealt with following an assessment of the individual circumstances.

 

Compliance options

Example scenario

Warning

 

Minor issues such as a small sign.

Advisory letter

Issued for minor non-approved works which have no impact on the amenity of surrounding occupiers.  This may include matters in the following categories, assuming there is no ongoing risk to public health or safety:

-     Pergola that does not present an over shadowing/loss of solar access/loss of view etc.

-     Non-issue of an Occupation Certificate for a residential house where there is no safety issue or need for Annual Fire Safety Statement.

Penalty Notice

May be issued for any breach where the Officer is satisfied that there has been an intent to knowingly undertake works which would require consent or where the breach is so significant as to require an educative approach for the community to acknowledge that there has been a breach.

 

This does not prevent Council from issuing NOI/Orders in order to prevent ongoing unlawful activity.

Notice of intention to give an Order (NOI) and subsequent Order

Issued for unauthorised works which would not be supported and would not be permitted to remain.

Likely threat to the general public.

Unapproved works to heritage item where the Officer would seek to have the matter returned to its original or improved state (heritage input is required in these matters.)

Works being undertaken without Construction Certificate/Complying Development Certificate.

Emergency Order (without NOI)

Structure is compromised and likely to cause imminent threat to the general public e.g. façade failure.

Activities without consent which have an immediate environmental impact affecting the safety and amenity of the area (Stop Work Order).

 

In general Council will not take action on the following matters:

 

·      Encroachment issues

·      Easement disputes

·      Dividing fence issues

·      Matters within a residential property that do not impact on the surrounding environment or neighbourhood

·      Matters which may be better resolved by Civil actions such as damage to common (private) property or damage to neighbouring properties caused by issues which are present or created by issues on another property.

 

Role of the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA)

 

In relation to assessing and approving certain construction works Council is not the only consent authority. Principal Certifying Authorities (PCA) can issue approvals and certification for certain classes of building and construction works. Principal Certifying Authorities can include the Council or an accredited certifier. 

 

Where a breach or issue has been identified in relation to a development approved by a PCA, the initial enforcement action is taken by the PCA. This may include the issuing of warnings or a notice of intention to serve an order. Accredited Certifiers are not authorised to issue orders, penalty notices or initiate court action.

 

PCAs are required to advise Council of any notice of intention they issue. Council will then undertake its own investigation into the matter and, if required may issue an order or take such other action as it considers appropriate.

 

Compliance options