NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

17 May 2018

 

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 members of the public to address it on matters not listed in the agenda provided the request is received before publication of the agenda (registration to speak may be made by telephone or in person before 2.00 pm on a meeting day) 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.

 

Where the subject matter concerns an on-going complaint which has been the subject of previous investigation by Council staff and/or external bodies such as the NSW Ombudsman, the General Manager in consultation with the Mayor will decide on whether or not the person will be allowed to speak 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 - 17 May 2018

 

 

INSPECTIONS:

 

3.00PM        onsite at 7A Ocean Street Scotts Head

                   2.30pm departure from Council’s Administration Centre

 

4.00PM        onsite Grassy Road (west of Bowraville Racecourse)

 

WORKSHOP:

 

5.00PM        Lanes Bridge Bowraville

 

 

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 - 26 April 2018...................................................................................... 7

5        NOTICES OF MOTION

5.1     Request for Leave of Absence - Cr John Wilson from 29 June to 8 July 2018 inclusive...... 16  

6        PUBLIC FORUM

i         Sarah Carden - Community Garden in Hyland Park

DELEGATIONS:

 

i         Mr Brendan Leary on behalf of Corview – Draft Nambucca Regional Economic Development Strategy 2022 – ITEM 9.1

ii        Dr Daniel Ryan - Request by Lesley Flanders to Purchase Land West of the Bowraville Racecourse – ITEM 9.2

iii       Ms Lesley Flanders - Request by Lesley Flanders to Purchase Land West of the Bowraville Racecourse – ITEM 9.2

iv       Mr Paul Hoffman - Request by Lesley Flanders to Purchase Land West of the Bowraville Racecourse – ITEM 9.2

v        Mrs Katherine Gosson - Request by Lesley Flanders to Purchase Land West of the Bowraville Racecourse – ITEM 9.2

vi       Mr Garry Smith - DA2017/272 Mixed Use Commercial and Shop Top Housing Development at 7A Ocean Street, Scotts Head – ITEM 9.3

 

7        ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE   

8        QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED


 

 

9        General Manager Report

9.1     Draft Nambucca Regional Economic Development Strategy 2022..................................... 17

9.2     Request by Lesley Flanders to Purchase Land West of the Bowraville Racecourse............ 47

9.3     DA2017/272 Mixed Use Commercial and Shop Top Housing Development at 7A Ocean Street, Scotts Head.............................................................................................................................. 86

9.4     Outstanding Actions and Reports.................................................................................. 288

9.5     2018 Determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal................................ 294

9.6     NSW Auditor-General's Report on Local Government 2017.............................................. 319

9.7     Donation of DA Fees for Bridge Replacement - Nambucca Heads Island Golf Club......... 324

9.8     Deferred Developer Contribution Request - Tony & Belinda Smith, 82 Smiths Lane, Congarinni North.................................................................................................................................... 326

9.9     Donation of DA Fees for Road Access to the New Macksville Hospital........................... 330

9.10   Addition of Crown Land being Lot 178 DP 727302 (car park in front of the Swimming Creek Caravan Park) to Crown Reserve 81006....................................................................................... 332

9.11   Schedule of Council Public Meetings 2018..................................................................... 334

9.12   Progress with Macksville CBD Revitalisaion................................................................... 335

9.13   Investment Report to 30 April 2018................................................................................ 338

9.14   LEP & DCP Amendments - Horticulture, Clause 4.2A & Tree Preservation........................ 343

9.15   Development Application DA2017/291 - 3 Adin Street Scotts Head................................. 400

9.16   Project 'Protecting and Connecting Coastal Habitat Corridors at Mt Yarrahapinni' - Environmental Trust Project......................................................................................................................... 480

9.17   Development Applications greater than 12 months or where submissions received -  to 9 May 2018.................................................................................................................................... 482

9.18   Minutes of the Clean Energy Committee meeting held 2 May 2018................................... 488

9.19   2018 April - Approved Construction and Complying Development Certificates................. 517

9.20   2018 April - Development and Complying Development Applications Received................ 522

9.21   Council Ranger's Report April 2018................................................................................ 526

9.22   Regional Growth Fund - Round 2: Stronger Country Communities Fund & Regional Sports Infrastructure Fund - Update on applications submitted by Council...................................................... 528

9.23   Donations Program (Section 356) 2018/2019 - Late Applications for Approval for Waste Waivers - St Vinnies, Macksville & Anglican Oppportunity Shop, Nambucca Heads............................. 531

9.24   Draft Revenue Policy (Fees and Charges)...................................................................... 542

10      Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

10.1   Lanes Bridge Bowraville - Replacement Options Report.................................................. 648

10.2   Emergency Services Annual Assessment Notice............................................................ 858

10.3   January and March 2018 Storm Events.......................................................................... 860

10.4   Investigation relating to purchasing of electric motor vehicles......................................... 862

10.5   Review of Sustainable Fleet and Plant Policy................................................................. 866

10.6   Waste Management Quarterly Report January - March 2018............................................. 875    

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

11.1   Incidents Pertaining to Regulatory Non-Compliance, Fines, Penalties, Prosecutions, Potential Major Claims or Loss of Reputation

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) (g) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

 

11.2   Deferred Developer Contribution Request - Tony and Belinda Smith, 82 Smiths Lane, Congarinni North - Supporting Documentation

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (b) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains a discussion in relation to the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer.


 

 

  

            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

12      MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

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


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

Description: nambucca valley nsc

 

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 26 April 2018

The following document is the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held 26 April 2018.  These minutes are subject to confirmation as to their accuracy at the next meeting to be held on Thursday 17 May 2018 and therefore subject to change.  Please refer to the minutes of 17 May 2018 for confirmation.

PRESENT

 

Cr Rhonda Hoban (Mayor)

Cr John Ainsworth

Cr Martin Ballangarry OAM

Cr Brian Finlayson

Cr Susan Jenvey

Cr David Jones

Cr Janine Reed

Cr Anne Smyth

Cr John Wilson

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT

 

Michael Coulter (General Manager)

Paul Gallagher (Assistant General Manager Engineering Services)

Heather Leclercq (Minute Secretary)

 

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

 

General Manager Michael Coulter declared a non-pecuniary - significant conflict of interest in Item 9.10 under the Local Government Act as an objector to DA2017/272 is a member of Michael Coulter’s voluntary Surf Life Saving patrol at Scotts Head.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council Meeting

 

SUBJECT:   CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council Meeting 12 April 2018

163/18 RESOLVED:        (Wilson/Ballangarry)

 

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of 12 April 2018 be confirmed, with the following amendment:

 

·         Page 10     Resolution 116/18     Item 9.13      DA2016/142 Modification of Development Consent - Against the Motion

 

            The Mayor requested that her vote be recorded against because of implications for traffic adjoining the development and the adverse precedent it sets for the future industrial and commercial development in the Shire.

 

 

 

PUBLIC FORUM

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the following delegation be heard:

 

i         Mr Lawrie Medbury – Roadside spraying of toxic chemicals on North Arm Road Girralong

 

 


 

 

PUBLIC FORUM

 

Mr Lawrie Medbury addressed Council relating to the use of toxic chemicals for roadside spraying along North Arm Road at Girralong and a copy of his letter dated 17 April 2018 received by Council on 19 April 2018 (TRIM 13772/2018) was provided to Councillors.

 

                   SF1030        260418         Roadside Spraying Exclusions at 2751 North Arm Road Girralong

164/18 RESOLVED:        (Hoban/Smyth)

 

That Mr Medbury receive a written response from the Assistant General Manager Engineering Services to each of these questions and a copy of the response be circulated to all Councillors.

 

 

 

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      SF2327              260418      Nambucca Shire Library Strategic Plan - Establishing a Preferred Direction

MOTION       (Ainsworth/Wilson)

 

That Council receive and note the Interim Report and indicate its preferred position for the future delivery of Library Services is Scenario 1.

 

AMENDMENT:  Jenvey/Smyth

 

That Nambucca Shire Council develops a Plan Of Library Investment based on Scenario 1 of NSC Library Strategic Plan.  The plan would identify short, medium and long term actions, with outcomes to be based on grant dependency.

 

That Nambucca Shire Council proceed with Nambucca Library grants process, and prepares a business case for pop-ups and a digital hub.  That it fills vacant positions including a new Library Team Leader position.

 

The amendment was LOST.

 

165/18 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Wilson)

 

That Council receive and note the Interim Report and indicate its preferred position for the future delivery of Library Services is Scenario 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM 9.7      SF2460        260418         LEP & DCP Amendments - Horticulture, Clause 4.2A & Tree                           Preservation

166/18 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Reed)

 

That Item 9.7 LEP and DCP Amendments – Horticulture, Clause 4.2A and Tree Preservation be brought forward.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.7      SF2460              260418      LEP & DCP Amendments - Horticulture, Clause 4.2A & Tree Preservation

Motion:      (Smyth/Jones)

 

1        Council staff forward the planning proposal contained within attachment 1 to the Minister for gateway determination in accordance with section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

2        If the Minister determines that the matter should proceed, Council staff undertake community consultation in accordance with the gateway determination.

 

3        Following community consultation, Council staff report the planning proposal back to Council for consideration of any submissions received and a final decision as to whether Council will proceed to make the planning proposal. 

 

4        Council endorse the draft amendments to the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 (DCP) contained within attachment 2 and exhibit the draft DCP for 28 days pursuant to Part 3 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

5        The draft DCP be reported back to Council following the completion of the exhibition period for consideration of any submissions received and a final decision as to whether Council will proceed to amend the DCP.

 

Amendment:       (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

 

Council’s planning staff be requested to prepare further draft amendments to the LEP which will reflect the following provisions:

 

1          Horticulture in areas zoned RU1 and RU2 will be subject to a development application but no application will be required if landowner complies with following requirement, namely:

 

a      no horticulture (including erection of netting) to take place within a radius of 100 metres of existing house on adjoining land

 

b      the 100 metres is to be measured from that house, not the boundary

 

2          Horticulture in areas zoned R5 will be subject to a development application and any approval shall include inter alia the following provisions:

 

a      where the property adjoins other land zoned RU1 or RU2 but where there is no existing house, no buffer will be required. No horticulture will be carried out within a radius of 100 metres of any existing house, the 100 metres being measured from the house, not the boundary

 

b      where the property adjoins other land zoned R5 which is vacant no horticulture will take place (including erection of netting) within 20 meters of the boundary and that 20 metres shall contain a 10 metre vegetative buffer.

 

 

c      No building envelope shall be permitted to be located within 40 metres of a boundary on the other side of which horticultural activities have been permitted.

 

d      when the property adjoins land zoned R5 on which houses are located, no horticulture will be permitted within a radius of 50 metres of that house (such radius measured from the house) and there shall be a vegetative buffer provided along the boundary of the said radius within the land where horticulture is to take place.

 

3        The applicant will ensure that any operations on the property requiring the use of chemicals shall be under the supervision of a person who is the holder of a Farm Safety Management Certificate and an Agricultural Chemical Users Certificate.

 

4        No bird netting shall be erected anywhere in the shire of a colour other than black.

 

5        S149 Certificates issued by Council will be amended accordingly so that potential purchasers of property are put on notice of these requirements.

 

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

 

AMENDMENT        (Smyth/Jones)

 

That Council defer the matter to a workshop to enable consideration to be provided to the proposal put forward by Cr Finlayson.

 

167/18 resolved:        (Smyth/Jones)

 

That Council defer the matter to a workshop to enable consideration to be provided to the proposal put forward by Cr Finlayson.

 

For the Motion:                         Crs Hoban, Ainsworth, Ballangarry, Finlayson, Jenvey, Jones, Reed, Smyth and Wilson

                                                Total (9)

 

Against the Motion:         Nil

                                      Total (0)

 

 

 


 

 

ITEM 9.2      SF2432              260418      T003/2018 Tender Submission - Construction Civil Works 13 Lot Subdivision Hyland Park

168/18 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

1        That Council accept the tender submitted by NorthPipe Constructions Pty Ltd for T003/2018 – Civil Construction 13 Lot Residential Subdivision Hyland Park for the Lump Sum Price presented in the tender summary within the confidential report.

 

2        That Council endorse the tender evaluation as provided within the confidential report for T003/2018 – Civil Construction 13 Lot Residential Subdivision Hyland Park.

 

3        Council note that a revote of existing allocated funds in the 2017/18 budget will be required at 30 June 2018 as the project is proposed to commence week starting 14 May 2017 and projected to completion on the week of 20 August 2018 (weather permitting).

 

4        Council allocate an additional amount of $221,500.00 in the 2018/19 budget to finalise the contractor payments after all work inspections are completed 27 August 2018 (weather permitting).

 

5        That Council approve preparing the contracts for sale for 13 lots with Council seal attached.

 

6        That Council approve delegated authority for the General Manager, Mayor and Manager Business Development to gain best land price value for sale of each lot.

 

7        That Council update the Contract Register (TRIM: 31325/2016).

 

8        That Council note the information contained in Item 12.1 in Closed.

 

For the Motion:                         Crs Hoban, Ainsworth, Ballangarry, Finlayson, Jenvey, Jones, Reed, Smyth and Wilson

                                      Total (9)

 

Against the Motion:         Nil

                                      Total (0)

 

 

 

ITEM 9.3      SF959                260418      Outstanding Actions and Reports

169/18 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Reed)

 

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

 

 

 


 

 

ITEM 9.4      SF764                260418      Request for consent to sublease of Shop 1, Riverside Drive, Nambucca Heads being part of Crown Reserve 85113 to Rintoul

170/18 RESOLVED:        (Wilson/Jenvey)

 

1        That Council in its capacity as Reserve Trust Manager 85113 endorse the proposed sub lease of 1/866932 and 2/866932 PART, being part of Reserve 85113 for Public Recreation notified 20 November 1964 and known as Shop 1 (The Beachcomber Boat Shed) to Tracey Lee Rintoul and Robert Steward Rintoul for a period of less than 3 years commencing 27 November 2018 to align with the other 2 existing Leases not exceeding past the Head Lease 7 November 2021 on Reserve 85113.

 

2        That Council authorise the General Manager and the Mayor to execute and affix Council’s seal on the sub lease of 1/866932 PART, being part of Reserve 85113 for Public Recreation notified 20 November 1964 and known as Shop 1 (The Beachcomber Boat Shed) to Tracey Lee Rintoul and Robert Steward Rintoul for a period not exceeding the Head Lease terminating 7 November 2021 with no option.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.5      SF97                  260418      Review of Alcohol Free Zone at Visitor Information Centre and Surrounds Nambucca Heads

171/18 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

 

That Council establishes an Alcohol Free Zone under Section 644 of the Local Government Act in the area surrounding the Nambucca Valley Visitor Information Centre described as follows; Riverside Drive west of its intersection with Woodbell Street to Giinagay Way; the Giinagay Way Underpass at Bellwood Creek; west and then south-west of the Visitor Information Centre through the foreshore road reserves known as Quota and Brotherhood Parks.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.6      DA1998/020        260418      Deferred Developer Contribution Payments

172/18 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Reed)

 

1        That Council enter into a Deed of Agreement with Mr Robert Yandell (RRP Properties Pty Ltd) for deferral of developer contributions to be paid on settlement of each subdivided lot with Council’s interest in the payment of such contributions being “secured” by a deed of agreement for a maximum of 21 lots associated with development consent DA1998/020.

 

2        That Council’s seal be attached to the Deed of Agreement between Council and RRP Properties Pty Ltd as required.

 

3        That Council not enter into a Deed of Agreement with Mr David Catchpole for deferral of developer contributions associated with development consent DA2017/263.

 

For the Motion:                         Crs Hoban, Ainsworth, Finlayson, Reed, and Wilson Total (5).

 

Against the Motion:         Crs Ballangarry, Jenvey, Jones and Smyth Total (4).

 

 


 

 

Item 9.7 dealt with earlier in the meeting.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.8      SF1204              260418      Information Sign Deep Creek - Outstanding Actions

173/18 RESOLVED:        (Reed/Wilson)

 

1        That Council allocate $13,500 from the Environmental Levy Reserve for the installation of a shelter, seating and interpretive information at the Valla Beach Road car park at South Valla Beach;

 

2        In the 2018/19 financial year two (2) smaller information boards will be placed in the reserve at the bottom of Thompson Street and at or near the Valla footbridge near the Lions Reserve.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.9      SF688                260418      Interim Draft Environmental Levy Budget 2018/19

174/18 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

That Council note the draft budget proposed for the Environmental Levy for 2018/19 financial year.

 

 

 

General Manager, Michael Coulter, left the meeting before the commencement of this item, the time being 6:49 PM.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.10    SF2423              260418      Development Applications greater than 12 months or where submissions received -  to 18 April 2018

175/18 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Reed)

That the information contained in the report on Development Applications greater than 12 months or where submissions have been received as at 18 April 2018 be noted by Council.

 

 

 

General Manager, Michael Coulter, returned to the meeting at the completion of this item, the time being 6:50 PM.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.11    SF1031              260418      Review of Council's Climate Change Policy

176/18 RESOLVED:        (Smyth/Jenvey)

 

1        That Council note that the draft Climate Change Policy is to be reported to the Estuary Committee and the Clean Energy Committee in May for their consideration and comments.

 

2        That Council note that the draft Climate Change Policy will be reported back to Council following this consultation to enable the required 28 day public exhibition.

 

 

 

 

ITEM 9.12    SF2469              260418      Community Wide Greenhouse Gas Profile Project

177/18 RESOLVED:        (Jenvey/Smyth)

 

That Council note the inclusion of Nambucca Shire Council in the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage’s Community Emissions Profile Pilot Project with the required funding of $2,500 to come from funds remaining in the State of the Environment Report allocation from the Environmental Levy.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.13    SF1148              260418      Council Ranger's Report March 2018

178/18 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

That the Council’s Ranger’s report for March 2018 be received and noted by Council.

 

 

 

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

ITEM 10.1    SF251                260418      Schedule of Council Public Meetings 2018

179/18 RESOLVED:        (Wilson/Ballangarry)

 

That the schedule of dates for Council meetings in 2018 be noted and received for information by Council.

 

 

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.1    SF722                260418      Reconciliation of the March 2017 Storm Event

180/18 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Reed)

 

1        That Council allocate an amount of $115,607.09 from working funds for emergency repairs that were excluded from natural disaster funding as damage did not adhere to the guidelines of the natural disaster funding arrangements.

 

2        That Council write off the debtor amount of $115,607.09 attributed to the RMS for emergency repairs undertaken in 2016/17 financial year by Council on the rural unsealed road network.

 

3        That Council allocate an amount of $18,000 from working funds to repair an unfunded slippage on Newee Creek Road.

 

 

 


 

 

ITEM 11.2    SF1575              260418      Asset Management Plans for Sealed Roads and Buildings

181/18 RESOLVED:        (Finlayson/Ainsworth)

 

1        That Council receive and note the presentation on the Asset Management Plans for Sealed Roads and Buildings.

 

2        That Council place the Asset Management Plans for Sealed Roads (TRIM 13651/2018) and Buildings (TRIM 13649/2018) on public exhibition and receive a further report following the completion of the public exhibition.

 

 

 

ITEM 11.3    SF453                260418      Waste Management Household Chemical Collections

182/18 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Wilson)

 

1        That Council receive and note the information provided in the household chemical collection report.

 

2        That Council does not accept oil column heaters at the Nambucca Waste Management Facility unless the following steps have been undertaken:

·           The oil is drained from the unit into a suitable sealed container for transporting to the facility prior to disposal at the Community Recycling Centre (CRC)

·           The empty column heater can then be received at the facility and placed into the scrap metal section for collection and recycling by Council’s contractor.

 

3        That Council note that the NSW EPA who conduct the Household Chemical CleanOut Program which will accept oil column heaters have no immediate programs planned for the Nambucca Shire.

 

 

      

 

CLOSURE

 

There being no further business the Mayor then closed the meeting the time being 6.58pm.

 

Confirmed and signed by the Mayor on 17 May 2018.

 

 

 

 

Cr Rhonda Hoban

MAYOR

(CHAIRPERSON)

 

     


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     17 May 2018

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.1      SF2433            170518         Request for Leave of Absence - Cr John Wilson from 29 June to 8 July 2018 inclusive

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    John Wilson, Councillor         

 

Summary:

 

I, (Cr John Wilson) request leave for the period 29 June 2018 to 8 July 2018 inclusive for personal reasons.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Cr John Wilson be granted leave of absence in accordance with Section 234(d) of the Local Government Act for the period 29 June 2018 to 8 July 2018 inclusive.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.        


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     17 May 2018

General Manager

ITEM 9.1      SF731              170518         Draft Nambucca Regional Economic Development Strategy 2022

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

The NSW Government has assisted local councils and their communities to develop 37 Regional Economic Development Strategies across regional NSW.  Each strategy is designed around one or more local government areas that form a functional economic region as defined by economic data and community input.

 

The NSW Government determined that this local government area was a functional economic region and as a consequence this draft regional economic development strategy is specific to the Nambucca Valley whereas Coffs Harbour and Bellingen have been combined for the preparation of a single strategy for both local government areas and Port Macquarie-Hastings and Kempsey Councils likewise.

 

The Council has now received a draft Nambucca Shire Regional Economic Development Strategy 2022 prepared by the firm Corview.  The Strategy and Report have been provided for Council’s review and comment.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        Council advise Corview in terms of the comments provided in this report plus any additional comments the Council seeks consideration of.

 

2        That Council formally thank the Department of Premier and Cabinet for the funding and support provided for the development of the Regional Economic Development Strategy.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The Council can make comment on the draft Nambucca Regional Economic Development Strategy as it sees fit.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

This report was considered by Council at its meeting on 12 April and it was resolved that:

 

1        That following a workshop on this matter that Council advise Corview in the terms of the comments provided in this report and any comments which might arise from a workshop.

 

2        That Council formally thank the Department of Premier and Cabinet for the funding and support provided for the development of the Regional Economic Development Strategy.

 

Mr Brendan Leary, from the consulting firm Corview happens to be on the Mid North Coast today assisting other councils with their Regional Economic Development Strategies.  As such he was available to attend this Council meeting so the matter has been relisted.  It is proposed that Mr Leary make a brief presentation to Council about the draft strategy and then answer any questions.  It is understood that this won’t be in a workshop “format” but I thought the opportunity to have Mr Leary present to speak to the report and answer questions outweighed a sit down discussion without him.

 

The Council has now received a draft Nambucca Shire Regional Economic Development Strategy 2022 prepared by the firm Corview.  The full report has been circulated to Councillors via email on 31 March 2018.  Because the full report runs to 94 pages it has not been attached.  The “Overview” report is attached.

 

Corview have provided these reports for Council’s review and comment

 

Regional Economic Development Strategies are intended to articulate a framework for identifying actions crucial to achieving a regional vision.  By complimenting existing funding processes, the strategy presents an opportunity to strengthen and increase investment in the development of this local government area and our “Coffs Coast” sub-region.

 

The Strategy identifies a range of opportunities, actions and candidate projects against the four strategic themes:

 

·      Better Connectivity

·      Harnessing Inputs, Skills and Jobs

·      More Liveable Communities

·      Fresh Thinking

 

Pages 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the document list the identified opportunities, actions and candidate projects in full.

 

The following is a list of the nominated actions and candidate projects with some commentary in relation to some of the proposals.

 

Strategic Theme – Better Connectivity

Actions

Candidate Projects

Develop a business case for a Freight Intermodal and Transhipment Facility in the Valla Growth Area1

 

Nambucca Freight Intermodal and Transhipment Facilities in Valla Growth Area

Identify, cost and prioritise options for “first mile” and “last mile” connections to arterial roads

 

Business Case for “First Mile” and “Last Mile” Local Roads Network Integration

Progress NSW Government’s Future Transport Strategies:

·      New bus and coach service improvements for the region to improve connectivity between regional centres and centres

·      Within centre bus service improvements for Regional Cities and Centres2

 

Lanes Bridge, Bowraville Replacement

In collaboration with the private sector, audit digital connectivity blackspots across the region.

 

 

1 Whilst the Valla area is approximately half way between Brisbane and Sydney and has the main Northern railway line next to the upgraded Pacific Highway, it is the case that the upgrade of the Pacific Highway is likely to diminish the case for a freight intermodal.  Similarly the inland rail line which is currently under construction will likely see more container transport on that line as opposed to the main northern line.  With one exception the Council has not received enquiries for economic development prompted by the interconnection of road and rail linkages.  Whilst there is no objection to the recommended action to develop a business case for a Freight Intermodal and Transhipment Facility the most likely scenario is that any potential in freight will only be for limited growth in warehousing requirements for the Coffs Coast population and that warehousing is unlikely to require an intermodal facility.

 

Strategic Theme – Harnessing Inputs, Skills and Jobs

Actions

Candidate Projects

Acquire and service the Valla Growth Area

 

Vehicle Body Manufacturing Cluster Plan

Develop a Vehicle Body Manufacturing Cluster Plan to realise its potential as a Manufacturing Centre of Excellence, potentially including a SkillsPoint in Nambucca Shire.2

 

Joint Nambucca Shire, education provider, and private industry Taskforce to develop skills need and training facilities.3

Develop supply chain network to support local manufacturing industries.

 

Establish a First Mover Infrastructure Fund4

Partner with local industries and training providers to review training gaps and align training courses to local industry needs.

 

Nambucca River Employment Strategy

Develop a scope for a Nambucca Shire’s “Clean and Green” brand image to improve visitor economy.

 

Nambucca Tourism and Agribusiness Branding Strategy

Review and determine the next steps for the Nambucca River Master Plan and develop a program business case.

 

Nambucca River investment program

Identify indigenous business and employment opportunities in consultation with the Aboriginal community and industry leaders.5

 

 

 

2, 3 The Nambucca Valley has already developed a reputation as a manufacturing centre.  This reputation is built on the success of the vehicle body manufacturing cluster which in turn is founded on the entrepreneurial dynamism of the business owners, the availability of (mainly local) skilled tradespersons and with considerable support and assistance being provided by the Council over the decades.  The achievements of this manufacturing cluster are to be applauded.  Despite the table on page 12 indicating that manufacturing is sitting just inside the quadrant of an unspecialised, declining employment industry, it still constitutes significant employment and history indicates that the Valley has an aptitude for being cost competitive compared to the rest of NSW.  By way of example, Express Coaches are the sole remaining financially sound bus and coach building business in NSW.  The initiatives to further develop the cluster, including a SkillsPoint, are strongly supported.

 

4 The Council has previously adopted policies in relation to the creation of employment land that would fit within the definition of a “First Mover Infrastructure Fund”.  The strategy indicates this direction was well founded and suggests there may be scope for its further development.

 

5 There is potential for the Council to work with Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALC’s) in the development of social housing opportunities.  Housing needs are amongst the highest priorities for LALC’s and given they own significant tracts of land there is an opportunity to create social housing whilst at the same time providing mentoring and support in the business and employment opportunities associated with such housing.

 

Strategic Theme – More Liveable Communities

Actions

Candidate Projects

Identify school asset investment opportunities to provide contemporary, future focused learning spaces.

 

Secure an agreement to locate a Senior Technical College in the Valla Growth Area.6

Identify Nambucca Riverfront development options to make to the region an even more attractive place to live.

 

Nambucca River Front Development Plan

Provide greater access to and awareness of indigenous and environmental heritage.

 

Community Events Festival Strategy

Collaborate with NSW Health to prepare a Road Map to address regional health care service delivery gaps.

 

Implementation of Macksville CBD Beautification Plan7

Establish a First Mover Infrastructure Fund to provide enabling greenfield (residential land) infrastructure.

 

Provision of infrastructure for new Macksville Hospital8

Upgrade to Bowraville Sewerage Treatment Plant9

 

Upgrade to sports facilities-

·      Hennessy Tape Sporting Precinct

·      Macksville Memorial Aquatic Centre

·      Phillip Hughes cricket facility10

 

Implementation of foreshore and public art projects in Nambucca Heads.11

 

Nambucca Water Treatment Plant12

 

 

6 The General Manager and Manager Business Development have been lobbying the Catholic Diocese Education Office in relation to the opportunity to establish a vocational Senior Technical College in the Nambucca Valley similar to the Newman College in Port Macquarie.  This opportunity would link with the “Skillspoint” initiative.  There is interest in the concept and some additional support from Council may lead to a commitment by the Diocese.  It should be a “high value” target for economic and social development.

 

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 The Council has these candidate projects underway via grant applications, programs and expenditure commitments.

 

Strategic Theme – Fresh Thinking

Actions

Candidate Projects

Identify regulatory inconsistencies across government agencies and between levels of government.

 

Investigate requirements for deemed consent development assessment processes.13

Identify Terms of Reference and governance structure for a Regional NSW Development Commission to be modelled on the principles of the Greater Sydney Commission.

 

Create a Regional Commission like the Greater Sydney Commission to grow regional NSW.

Pursue a Nambucca City Deal, potentially in partnership with neighbouring centres.

 

Nambucca City Deal.

Oversee the implementation of the Nambucca Shire 2022 Regional Economic Development Strategy in partnership with industry, especially for business case development.

 

Joint Nambucca and Private Sector Taskforce for business case development.

Engage with industry as relevant when developing business cases.

 

 

13 It is agreed that there should be more opportunities for deemed consent, at least in relation to minor domestic structures like sheds and garages.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The preparation of the Regional Economic Development Strategy (REDS) has been the subject of extensive consultation.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

A number of initiatives in the strategy do have implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

The strategy initiatives have social implications.

 

Economic

 

The primary focus for the strategy is on improving economic outcomes.

 

Risk

 

There are risks associated with the Strategy.  The risks principally relate to the selected strategies providing the best cost/benefit to the community in terms of achieving the triple bottom line (environmental, social and economic) returns.

 

However the data provided in the Strategy together with the outcome of the consultation process provides more confidence in relation to the development of those strategies that will produce the best returns.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

At this stage the draft strategy has no budgetary implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage the draft strategy has no implications for working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

At this stage there are no significant service level implications.

 

Attachments:

1

11246/2018 - Nambucca_Shire_REDS_Summary Report Final Draft

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

Draft Nambucca Regional Economic Development Strategy 2022

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     17 May 2018

General Manager

ITEM 9.2      SF600              170518         Request by Lesley Flanders to Purchase Land West of the Bowraville Racecourse

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

Ms Lesley Flanders has requested that she and her family be provided with title to land immediately to the west of the Bowraville racecourse.  She requests this because it is a very sacred place to the Flanders family culturally, spiritually as well as historically.

 

The land is an unused section of the Grassy Road reservation which she maintains has been the home of the Flanders family since 1922.  In or about the 1960’s, there were three houses on the land, occupied by the Donovan, Kelly and Flanders’ families, who were direct descendants of John Flanders (grandfather).  The families raised their children on the land.  In 1977 a flood destroyed the houses.  The family did not have the money to pay for the repairs.  Thereafter, Lesley’s mother lived in a caravan on the land until approximately 1983 when she became too ill to stay on the property.

 

Lesley’s mother was the last member of her family to reside on the land.  A nephew, Michael Flanders (son of Christine) also resided on the land until the early 1980’s.

 

There has been consultation with Ms Flanders in relation to her request and in October 2016 the General Manager responded advising that Council was unable to subdivide the land to create a lot.

 

Council has now received further representations from David Shoebridge MLC and Ms Anne Gillin from Nambucca Valley Legal requesting that Council reconsider the matter and support a site specific amendment to the local environmental plan to allow the requested transfer.  As the General Manager dealt with the request in the first instance, the elected Council should undertake a review of that decision.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council note the General Manager’s letter of 7 October 2016 and resolve to take no further action in relation to the request from Ms Lesley Flanders for the reasons listed in the report.

 

2        That Ms Lesley Flanders, Mr David Shoebridge MLC and Ms Anne Gillin of Nambucca Valley Legal be advised of Council’s decision for the reasons listed in the report.

 

3        That Council further consider the matter when it has “ownership” of the land and can deal with it exclusively.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1        The Council has the option of agreeing to the request from Ms Lesley Flanders and undertaking a site specific amendment to the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan as suggested by David Shoebridge MLC. 

 

2        The Council could simply undertake a process to close the unused, westerly section of the Grassy Road reservation and transfer land to Ms Flanders without a dwelling entitlement.  This is not recommended as inevitably such parcels are transferred with future owners seeking to maximise the capital value with a dwelling entitlement.

 

3        A third option is that Council undertake a process to close the unused section of the road reservation and then negotiate with interested parties to achieve the best price.  However the current situation is that the Council would commit a very large amount of staff time to the exercise and then be obliged to remit all proceeds from the sale of the land to Crown Lands.

 


DISCUSSION:

 

The following report was listed for consideration by Council on 14 December 2017 but was deferred at the request of the applicant.  The Council also resolved that the matter be listed for a site inspection.  Ms Anne Gillin has now requested that the item be included in the Council meeting agenda, “for the purposes of seeking a motion for the Councillors to attend the subject property for a site inspection”.  Accordingly the item has been listed on this agenda and an inspection has been arranged to occur prior to the meeting.

 

On 21 September 2016 the Council received a request from Ms Lesley Flanders (attached) seeking an urgent meeting to discuss the possibility of acquiring from Council land which she maintains her family had resided on as far back as 1922.   She believes her family’s occupation of the land was the subject of a 99 year lease but has not been able to locate the documents to prove this.

 

Ms Flanders had been referred to Council by the Department of Industry – Crown Lands who had apparently been dealing with the matter.  Council has not received any correspondence from Crown Lands in relation to the matter and Ms Flanders notes the advice she received was that the, “block of land is still crown lands owned by the Nambucca Shire Council”.

 

I subsequently met with Ms Flanders and responded by letter dated 7 October 2016 (attached).

 

In relation to my response the Council has now received further representations from David Shoebridge MLC (attached).  Mr Shoebridge states:

 

“I strongly urge you to reconsider your conclusion regarding this matter, and work towards a solution that honours the spiritual and cultural connection of the Flanders family to this land by allowing a transfer back to Lesley Flanders.

 

If Council forms the view that the minimum lot size requirement in the LEP prevents this sale and transfer then I would hope that a site specific amendment to the LEP would be considered to reduce the minimum lot size for just this one parcel of land.”

 

More recently Council has received representations from Anne Gillin from Nambucca Valley Legal.  These representations are attached.  Ms Gillin urges that the matter be reconsidered so as to:

 

 “work towards a solution that honours the spiritual and cultural connection of the  Flanders family to this land by allowing a transfer back to Lesley Flanders.

 

If Council forms the view that the minimum lot size requirement in the LEP prevents this sale and transfer then I would hope that a site specific amendment to the LEP would be considered to reduce the minimum lot size for just this one parcel of land.”

 

An attachment to Ms Gillin letter being a letter to Elders relevantly sets out the history of the occupation of the land as follows:

 

“Lesley instructs that the land in question was subject to a 99 year lease granted to her grandfather, John Flanders in 1929.  To date however, we have not been able to find a reference to the Lease.

 

We are instructed that the land has cultural and spiritual significance to the Flanders family.

 

Lesley advises that her family resided on the land from as early as 1922.  Her father was born on the land and all but four of his thirteen children were also born on the land.

 

In or about the 1960’s, there were three houses on the land, occupied by the Donovan, Kelly and Flanders’ families, who were direct descendants of John Flanders (grandfather).  The families raised their children on the land.

 

By letter dated 3 August 1977 to the Aboriginal Lands Trust of NSW, the Shire Council agreed to sell the land to Mrs Flanders, Lesley’s mother, subject to the mutual agreement on price with the adjoining landowner.  At the time Mrs Flanders did not have the funds to purchase the property.

 

In 1977 a flood destroyed the houses.  The family did not have the money to pay for the repairs.  Thereafter, Lesley’s mother lived in a caravan on the land until approximately 1983 when she became too ill to stay on the property.

 

Lesley’s mother was the last member of her family to reside on the land.  A nephew, Michael Flanders (son of Christine) also resided on the land until the early 1980’s.

 

In or about November 1998, (the) Bowraville Local Aboriginal Land Council made a claim against the land.  We understand that this claim was unsuccessful as the Land Council included the racecourse as part of the land claim.

 

We advise the land is currently owned by Crown Lands.

 

We are instructed that the family has maintained their connection with the land to the present time.  In this regard, we note that the family has and continues to bury the placenta of each child of the family and that the land is the burial place of members of the family, we conduct memorials on the land following the death of family members and bury some of the soil from the land in the graves of our family members.

 

We write to ask your consent to the Flanders family entering negotiations with Nambucca Shire Council in respect to the possible purchase of the land.

 

We are instructed that the family will ensure that the land maintains its cultural and spiritual significance.

 

If you are in agreeance with Ms Flanders’ proposal, please sign the duplicate copy of this letter and return it to our office….”

 

There are eight (8) returns attached to Ms Gillin’s letter each signed by an Elder.

 

From my discussions with Ms Flanders I concluded that the land she is referring is the section of land immediately west of the Bowraville Race Course which contains Grassy Road.  This land is shown by the grey highlight on the attached plan.  A plan showing an aerial view of the land is attached.  A plan showing an aerial view of the land with flood affectation is also attached.

 

The land is near Bowra Creek close to the point where it enters the Nambucca River.

 

In relation to the request from Lesley Flanders it is acknowledged as per the representations from David Shoebridge MLC that she has a special attachment to the place.

 

But there are other considerations for Council in dealing with the land being:

 

1        There are existing laws that make provision for the transfer of such land to Aboriginal persons.  For example the first listed purpose of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 is, “to provide land rights for Aboriginal persons in New South Wales”.  The transfer of land by Council outside this legal process does open up the potential for other claims to be made where similar circumstances exist.  There are potential equity issues if Council deals with Ms Flanders in good faith but is unaware of other Aboriginal people who might mount a similar claim in relation to their connection with the land.

 

Council staff have ascertained that Aboriginal Land Claim 6229 which seems to relate to the same land was refused by the Minister on 13 September 2017 and is within an appeal period of 4 months under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983.

 

2        In relation to equity there may be non-Aboriginal people who have an interest in acquiring the land.  Typically with land which is surplus to a road reservation, adjoining property owners are usually contacted to ascertain whether or not they have an interest in acquiring it.  The proposed process of transferring the land direct to one person would by-pass this process and leave Council open to accusations that it had not consulted broadly enough nor worked hard enough to achieve “best value”.

 

3        It is noted that the family, “will ensure that the land maintains its cultural and spiritual significance” but once the land is in the private ownership of an individual there is nothing to ensure this intent as it will rely on the good will of its future owners.  For this reason it was suggested in Council’s letter of 7 October 2016 that a more definite and permanent acknowledgement of the attachment of Aboriginal people to the land would be for it to remain in public ownership with a form of memorial incorporating a story board of the use of the land by Aboriginal people.

 

4        David Shoebridge MLC and Anne Gillin suggest that Council undertake a site specific amendment to its LEP to allow the sale and transfer of a parcel of land to Ms Flanders.  However there are some practical considerations in creating a separate title including ensuring that there is sufficient flood free land for both a dwelling and an on-site sewage management system (OSSM).  Council has no information in relation to this and there will be considerable expense involved in survey work and consultant’s reports to identify a dwelling site and an adequate flood free area for an OSSM.

 

5        There are considerable expenses in staff time in preparing a site specific amendment to its LEP as suggested by David Shoebridge MLC; in advertising, survey costs and plan registration for closing a section of the road and creating a title; in consultant fees for identifying a dwelling location and area for an OSSM.  Compensation will also need to be paid to Crown Lands.  These costs will run to many thousands of dollars.  To date there has been no offer to pay these costs.  There is obviously financial risk to Council if it embarks on this process without having surety as to how these costs are to be met.

 

6        In transferring the land Council would also need to notify NTS Corp, the representatives of the Native Title claimants in the Nambucca Valley of Council’s intention to transfer this land being a “future act” under the Native Title Act 1993.  The notification of a proposed future act being the transfer of Crown Land to an individual would provide a right to negotiate.  Just because the proposed transfer of the land is to an Aboriginal person does not obviate Council’s obligations under the Native Title Act 1993.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The legal status of the land has been discussed with Council’s Surveyor.  The land is part of the Grassy Road reservation and Council does have the authority to undertake a process to close a section or sections of the surplus road and transfer those sections to an individual.  Typically where Council has surplus land in a road reservation it would firstly be offered to an adjoining owner to incorporate in their land holding as usually the Council’s zoning provisions would prevent the land from being separately developed, ie the land not being of sufficient area to meet the minimum area standard for the erection of a dwelling.

 

As the section of land sought by Ms Flanders is not developed then the current arrangements with Crown Lands is that any compensation payable for the transfer of the land would be remitted to Crown Lands.  In that sense it is correct to say that the land is “owned” by Crown Lands.

 

Council’s Surveyor has also referred to Parish Maps and notes what appears to be an Aboriginal Land Claim (ALC) No. 6229 which was lodged in relation to the land on 12 November 1998.  The Aboriginal Land Claim Investigation Unit of the NSW Department of Industry – Crown Lands has advised that ALC 6229 was refused by the Minister on 13 September 2017 and is within the appeal period of 4 months under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983.

 

I have also recently been contacted by an adjoining owner, Mr Paul Hoffman who has advised that he has previously on three occasions applied to the Nambucca Shire Council to purchase the property.  The first time was in 1993, then in 2002, and finally in 2006.  He received notification from Nambucca Shire Council in 2006 stating that the council would not be proceeding with his request.  The Crown land adjoins their property and he would like the opportunity to purchase it to clean it up, maintain it and control feral animals etc.  If Council is of a mind to deal with the land he would like his previous expressions of interest reconsidered.

 

Further responses concerning the content of this report have now been received from Nambucca Valley Legal and are attached.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

At this stage there are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

The social implications are discussed in the report.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

The risk issues are discussed in the report.  There are some particular risks pertaining to the financial costs associated with creating a title and also more broadly the legal and equity risks arising out of the Council initiating a process for transferring land of cultural and spiritual significance to individual people outside of the existing State and Commonwealth legislative frameworks

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There may be budgetary impacts depending upon the agreement reached in relation to the land.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There may be impacts on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are resourcing implications in responding to the additional requests, preparing this report and for any future work.

 

Attachments:

1

32518/2016 - Request for meeting with GM

 

2

34957/2016 - General Manager's response

 

3

38137/2017 - Letter from David Shoebridge MLC

 

4

41240/2017 - Representations from Nambucca Valley Legal

 

5

41542/2017 - Crown Land West of Lot 75 DP 755549

 

6

41616/2017 - Grassy Road Aerial Cadastral Map

 

7

41618/2017 - Grassy Road Flood Affectation

 

8

15702/2018 - Nambucca Valley Legal - request to address meeting

 

9

15703/2018 - Nambucca Valley Legal - response to report

 

10

15704/2018 - Extracts from Council minutes

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

Request by Lesley Flanders to Purchase Land West of the Bowraville Racecourse

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

Request by Lesley Flanders to Purchase Land West of the Bowraville Racecourse

 

 

 

Enquiries to:       Mr Michael Coulter

Phone:              02) 6568 0200

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

Mobile:              0409 153 788

Our Ref:            LF428

 

 

 

7 October 2016

 

 

 

Ms Lesley Flanders

EMAIL:  l.flanders54@gmail.com

 

 

Dear Lesley

 

CROWN LAND WEST OF LOT 75 DP 755549

 

I refer to your letter of 16 September 2016 and to our meeting in my office.

 

From our discussions in my office and viewing Council's Geographic Information System, I understand the land where the Flanders family lived as far back as 1922 forms part of the road reservation of Grassy Road which adjoins the Bowraville Racecourse. 

 

I note your advice that this is a sacred place to the Flanders family culturally, spiritually as well as historically and that family members have tried to clarify and claim the land but were given the "run around" by the local Council.

 

You also advise me that the house was apparently removed from the site more than 25 years ago. 

 

I have discussed your request with Council staff and provide the following advice.

 

The road reservation where the house was apparently located is zoned RU1 Primary Production and the minimum lot size for subdivision is 40 hectares (100 acres) per lot.  I have measured the area of this section of road reservation, including Grassy Road itself, and it only has an area of 2.7 hectares, far less than the 80 hectares of land required for a two lot subdivision.

 

Consequently, my assessment is that the Council is unable to subdivide the land to create a block to transfer to yourself.

 

However, as I observed at our meeting, the Council is interested in increasing public awareness of the Aboriginal history of the Nambucca Valley.  The more recent history of your family's settlement next to the racecourse is an important piece of that local history.

 

The Council does operate a Local Heritage Assistance Fund which may be able to provide funding towards a history board for the site and interpretive works so as to provide a permanent acknowledgement and display of your family's connection to this land.

 

Should you be interested in pursuing this suggestion, the Council would require access to whatever information and photographs you may have of your family's occupation of the land.  We would display this information on a signage board which could be read by anyone visiting the site.  As an example of the type of sign which could be provided, the Council has recently installed a sign concerning the history of Frank Partridge VC on the corner of Partridge and Cooper Streets, Macksville.

 

I'm sorry I'm unable to transfer this block of land to you as per your request but I am confident funding could be sourced for a permanent and fitting acknowledgement of your family's occupation of the land, should you so desire.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Description: cid:035374405@07042009-0537

 

Michael Coulter

GENERAL MANAGER

 

MAC:ms

 

Cc     Coordinator Strategic Planning & Natural Resources

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

Request by Lesley Flanders to Purchase Land West of the Bowraville Racecourse

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

Request by Lesley Flanders to Purchase Land West of the Bowraville Racecourse

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

Request by Lesley Flanders to Purchase Land West of the Bowraville Racecourse

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

Request by Lesley Flanders to Purchase Land West of the Bowraville Racecourse

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

Request by Lesley Flanders to Purchase Land West of the Bowraville Racecourse

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

Request by Lesley Flanders to Purchase Land West of the Bowraville Racecourse

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

Request by Lesley Flanders to Purchase Land West of the Bowraville Racecourse

 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

Request by Lesley Flanders to Purchase Land West of the Bowraville Racecourse

 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     17 May 2018

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.3      DA2017/272      170518         DA2017/272 Mixed Use Commercial and Shop Top Housing Development at 7A Ocean Street, Scotts Head

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Brad Lane, Senior Town Planner         

 

Summary:

 

The proposal is to demolish the existing structure on the site and erect a new 3 storey mixed-use commercial and shop top housing development comprising 2 x three-bedroom units and 10.4m2 of commercial premises.  A total of 3 on-site car parking spaces are proposed.

 

The plans the subject of this report are the result of an amendment made by the applicant to the development application, following consideration of the submissions received to the original proposal.

 

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 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, grant development consent subject to conditions provided as Attachment 4.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1.   Grant development consent in accordance with the Council Officers recommendation.

 

2.   Grant development consent with amended conditions of consent as required.

 

3.   Refuse the development application and provide reasons for that decision.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Description of the Site and Surrounds

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot 413 DP 611276 and known as No. 7A Ocean Street, Scotts Head and has an area of 180m2.  The subject land is occupied by a single storey commercial premises comprising a gross floor area (GFA) of 85m2.  The existing building is built to the northern side boundary and extends to the site frontage at Ocean Street.  The southern part of the site is burdened by a right of carriageway (ROC) 3.05m wide which contains a concrete driveway that benefits the adjoining property Lot 412 DP 611276.  The site is almost entirely covered with building or hard stand area with no landscaped area other than an irregular bin storage area at the rear of the building.

 

Although the site and land to the north is located within the B4 Mixed Use zone, the immediately surrounding area is presently characterised with predominantly residential land uses.  The dwelling house immediately to the north of the subject site is known as No. 7 Ocean Street and is constructed to the common boundary with a party wall to the subject site.

 

To the east of the site is the Ocean Street road reserve, which includes a nose to kerb on street car parking area on the eastern side in addition to normal parallel parking on the western side of the street. Further to the east is an area of foreshore open space and “Little Beach”.

 

Immediately to the south of the site is a one and two storey dwelling house known as No. 5 Ocean Street.  That dwelling is setback 3.5m from the common side boundary to the subject site.  Further to the south are other two storey dwellings. 

 

Immediately to the west of the site is a two storey detached garage structure associated with No. 7 Ocean Street.  The garage structure is accessed via the ROC along the southern side of the subject site and is built to the boundary on three sides including the common boundary to the subject site. The upper level of garage structure contains an area which was approved as a storage area.  Further to the west of the site are one and two storey dwelling houses located within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. 

 

Description of the Proposal

 

The proposal is to demolish the existing structures on the site and erect a new 3 storey mixed-use commercial and shop top housing development comprising 2 x three-bedroom units and 10.4m2 of commercial premises.  A total of 3 on-site car parking spaces are proposed.

 

Complete details of the proposed development are provided on the application plans provided as Attachment 1.

 

At the ground floor level, direct pedestrian access is available from Ocean Street to the commercial premises tenancy and to the staircase that accesses residential units at the upper levels.  Vehicular access is provided at the southern side of the site frontage over the alignment of the existing ROC.  To the rear of the commercial tenancy are three angled car parking spaces, provision for bin storage and landscaped area. 

 

The upper floor units are proposed to be built to the northern boundary with balconies extending to the Ocean Street frontage.  A 1.5m side setback to the southern side and a 2m rear setback is proposed.  The part of the upper floor which is cantilevered over the ROC below provides a 2.8m head height clearance to the driveway below.

 

The external appearance of the proposed development is of a contemporary design style, incorporating a curved roof.  The balconies at the upper levels provide articulation on the building facade with a combination of solid and open balustrade. A mixture of materials are to be used including steel, rendered masonry, glass and aluminium and the colour scheme is similar to nearby buildings incorporating white and sandy colours.  A glass shopfront and footpath awning is provided at the ground level. 

 

The proposed development is assessed against the relevant sections of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as follows:

 

Section 1.7 – Application of Part 7 of Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of Fisheries Management Act 1994

 

It is considered that sufficient information is available to satisfy Council that the proposed development will not be contrary to the matters for consideration outlined in this section subject to the recommended conditions of consent. As such, it is not considered that the proposal will have any significant effects on threatened species, populations, communities or their habitats.

Section 4.14Consultation and development consent—certain bush fire prone land

 

Conditions have been included within the conditions of consent which will ensure the proposed development is consistent with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006. Although the site is at minimal risk of bushfire hazard, construction to BAL 12.5 is required.

Section 4.15(1) In determining a development application a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application:

 

(a)(i)   The provisions of any environmental planning instrument (EPI)

 

NAMBUCCA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010

 

The proposed development is assessed against the relevant clauses of the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 in the following table:

 

Clause

Complies

Comments

2.3 – Zone objectives and land use table

Yes

The proposed mixed-use development is considered to be entirely consistent with the zone objectives as it integrates suitable business and residential uses in an accessible location which encourages walking and cycling.

4.3 – Height of buildings

Yes

The maximum building height for the subject site is 10m.  The proposal complies with this development standard having a maximum building height of 9.55m.

4.4 – Floor space ratio

Yes

The maximum FSR for the subject site is 1:1. The proposal complies with this development standard having a FSR of 1:1.

4.6 – Exceptions to development standards

Yes

Although the development application was lodged with a clause 4.6 variation request (relating to FSR), the application plans were amended in response to submissions received and now fully complies with the FSR development standard. A variation is not required.

5.3 – Development near zone boundaries

Yes

Flexible zone provisions do not apply due to Clause 20 of the Coastal Management SEPP 2018.

5.5 – Development within the coastal zone

Yes

Refer to comments under Coastal Management SEPP 2018.

5.10 – Heritage conservation

Yes

The site is highly urbanised and the nature of the development, which does not require basement excavation is unlikely to disturb aboriginal objects.

7.1 – Acid Sulfate Soils

Yes

The site is mapped as Class 5 soil. A management plan is not required for the proposed work.

7.3 – Flood Planning

Yes

The site is not affected by the 1 in 100 year flood level.

7.4 – Public utility infrastructure

Yes

All normal urban services are located in proximity to the site and will be required to be connected to the development.  A submission was received from Essential Energy raising concern with the proximity to the building to the overhead power linings within Ocean Street. To address this issue a condition of development consent will require, prior to the issue of a construction certificate, certification by a Level 3 Accredited Service Provider of works required to be undertaken to ensure that the building or the conductors (or a combination of both) are appropriately treated to ensure (electrical) safety to building occupants during the construction and occupation phases of the development.  All recommendations of the Level 3 ASP are to be implemented.

7.6 – Earthworks

Yes

Minor ancillary earthworks will be involved with site preparation.  The nature of the earthworks will comprise service trenches and footings which are of a type that are normal for this style of development.  Conditions of consent should require pre and post construction dilapidation (building and council infrastructure) reports will be included along with normal erosion and sedimentation controls to mitigate potential impacts on adjoining properties.

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

 

The proposed development is assessed against the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies in the following table:

 

State Environmental Planning Policy

Complies

Comments

SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land

Yes

The site has been previously used as a commercial premises (real estate agency and prior to that a bottle shop).  The surrounding land uses are residential.  Based upon the land use history, and an inspection of the site the proposed development is unlikely to be contaminated and is considered to be suitable for the proposed development. 

SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

Yes

A BASIX Certificate has been provided.

SEPP Coastal Management 2018

Yes

The site is identified with the Coastal Environment and Coastal Use Areas on the map accompanying this Policy.

 

Assessment comments against the matters for consideration for development within the Coastal Environment Area are provided as follows:

 

-       the integrity and resilience of the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and ecological environment,

 

Assessment Comment – Due the existing features of the site, the proposed development will have minimal impact upon the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and ecological environment.

 

-       coastal environmental values and natural coastal processes,

 

Assessment Comment – The subject site is highly urbanised and is not subject to coastal processes (coastal erosion lines).

 

-       the water quality of the marine estate (within the meaning of the Marine Estate Management Act 2014), in particular, the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on any of the sensitive coastal lakes identified in Schedule 1,

 

Assessment Comment – There are no Marine Parks in the vicinity of the site.

 

-       marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms,

 

Assessment Comment – The site does not contain marine vegetation.

 

-       existing public open space and safe access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform for members of the public, including persons with a disability,

 

Assessment Comment – The proposed development does not have direct frontage to the foreshore and will not affect access thereto. 

 

-     Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places,

 

Assessment Comment – The site is highly urbanised and the proposed development is unlikely to adversely impact upon aboriginal cultural heritage, practices or places.

 

-     the use of the surf zone.

 

Assessment Comment – The proposed development will not affect the use of the surf zone. .

 

Assessment comments against the matters for consideration for development within the Coastal Use Area are provided as follows:

 

-  has considered whether the proposed development is   likely to cause an adverse impact on the following:

(i)  existing, safe access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform for members of the public, including persons with a disability,

(ii)  overshadowing, wind funnelling and the loss of views from public places to foreshores,

(iii)  the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands,

(iv)  Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places,

(v)  cultural and built environment heritage, and

 

Assessment Comment – The proposed development does not have direct frontage to the foreshore and will not affect access thereto. 

Shadow diagrams submitted indicate that the proposal will not create adverse shadow impact or loss of views from public places to foreshores. 

The height of the development is below the maximum building height and is not considered to create an unreasonable impact on the scenic qualities of the coast.  The external appearance of the proposed building is a significant improvement on the existing situation.

The site is highly urbanised and the proposed development is unlikely to disturb aboriginal objects.  The existing structure is not of heritage significance.

 

-    has taken into account the surrounding coastal and built environment, and the bulk, scale and size of the proposed development.

 

Assessment Comment –The proposed development is compliant with the building height, FSR and the key side building setback to the residential zoned land to the south.  In this regard the bulk scale and size of the development is consistent with the mixed use planning outcome sought for the subject site.

 

(a)(ii)    The provision of any draft environmental planning instrument (EPI)

 

There are no draft environmental planning instruments relevant to the proposed development.

 

(a)(iii)   The provision of any Development Control Plan

 

NAMBUCCA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2010

 

The proposed development is assessed against the relevant clauses of the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 in the following table:

 

NAMBUCCA DCP 2010

Complies

Comments

Notification and advertising (Part A)

Yes

The proposed development was notified to adjoining land owners.  As a result of submissions the application was amended and the amendment to the development application was re-notified to adjoining landowners and also to persons who had made a submission to the original proposal.

Environmental context (Part A)

Yes

These matters predominantly relate to controls in other planning instruments and have been adequately considered on the plans accompanying the application and elsewhere in this report.

Site Analysis (Part A)

Yes

The application plans adequately address the site opportunities and constraints.

Car Parking & Traffic (Part C)

See comments - meets objects of control

The proposed development comprises 2 shop top dwellings of 85m2 each. 

As no controls are specified for shop top housing the car parking requirements of the nearest compatible category of residential accommodation Attached Dwelling, Multi-unit Housing and Residential Flat Building have been applied.

The DCP on-site car parking controls are as follows:

-   Multi- unit: 1 per dwelling <85m2 plus 1 visitor space per 5 units.

-   Commercial Premises: 1 space per 30m2 or 1.5 spaces per shop or office whichever is the greater.

The proposed development comprises 2 dwellings of 85m2 each and 10.4m2 of office space.  A condition of consent will require each of the dwellings to be less than 85m2.

The car parking requirements of the development, based on the numerical controls of the DCP are as follows:

-   Multi-Unit – 3 spaces (including 1 visitor space), plus

-   Commercial Premises – 1.5 spaces (which is greater than the per square metre alternative which requires only 0.35 spaces).

A total of 4.5 spaces, rounded up to 5 spaces are required.

The proposed development provides a total of 3 on-site car parking spaces, which represents a deficiency of 2 spaces.  Pursuant to Section 4.15(3A) of the EP&A Act 1979 (as amended), where a development application does not comply with the DCP controls, the controls must be applied flexibly and reasonable alternative solutions allowed where they achieve the objectives of the controls.

The objects of Part C of the DCP are as follows:

The objectives of this Part are to:

-    ensure each development is self-sufficient in the provision of off street parking facilities;

-    ensure that adequate provision is made for people with disabilities and for bicycles;

-    regulate access points so as to protect road capacity and efficiency to carry through traffic by minimising congestion on public roads;

-    ensure that adequate provision is made for the safe movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic within and near to any proposed development; and

-    ensure that off street parking is provided in a manner that enhances the aesthetics of the area.

In relation to the objects of the car parking section of the DCP the proposed development will provide fully compliant off street car parking for the residential uses of the proposal, subject to a condition requiring the residential units to have a floor area of less than 85m2.  The car parking demands of the proposed commercial premises will be minor (due to its limited size 10.4m2) and via a recommended condition of consent, the small commercial tenancy will be able to utilise the on-site visitor space.  The use of the visitor space by the residential and commercial uses will optimise use of the visitor space, allowing its use on an “as needed” basis and makes allowance for the differences in peak demand of the two different uses.

At present, the existing shop, which is eight times larger than the proposed commercial premises does not provide any on-site car parking.  The proposal will reduce the current demands upon the available on street car parking in the vicinity of the site and the variation to the numerical controls are supported based upon the circumstances of this particular case. 

Disabled access will be available to the commercial tenancy. It is not however normal practice to provide on-site PWD parking on a “dual occupancy” scale development.  Separate bicycle storage is not required under the DCP controls, however opportunities for storage are available at ground floor level or within the units.

Although access requires a reversing movement from the site to the street, this is scale of development is similar to dual occupancy development which is also permitted to reverse to a street.  Vehicular access point is controlled at a single point together with the driveway crossover associated with No. 7 Ocean Street. 

On balance, the proposal is considered to be a good planning outcome that vastly improves the existing situation and, will allow the development to be more self-sufficient in terms of car parking.

As mentioned above, in relation to the design principles contained in C2.7.1 of the DCP, the design of the proposed development will not allow vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward direction.  A condition of consent is to be included which requires office tenancy to be reconfigured to improve the pedestrian sight lines for vehicles reversing from the property.  This may be achieved without reducing the GFA of the proposed office tenancy.  With the recommended condition to improve pedestrian safety and given the modest scale of the development, which would generate traffic movements similar to that of a dual occupancy (which are permitted to reverse from the site), it is considered that the proposed access arrangements are satisfactory.  Although every application is to be considered on its merits, Council has recently considered a similar variation to this control in relation to heavy vehicle movements (DA2017/291) and supported the variation.

Parking dimensions – A condition of consent is to be included which requires the parking spaces to reconfigured to achieve a minimum of 2.9m wide with a minimum aisle width of 3.1m to ensure that on-site manoeuvrability of vehicles can be safely and practically undertaken.

Sediment and erosion control (Part D)

Yes

Requirements for erosion and sediment controls have been included as conditions of consent.

Signage (Part E)

N/A

The signage shown is exempt development.

Residential developments (Part H)

Yes

H2.4 Scotts Head – The proposed development is consistent will deliver a mixed use development in the B4 Zone.  The design of the proposal is of a contemporary coastal style that is considered to be appropriate for this location.

See comments- meets objects of control

H3.3 Residential Flat Building and Mixed Use Buildings – The proposed development includes alternate solutions to the commercial plan depth as well as the commercial ceiling height controls.  The variations are considered appropriate in the context of the site shape and dimensions and the limited area of the commercial tenancy and the desirability of minimising building height.  The “glass line to glass line” plan depth of the residential units in 17m which complies.

Yes

H4.1.2 Height – The proposed building at 9.55m (max) fully complies with the building height limit of 10m.  The commercial tenancy is at street level.

See comments - meets objects of control

H4.1.3 Setbacks – The proposed building fully complies with the 1.5m setback to the southern (side) boundary and zero setback to the northern (side) boundary.  An alternate solution of a 2m rear setback and zero front setback is proposed.  The proposed rear and front setbacks are considered to meet the objects of the control as shadow diagrams submitted with the proposal indicate that impact of the building will maintain more than 2 hours of solar access to principle open space of adjoining properties mid-winter. Visual and privacy impacts are managed via privacy screens, vertical separation of balconies from the street and orientation of the private open space areas to the street.  Bulk and scale of the building is addressed by locating balconies to the street frontage at the upper levels. The minimal setbacks to the street frontage are consistent with the B4 Mixed use zone and minimal setback (to the extent that the eave overhangs the road reserve) of the dwelling located at No.7 Ocean Street.  

Yes

H4.1.6 Streetscape Façade Articulation – The proposal complies will all controls in this part of the DCP apart from the 50% enclosure of the upper level façade.  Compliance with that element of the controls is not desirable where there are significant coastal views and no other dwellings located across the street.

Yes

H4.1.7 Open Space and Landscaping – The proposed private open space terraces and ground level exceed 30% of site area.

Yes

The proposal provides DSZ where available and represents an improvement from the existing situation.

Yes

H4.1.9 Topography Cut and Fill – Complies with controls regarding earthworks.

Yes

H4.2.1 View Sharing – The proposed development complies with the building height FSR and key side setback to the residential uses on the southern side.  The two storey structure to the rear of the site is a non-habitable storage area associated with a garage.  Properties either side enjoy significant coastal views to the east. In this context the proposed development does not create unreasonable view impacts and is consistent with view sharing principles.

Yes

H4.2.2 Visual Privacy – Louvre privacy panels are to be fitted to side and rear windows.  Private open space is orientated to the street.

Yes

H4.2.3 Daylight Access – The proposal complies with the controls relating to solar access (2hrs) to adjoining properties, plan depth and solar access to the private open space of the subject units and there are no single aspect units.

Yes

H4.2.4 Natural Ventilation – The proposal complies with the plan depth and cross ventilation controls.

Yes

H4.2.5 Acoustic Privacy – The design of the proposed building which incorporates a party wall and private open space areas to the street front at the upper levels is consistent with the development controls. 

See comment - meets objects of control

H4.2.6 Internal Layout – No single aspect units are proposed and the unit width exceeds 4m which complies. 

The commercial unit is less than 15m deep, as previously noted in H3.3 above.  The variation is supported on the basis of limited demand for commercial premises in the locality and the preference for on-site car parking.

See comment- meets objects of control

H4.2.7 Floor to Ceiling Height – The floor to ceiling height of the residential units fully complies.  The floor to ceiling height of the commercial tenancy is 2.8m which is a variation to the DCP control of 3.5m.  The variation is supported on the basis of the limited size of the commercial tenancy and the preference to minimise building height.

Yes

H4.2.8 Storage – adequate storage is available within the units.  Opportunity for additional storage is available at the ground floor level.

Yes

H4.2.9 Safety and Security – The proposal will increase casual surveillance of the street and includes adequate security access to the residential units.

See comment - meets objects of control

H4.3 Site Access – Refer to comments in relation to Part C in relation to car parking.  Direct pedestrian access is available to the residential stair from the street.  The shared pedestrian access to the car parking area is acceptable in the circumstances of this case where there are no practical alternatives and a limited number of units.

Yes

H4.4 Building Performance – The proposal is accompanied by a BASIX certificate which addresses water and energy efficiency. Stormwater management will be conditioned.  Letter boxes may be provided at the unit stair entry.  Clothes dryer may be installed within the building and supplemented by a balcony drying in the section located behind the solid balustrade.

Coastal Hazards (Part K)

Yes

The site is not subject to mapped coastal hazards.

Waste Minimisation and Management (Part N)

Yes

The site is serviced by Council’s waste collection route.

 

(a) (iiia) Any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4.

 

There are no planning agreements applying to the subject site.

 

(a) (iv) Any Matters prescribed by the Regulation

 

The proposed development is assessed against the relevant matters for consideration prescribed by the regulation in the following table:

 

Clause

Complies

Comments

Clause 92(1) (a) - For the carrying out of development on land to which the Government Coastal Policy applies, the provisions of that Policy.

Yes

Matters for consideration to implement the NSW Coastal Policy are provided in Clause 5.5 (Development within the coastal zone) under the NLEP 2010. These are similar to Clause 8 (Matters for Consideration) under SEPP 71. It is considered that the matters for consideration under Clause 5.5 of the NLEP 2010 and Clause 8 of SEPP 71 have been satisfactorily addressed, therefore, satisfying the requirements of the NSW Coastal Policy.

Clause 92(1)(b) — For development involving building demolition, refer AS 2601

Yes

A condition has been included within the consent requiring any demolition works to be undertaken in accordance with AS2601.

 

(a) (v) any coastal zone management plan

 

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.

 

Issue

Applicable

N/A

Comments

Context and Setting

Yes

 

The site is located in a prominent location on the landward side of Ocean Street, opposite Little Beach.  The site is the southern entry to the B4 Mixed Use Zone and the interface to the R3 Medium Density Residential zone to the south. 

The design of the proposed development responds well to the relative constraints presented by the limited size and shape of the site and optimises the use of the site and complying with the key building mass and density controls of building height and FSR as well as the increased 1.5m side setback to the residential zone.  In this regard the development is considered unlikely to create an adverse impact upon the context and setting of the subject site.

Access, Transport and Traffic

Yes

 

The development is considered to provide adequate access and parking and will not have an adverse impact upon the local road network.

Public Domain

Yes

 

The proposed development is unlikely to create any adverse impact upon the public domain including shadow or visual impact.

Utilities

Yes

 

The site will be connected to all normal urban utilities.

Heritage

 

 

In accordance with the Due Diligence Code of Practice, there are no relevant confirmed site records or other associated landscape feature information on AHIMS, no other sources of information of which a person is already aware, and the development will not impact on any landscape features that are likely to indicate the presence of Aboriginal objects.

Other Land Resources

 

N/A

N/A

Water

Yes

 

The units are to be constructed to BASIX requirements and therefore will achieve appropriate water consumption reduction targets.

Soils

Yes

 

Minimal site disturbance is proposed, however sediment and erosion controls will be conditioned.

Air and Microclimate

Yes

 

The proposal is unlikely to create any adverse impacts upon the micro climate of the immediate area.

The development is in an exposed coast location. Construction of the building will have regard to salt attack and higher wind ratings through the Construction certificate process. 

Flora and Fauna

Yes

 

The site will not impact upon flora or fauna.

Waste

Yes

 

Construction waste will be managed by conditions of consent.

The site is serviced by Councils waste collection contractors and adequate provision has been made for storage of bins. 

Energy

Yes

 

The units are to be constructed to BASIX requirements and therefore will achieve appropriate energy reduction targets.

Noise and Vibration

Yes

 

The land uses within the proposed development are not likely to generate significant noise. 

Natural Hazards

Yes

 

The site is subject to a mapped bushfire hazard. Appropriate BAL conditions have been included.

Technological Hazards

Yes

 

The site is located in proximity to overhead power lines.  A condition has been included to ensure that an accredited electrical designer appropriately addresses this issue prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

Safety, Security and Crime Prevention

Yes

 

The proposed building includes a security gate to control access from the street up to the proposed residential unit and for residents access between units.  Although the access to the car parking

Social Impact in the Locality

Yes

 

The proposed development will increase the stock of residential dwellings in a desirable location that is within walking distance of local services and amenities. 

Economic Impact in the Locality

Yes

 

The proposed development will make a positive contribution to the local economy during the construction phase.  The inclusion of a commercial use within the development encourages ongoing employment opportunities in the area.

Site Design and Internal Design

Yes

 

The design of the proposed building is functional and will provide adequate amenity for future residents.  The commercial premises tenancy, whilst small will allow effective use of the site and screens the car parking area to the rear of the site.

Construction

Yes

 

The hours of construction will be controlled by Council’s standard work hours condition.  The construction of the development will create short term impacts associated with noise dust and access for adjoining properties which are unavoidable but conditions will be included to manage and mitigate the impacts.

Conditions will also be included to require pre and post construction dilapidation reports for structures and infrastructure on adjoining land.

Cumulative Impacts

Yes

 

The proposed development has been assessed in relation to the development controls and the circumstances which relate to this particular site.  The proposed development has achieved a net improved development outcome for the site which includes a reduced demand upon on street car parking.  On this basis the proposal is unlikely to result in any unintended cumulative impacts.

 

(c)      The suitability of the site for the development

 

Does the proposal fit in the locality?

Yes

No

 

X

 

Are the site attributes conducive to development?

Yes

No

 

X

 

 

d)      Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the Regulations

 

A total of 5 submissions were received in response to the initial notification of the development application.

 

A total of forty five (45) submissions were received during the re-notification of the development application in accordance with the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010.

 

Three (3) of the submissions were unique while the remaining forty two (42) submissions were based upon a common form letter.  Copies of the 3 submissions and an example of the form letter are provided as Attachment 2.

 

The following table summarises the matters raised in the submissions:

 

Summary of Matters Raised in Submissions

Reporting Officers Comment

Development is out of character with the Village of Scotts Head with the proposed height and setbacks creating a bulky and visually obtrusive development.

The site is within the B4 Mixed use zone of the village.  The proposed built form is less than the maximum building height limit and is not considered to be out of character with the streetscape.  A compliant 1.5m side setback is proposed to the southern boundary which is the interface of the commercial and residential zones. The front setback is considered to be appropriate in this case given the existence of a zero front setback on the adjoining commercial zoned property.  The proposed zero setback of residential balconies at the upper level is considered to be an effective use of the space and provides articulation to the building.

Access arrangement involving a reversing movement to the street is unsafe for pedestrians

The proposed development does require a reversing movement from the site to the street.  However subject to the recommended condition to increase the pedestrian sight distance (refer to assessment comments NDCP Part C) and since the development is of a modest scale, which would generate traffic movements that are similar to that of a dual occupancy (which are permitted to reverse from the site).  It is considered that the proposed access arrangements are satisfactory. 

It is also noted that Council has recently considered a similar variation to this control in relation to heavy vehicle reversing movements to a development in Scotts Head (DA2017/291) and supported that variation.

Dimension of parking spaces is inadequate

It is recommended that a condition be included on the consent that to increase the width of the parking bays to 2.9m minimum and that the aisle width be increase to 3.1m (refer to assessment comments NDCP Part C).  Subject to these requirements the on-site vehicle manoeuvring will be adequate.

The development should not be credited car parking spaces and rate payers should not pay to meet the demands of a private development. 

The existing commercial premises does not provide any on-site car parking.

The proposal includes three (3) new on-site car parking spaces, providing compliant car parking for the residential uses, including a visitor space.  The proposed development will significantly reduce the floor area of the commercial premises on the site (an 87% reduction).  A condition of consent will allow the use of the visitor space to be optimised by making it available to both the residential and commercial tenancies.  The proposed development represents a vast improvement over the existing situation.

Adverse impact on privacy

The proposed development incorporates 1500mm high sill to windows other than to the living area, which are orientated to the street frontage or is screened to the sides.  It is considered that the proposed development incorporates appropriate design for privacy.

Risk of precedent

The proposed development has been assessed on its merits taking into account the specific circumstances applying to the site.  It is considered that the proposed development makes effective use of the site that achieves compliance with the key development controls.

DCP objectives not satisfied on the basis that the development is a “knock down and rebuild” and should be made to comply.

Under Section 4.15(3A) of the EP&A Act 1979 Council as the consent authority is required to apply DCP controls flexibly and allow reasonable alternative solutions that achieve the objects of those controls.  The assessment of the relevant DCP controls is provided earlier in this assessment report.

The site is too small for the development

The site of the development is subject to relative constraints of size and the existence of the ROC.  The site is located in a desirable location with access to significant areas of foreshore open space and will replace a poor quality building which presently exists on the site.  On balance the proposed building is considered to provide a good design response to the site opportunities and constraints which will deliver development on the subject site that is consistent with the objectives of the mixed use planning controls that apply to the site.

ROC Access

The subject site is burdened by ROC in favour of No.7 Ocean Street.  The proposed development maintains the width of the easement and provides a head height clearance of 2.8m, which exceeds the head height of the garage on No.7 at the end of the ROC. 

The vertical extent of the ROC is to be resolved between the two parties.  However based upon the information provided to Council during the assessment of the application it appears that a fire fighting truck would not seek to enter the ROC for the purpose of fighting a fire, but rather would do so from the street due to the width of the ROC being less than the minimum for access under the fire service policies.  Ambulance and police service may entre from the street and would be unlikely to require vehicular access the subject non habitable garage at the end of the ROC.

The easement does not restrict the issuing of a development consent by Council.

Openings in party wall/ impact upon future development potential of the adjoining property

The proposed development includes window openings to bathrooms and a secondary window of a bedroom to the northern party wall at the first and second level of the building, which are proposed to be appropriately fire rated/ treated to meet fire safety requirements.  The building design assumes that the adjoining property could provide a future redevelopment immediately adjacent to these openings, at which time the openings become redundant.  The design allows for the windows to be removed and for the bathrooms to be mechanically ventilated via a duct. The bedrooms will have another window which will maintain natural light and ventilation.  A condition of consent will allow for the subject window openings to be filled in and a positive covenant will alert prospective purchasers of the residential units of the need to undertake remedial building work (obtaining any construction certificate or its equivalent under the development consent) in the event that a building is constructed upon the adjoining property to the north. In this sense the proposed development does not affect the future development potential on the property to the north.  In the interim the subject windows enhance the side elevation, which would otherwise comprise a blank wall, and future residents to benefit from additional amenity in the meantime. 

Construction impacts

Inconvenience during the construction period will not be unavoidable but will be subject to standard conditions in relation to construction times, waste and sediment and erosion control.

 

Damage to property during construction

A condition of consent will require pre and post construction building dilapidation reports for adjoining properties.

Overlooking/ privacy impacts

The open space balconies of the units at the upper floor levels are orientated to the street and ocean view. Windows to the side and rear boundaries are provided with privacy screens.

Inadequate evaluation under Section 79C (now Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act

The evaluation under Section 4.15 of the Act is a matter for the consent authority rather than the applicant.  The information submitted by the applicant meets the requirements of Clause 50 and Schedule 1 of the EP&A Regulation 2000.

 

The applicant provided a response to the submissions which is provided as Attachment 3.

 

(e)     The public interest

 

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

 

Section 7.11 - Contribution towards provision or improvement of amenities or services

 

Development Contribution Plan

Applicable

N/A

Contribution Amount

Community Facilities and Open Spaces

x

 

$2,912.00

Local Roads & Traffic Infrastructure

x

 

$8,068.00

Surf Lifesaving Equipment

x

 

$232.00

Mines and Extractive Industries

 

x

 

Upper Warrell Creek Overbridge

 

x

 

Upper Warrell Creek Road

 

x

 

Smiths Lane Upgrade

 

x

 

Section 94A Development Contribution Plan

 

x

 

Administration 

x

 

$1121.20

 

Section 64 – Construction of Works for Developers (Local Government Act 1993)

Section 64 of the Local Government Act 1993 enables council to levy developer charges for water supply, sewerage and stormwater. This derives from a cross-reference in that Act to Section 306 of the Water Management Act 2000.

 

Development Servicing Plan

Applicable

N/A

Contribution Amount

Water Supply

x

 

$7,706.56

Sewerage

x

 

$21,489.80

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Internal Referrals

 

Engineering – Yes

 

Health and Building – Yes

 

Government Departments

 

NSW Rural Fire ServiceN/A

 

NSW Roads and Maritime ServiceN/A

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Since the site does not contain any native vegetation and subject to compliance with conditions in relation to sediment and erosion control, the proposal is unlikely to have any significant environmental impact.

 

Social

 

The proposed development will increase the stock of housing in proximity to the village centre and provide renewal of the premises.

 

Economic

 

The proposed development will contribute local employment during the construction period. 

 

Risk

 

There are minimal risks associated with the proposed development.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Nil

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

Nil

 

Attachments:

1

16005/2018 - Attachment 1 - Application Plans DA2017/272

 

2

16017/2018 - Attachment 2 - Submissions(consolidated) in response to Amended Plans DA2017/272

 

3

16092/2018 - Attachment 3 - Applicants Responses to Submissions (consolidated) DA2017/272

 

4

16233/2018 - Attachment 4 - Recommended Consent Conditions DA2017/272

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

DA2017/272 Mixed Use Commercial and Shop Top Housing Development at 7A Ocean Street, Scotts Head

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

DA2017/272 Mixed Use Commercial and Shop Top Housing Development at 7A Ocean Street, Scotts Head

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

DA2017/272 Mixed Use Commercial and Shop Top Housing Development at 7A Ocean Street, Scotts Head

 

 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

DA2017/272 Mixed Use Commercial and Shop Top Housing Development at 7A Ocean Street, Scotts Head

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     17 May 2018

General Manager

ITEM 9.4      SF959              170518         Outstanding Actions and Reports

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager; Paul Gallagher, Assistant General Manager - Engineering Services         

 

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

AUGUST 2015

1

SF674

13/08/15

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

 

AGMES

Letter to be drafted to appropriate Minister.

Letter sent week ending 30 September 2015.

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

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

 

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

 

22 March 2017 - AGMES has contacted Forestry and a further meeting to be arranged to consider sites for offset forestry.

 

 

 

OCTOBER 2015

3

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

 

4/12/17 – awaiting effect of highway closure.

 

10/01/18 – Will be reported to Council in February.

 

31/01/18 – Pending negotiations with the RMS on the highway handover.

 

4/4/18 – Comments provided to rms on a review of traffic light phasing and also permitting left turns on red.

 

JANUARY 2017

4

SF2208

12/01/17

Council engage a qualified person to undertake an assessment of flora and fauna on Lot 701 Boronia Street, Nambucca Heads to determine impact of required APZ’s.

 

GM

Report May 2017

15/05/17 – Ecologist has been engaged and a report has been prepared. It will be included/ considered in the housekeeping amendment going to the next council meeting.

 

01/06/17 – Housekeeping amendment planned to be finalised by end of 2017.

 

11/01/18 – Flora and Fauna report completed. Item removed from subject planning proposal to prevent delay in finalisation of housekeeping amendments.  It will be included in upcoming planning proposal to be presented to Council in 2018.

 

MARCH 2017

5

SF2230

16/03/17

Council assess the appropriateness of the Water & Sewerage restricted reserves after the completion of the review of the Integrated Water Cycle Management Plan.

 

AGMCS

18/3/17 – Report late 2017

 

06/12/17 – Report to be presented in 2018 following receipt of draft IWCMP.

 

5/4/18 – GM has followed up unacceptable delays in the review of the IWCM.

 

09/05/18 Issues paper received and workshop to be organised.

 

MAY 2017

6

SF1541

25/05/17

That the review of the local environmental plan include consideration and a subsequent report on the creation of more residential land near Macksville and more industrial land (including land for bulky goods) near Macksville.

 

GM

31/05/17 – Report in October 2017

 

18/10/17 - Deferred to December due to workload.

 

06/12/17 - Deferred to 2018 due to workload.

 

 

JUNE 2017

7

SF2290

15/06/17

That Council revise the Plan of Management for Gordon Park in consultation with the Section 355 Committee of Management.

 

GM

Report in November 2017.

 

22/11/17 - Deferred to January 2018 due to workload.

 

10/01/18 – CSPNR on leave.  Will need to be deferred to Feb/March 2018.

 

4/4/18 – Draft Plan and REF complete.  Section 355 Committee to be consulted and the matter reported back to Council by June 2018.

 

SEPTEMBER 2017

8

SF2293

28/09/17

Council approach the Hon Melinda Pavey and request that the control of Casey Drive be handed to Council and further that Minister be asked to reconsider handing control of the Soccer field adjacent Casey at no cost.

 

GM

04/10/17 – Pending

 

31/10/17 – further representations made to the Member for Oxley and Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight.

 

9

SF2319

28/9/17

A reviewed policy on fleet replacement be provided to Council which considers electric cars.

 

AGMES

04/10/17 – Report will be presented to Council in January 2018.

 

10/01/18 – Deferred to April 2018 due to workload.

 

14/04/18 – Draft policy to be provided to Councillors at the end of April for comment prior to a report being presented as per policy review procedures. Report to Council in June.

 

09/05/18 – Report in Business Paper 17/05/18.

OCTOBER 2017

10

SF2329

26/10/17

There be a report on amending Council’s policy on Urban and Rural Road Naming to incorporate the recommendation of the Business Advisory Committee for dual road naming.

 

AGMES

7/11/2017 - Policy to be reviewed and reported back to Council in March 2018 with other policy reviews.

 

4/4/18 – Report to May 2018 meeting.

NOVEMBER 2017

11

SF2303

30/11/17

Council receive a report on the possibility of providing a dedicated small dog park at one of the suggested locations in Nambucca Heads.

 

GM

Report February 2018

 

Due to the resignation of the Ranger the report will need to be deferred.

 

Report in March 2018.

 

07/03/18 – New Ranger has commenced and will be reported in April 2018.

 

4/4/18 – Matter has been discussed with the Manager Development & Environment who recently attended training in companion animal management.  There are risks associated with fenced, dedicated “small dog parks”.  Matter to be reported in May 2018.

 

12

SF2418

30/11/17

Council receive a report on comparative price and availability of industrial land in neighbouring councils.

 

GM

Report in February 2018.

 

Deferred due to March 2018.

 

07/03/18 – MBD has instructed Valuer to provide figures in association with evaluation with developed industrial land in the Valla Growth area.

 

27/3/18 – Awaiting return of MBD from leave.

 

09/05/18 – Valuation information has been obtained. Will be reported to Council in either May or June.

 

DECEMBER 2017

13

SF600

14/12/17

The request by Lesley Flanders to purchase land west of the Bowraville Racecourse be deferred pending advice from Ms Gillin and be listed for a site inspection.

 

GM

Awaiting further advice.

 

28/04/18 – listed for an inspection and consideration at Council’s meeting on 17 May 2018

 

 

JANUARY 2018

14

SF979

18/1/18

(Great Koala National Park) That if and when further information relating to the KPMG report, State Labor Policy or a transition package come forward, they be reported to Council.

 

GM

Awaiting further information.

FEBRUARY 2018

15

SF1398

8/2/18

Council receives a further report on negotiations under the Transition Phase (of the reform of Dept. of Family & Community Services funding).

GM

Report by 31 December 2018.

 

07/03/18 – arrangements are being made for FACS to attend a Council Workshop to discuss the matter.

 

09/05/18 – Arrangements have now been made for FACS to attend a workshop on the afternoon of Council’s meeting on 14 June 2018.

 

16

SF2278

22/2/18

The Clean Energy Committee come back to council with a draft budget as to the costs of the major proposals in their plan and Council staff have input into the feasibility of placing these devices prior to implementing the recommendations.

 

GM

07/03/18 – Report in April 2018.

 

18/04/18 – Budget is being developed by the Clean Energy Committee at a workshop on 2 May 2018 and a report to be presented to Council for 17 May.

MARCH 2018

17

SF2433

15/3/18

Council receive a report on the feasibility and options for the provision of a memorial wall at Scotts Head.

 

GM

27/3/18 – Report in May 2018.

18

SF2433

15/3/18

An update of the transition of the VIC including a compliance audit of the 12 undertakings provided by Mr Stuart Holmes when Council resolved to lease the property to Lifetime Connect be included as part of the Tourism Strategy which has already commenced.

 

GM

27/3/18 – awaiting completion of Tourism Strategy.  Anticipate report in May 2018.

 

18/04/18 – Deferred until draft Tourism Strategy is completed.

19

SF843

15/3/18

That a review of the Companion Animals Control of Dogs and Cats Policy be undertaken to amend the Dogs on Leash area to include an area from the western access point of Shelly Beach to Beilby’s Beach.

 

GM

18/04/18- Report in June 2018.

APRIL 2018

20

SF2433

12/4/18

That urgent representations to State and Federal Members and the Rural Doctors’ Network and seek a meeting of local GP practices’ to discuss and identify the opportunities and impediments to securing a GP for Bowraville

 

GM

18/04/18- Meeting date not organised as yet with the Mayor, General Manager, State and Federal members.

 

09/05/18 – General Manager has made representation to the North Coast primary health network and has been advised of an offer for a casual GP replacement on a bulk bill basis.  However, further advice is that the Mid North Coast Local Area Health District is close to procuring a permanent GP and the offer of the casual replacement will not be taken up. 

 

21

PRF45

12/4/18

That Council investigate the possibility of overnight stays on the downside of the Macksville Bridge (northern side) and at western end of Crosswinds Wetland Nature Reserve.

 

GM

18/04/18 - Report being prepared for September 2018 meeting.

22

 

12/4/18

That Council research and develop an alternate car park strategy in the location of the Adin Street precinct.

 

AGMES

18/04/18- Report being prepared for September 2018 meeting.

23

PRF10

12/4/18

That Council consider an allocation of $2,500 to the Adin Street Reserve Committee of Management in the 2018/2019 Budget and request the Committee to provide a list of any longer term planned works and estimated costings for consideration in future budgets.

 

AGMES

18/04/18- an allocation of $2,500 has been Included in 2018/19 Draft Budget for Council’s consideration. Letter to be sent to the Adin Street Reserve Committee of Management seeking a list of any longer term planned works and estimated costings.

 

24

SF1981

12/4/18

That Council makes representation to the Minister for Road to fund a new bridge at Browns Crossing to protect Council Infrastructure from flood damage and allow residents flood free access emanating from the Pacific Highway upgrade.

 

AGMES

16/4/18 – Letter sent Friday 13 April 2018

25

SF2456

12/4/18

Submission to Safe and Secure Water Program for funding of a design and construct contract for the installation of the required infrastructure (water treatment plant).

 

AGMES

18/04/18 - Submission to be drafted for funding.

 

09/05/18 – A submission has been lodged for funding and an Options Report which is expected to be considered by DPI-Water in May 2018.

26

T012/2017

12/4/18

That Council make representation to the Member of Oxley seeking her support for reconsideration of additional grant funding consistent with 50% contribution of the project (for Bowraville STP effluent treatment)

 

AGMES

18/04/18 Letter sent 20/04/18.

 

09/05/18 – General Manager has spoken to Melinda Pavey’s office and is assisting them with their representations.

27

SF2303

12/4/18

That a further report to Council on actions arising out of the Review of the Capacity of the Finance Section report, “An Internal Review of the Capacity of the Finance Section to meet operational requirements.

 

GM

18/04/18 - Awaiting appointment of new AGMCS.

28

SF2460

26/4/18

LEP/DCP horticulture amendments – there be a workshop to enable consideration of the proposal put forward by Cr Finlayson.

 

GM

28/4/18 – date for workshop being arranged

 

09/05/18 – workshop organised for 10/05/18.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     17 May 2018

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.5      SF42                170518         2018 Determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council confirm that remuneration for the Mayor and Councillors in 2018/2019 be set at the maximum allowed under the determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal being:

 

          Councillors                    $11,860

          Mayor Additional Fee     $25,880*

 

          *This fee must be paid in addition to the fee paid to the Mayor as a Councillor (s.249(2)).

 

2        That Council’s Creditors Clerk be advised of the increase in Councillor fees effective from 1 July 2018.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The Council can adopt fees with the specified range of minimum to maximum.  If the council does not fix a fee, the council must pay the minimum fee determined by the Tribunal.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal recently released its annual determination being an increase of 2.5% to mayoral and councillor fees for the 2018/19 financial year, with effect from 1 July 2018.  This is consistent with the Government’s public sector wages policy which currently provides for a cap on increases of 2.5%.  The tribunal’s report is attached.

 

Sections 248 and 249 of the Act require councils to fix and pay an annual fee based on the Tribunal’s determination.

 

Nambucca Shire Council remains in the category of a rural council.  There are 57 rural councils.  The next larger category is a regional rural council which includes Coffs Harbour, Clarence Valley, Kempsey, Port Macquarie-Hastings, and Mid-Coast councils.  It will be noted that there is a substantial increase in fees for these councils being 67% higher than those payable to rural councils.

 

It is apparent that the remuneration system relies on simply aggregating councils into like groupings and pays no regard to the operational arrangements of a particular council; the role of the Mayor; the number of meetings which councillors attend; the availability of support staff; the effort applied in responding to constituents and the like.  A council cannot fix a fee higher than the maximum amount determined by the Tribunal.

 

The practice of this Council, not unreasonably, has been to set the fees at the maximum allowed under the determination

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation in the preparation of this report.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no identified risks.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no budgetary impact.  A provision is made for the indexation of Councillor fees in the 2018/19 operational plan.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no service level implications.

 

Attachments:

1

14687/2018 - 2018-Annual Determination-LGRT

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

2018 Determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     17 May 2018

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.6      SF66                170518         NSW Auditor-General's Report on Local Government 2017

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

For the first time the NSW Auditor-General has reported to the NSW Parliament on the financial performance of NSW councils.  The report is derived from the audit of financial statements for 139 out of 140 local councils and county councils.  The Auditor-General has previously released a performance audit report on council reporting on service delivery and will soon release other reports on fraud controls and council shared services.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the information provided in the NSW Auditor-General’s 2017 Report on Local Government be received.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no options.  The report is for information.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The NSW Auditor-General has released the first report on the statutory financial audits of councils to the NSW Parliament.

 

The report which runs to 112 pages provides a wealth of data for benchmarking the performance of councils.  Because of the length of the report it has not been included as an attachment but the full report can be viewed at:

 

www.audit.nsw.gov.au/publications/latest-reports/report-on-local-government-2017

 

This report lists and comments on the findings, particularly as they relate to the performance of Nambucca Shire Council relative to its peers.

 

Financial Reporting

 

During 2016, the NSW local government sector was reduced from 166 to 140 councils, resulting in 128 local councils and 12 county councils.  The Auditor-General issued five modified (qualified) audit opinions as follows:

 

Council

Reason for modified audit opinion on the financial statements

2016-17 financial statements

The Hills Shire Council

Method used to value land under roads did not appropriately reflect external restrictions on the use of this land as required by Australian Accounting Standards

Junee Shire Council

Could not demonstrate that roads, bridges, footpaths and bulk earthworks were reported at fair value, as it did not value these asset classes during the year.  The last valuation was conducted in 2012.

Yass Valley Council

Did not record the receipt of financial assistance grants from the Australian Government as revenue in the year received, as required by Australian Accounting Standards.

2015-16 financial statements

Botany Bay Council

Significant breakdowns in administrative, financial and governance internal controls affected the reliability of financial reporting of the former council.  A significant fraud involving former management was also identified in the reporting period.  Consequently, councillors and management were unable to provide written representation that the financial statements present fairly the financial performance and position of the council.

Gosford Water Authority

Management could not confirm it had recorded all transactions in the financial statements due to control weaknesses in the Authority’s finance system.

 

There was also a note in relation to 2016-17 financial statements for the Central Darling Shire Council that it was uncertain if the council could continue operating without using restricted water and sewer funds.  Using externally restricted funds for other purposes requires Ministerial approval under the Local Government Act 1993.  Ministerial approval was not obtained.

 

In relation to the Bayside Council (which is the successor of the Botany Bay Council), the Office of Local Government approved a reporting extension for its 2016-17 financial statements until 31 May 2018 due to incomplete financial records of the former Botany Bay Council.

 

The Audit Office reported on 39 significant matters in 29 councils mostly relating to asset valuation and accounting issues including:

 

·      Ineffective controls and procedures to support asset valuations

·      Not appropriately considering external restrictions on the use of community land and land under roads when determining the fair value of assets

·      Incorrect accounting for Crown reserves and investment properties

 

The non asset-related significant matters included:

 

·      Internal control deficiencies over IT security

·      Incorrect recognition of revenue from government grants

·      Inappropriate use of corporate credit cards

·      Restricted funds used inappropriately

 

Twenty two councils required material adjustments to correct errors in previous audited financial statements.  Moderate risk issues were identified in financial statement preparation processes for 43 councils.  Common issues include:

 

·      Incomplete note disclosures required by the Code, such as for related parties, commitments, fair value measurement, financial instruments, accounting policies and subsequent events

·      Incorrect classification of balances, such as employee provisions

·      Incorrect reporting of council entities, ownership percentages for interests in other entities and assets transferred on amalgamation

·      Errors in the cash flow statement and statement of changes in equity

 

Forty councils required lodgement extensions past the 31 October 2017 statutory deadline.

 

It was interesting to note that 53 councils currently do not have an audit committee.  Changes to the Local Government Act 1993 will require councils to establish an audit, risk and improvement committee by March 2021.

 

The Auditor-General notes that the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting issued by the Office of Local Government (OLG) did not fully align with Australia Accounting Standards.  The Code requires councils to prepare financial statements in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards.

 

For example, the Code allowed councils the option to either recognise, or to not recognise rural fire-fighting equipment assets.  According to the report, “this resulted in varying accounting practices across the sector and a significant proportion of these assets not being reported in any government financial statements.”  Compared to some of the other commentary in the report this is a major understatement of the significance of the inconsistent treatment of RFS assets.  This Council included RFS assets in its statements whereas many councils did not.

 

The OLG via the Code also provided three methods for the valuation of land under roads and one of them did not specify that the restricted use of these assets needed to be considered as required by Australian Accounting Standards.  This resulted in overstated asset values for this asset class for some councils.

 

The report notes that forty councils required lodgement extensions past the 31 October 2017 statutory reporting deadline.  Poor asset records seem to be a common reason for reporting delays.

 

For the record, Nambucca Shire Council received an unmodified audit opinion and had its financial statements lodged by the statutory deadline of 31 October 2017.

 

Financial Performance and Sustainability

 

Operating expenses for 18 councils exceeded their operating revenue and another 20 councils would not have met OLG’s operating performance benchmark without the receipt of 2017-18 financial assistance grants which was recorded as revenue during 2016-17.  Eleven councils have not met OLG’s operating performance benchmark for the last three years.  This indicates there is still a significant issue with the financial sustainability of about one third of NSW councils.

 

The Operating Performance Ratio for Mid North Coast Councils (with the OLG benchmark being greater than 0%) is shown in the following table.  The operating performance ratio measures how well councils contain operating expenditure within operating revenue (excluding capital grants and contributions, fair value adjustments, and reversal of revaluation decrements).

 

Council

Operating Performance Ratio (%)

Benchmark >0%

Bellingen Shire Council

0.7

Clarence Valley Council

-3.8

Coffs Harbour City Council

18.7

Kempsey Shire Council

1.8

Nambucca Shire Council

17.8

Port Macquarie-Hastings Council

7.3

 

The Own Source Operating Revenue benchmark of 60 per cent is a struggle for many rural councils.  In 2016-17 59 councils did not meet this OLG target, including 42 rural councils.   The results for Mid North Coast Councils are shown in the following table.

 

Council

Own Source Operating Revenue (%)

Benchmark >60%

Bellingen Shire Council

68.1

Clarence Valley Council

69.2

Coffs Harbour City Council

74.3

Kempsey Shire Council

72.6

Nambucca Shire Council

68.1

Port Macquarie-Hastings Council

56.2

 

Asset Management

 

Reporting against OLG’s asset management performance measures highlights that councils need to consider whether spending on existing infrastructure assets is sufficient to ensure they continue to meet service delivery standards.

 

·      Seventy councils are not renewing assets in line with the rate of their depreciation

·      Eighty four councils did not meet OLG’s benchmark for managing the infrastructure maintenance backlog

·      Seventy one councils are not managing their assets in accordance with their asset management plans.

 

The Auditor-General has noted that the accuracy of asset registers requires improvement and all assets need to be reported in the financial statements.  The audits indicated instances where councils had multiple asset registers, inaccurate or incomplete registers, unreconciled registers, or uncontrolled manual registers.

 

Twenty four councils had not recorded $145m worth of assets, mainly land and infrastructure assets.

 

It was also noted that as at 30 June 2017, 46 councils did report vested rural fire fighting equipment in their financial statements whilst 62 councils did not.  For those councils which did not report vested rural fire fighting equipment it is the case that those assets are not reported in either State government nor local government financial statements.

 

Nambucca Shire Council did report on rural fire fighting in its statements.

 

NSW Treasury and the NSW Rural Fire Service are of the view that the NSW Rural Fire Service does not control rural fire fighting equipment vested in councils.  The Auditor-General indicates the following factors suggest that councils control rural fire fighting equipment:

 

·      Councils have responsibilities for fire mitigation and safety works in their area

·      Assets are vested in councils giving them legal ownership and title

·      A council allows the NSW Rural Fire Service the use and occupancy of these assets within its council area through a service agreement

·      Councils are responsible for maintenance and insurance of the assets, although insurance of the vested vehicles is managed by the NSW Rural Fire Service.

 

Whilst most in local government would not agree that councils “control” rural fire fighting equipment the responsibility for reporting on these assets needs to be resolved.

 

Governance and internal controls

 

The Auditor-General noted that there is currently no requirement for councils to have an audit, risk and improvement committee and internal audit function.  Consequently, 53 councils do not have an audit committee and 52 councils do not have an internal audit function.

 

Of interest is the fact that notwithstanding a requirement for Councils to obtain Ministerial approval for the establishment of separate entities, the OLG has incomplete information on the number of entities established by councils.  And there is no financial reporting framework for the variety of entities established by councils.

 

Information Technology

 

The Auditor-General recommends that controls over user access to IT systems need to be strengthened.

 

It was identified that:

 

·      Around one in four councils do not have an IT strategy or operational plan

·      Half of NSW councils have an IT security policy

·      17 councils do not have a documented plan to recover from a disaster.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation in preparing the report.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

The report deals with many significant risks to the operation of NSW local government which have been observed in the audits of councils.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no budgetary impacts.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no service level implications.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     17 May 2018

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.7      DA2018/084      170518         Donation of DA Fees for Bridge Replacement - Nambucca Heads Island Golf Club

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council approve a Section 356 donation of $984.25 (including GST) being the development application fees for DA2018/084 and require the Club to reimburse Council for the $320 fee paid to the Department of Primary Industry – Water for the application to undertake work in a waterway.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The Council has the option of requiring the Club to pay 100% of the DA fees.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Council has received a development application for the replacement of the dilapidated bridge which provides access to the Nambucca Heads Island Golf Club.  It is understood that the Golf Club has secured a grant to replace the bridge.

 

The Council staff have assessed that a development application is required to replace the bridge the fees for which total $1,304.25 (including GST) comprised as follows:

 

Adjoining owner notification                $98.00

Consent notification DA                      $28.75

Development application fee              $200.00

Archival Fee                                       $10.00

Environmental Compliance Levy          $5.00

Integrated Development Fee               $140.00

Construction Certificate Fee                $187.50

Inspection Fee                                   $155.00

OC & Final Inspection                         $160.00

DPI – Water Fee                                 $320.00

 

Given the Island Golf Club is a local not for profit sporting entity and a popular tourist attraction, the General Manager advised Council staff to accept the development application without the payment of fees.

 

It is proposed that all of the development application fees payable to Council, being $984.25 be treated as a donation from Council whilst the Club pay the $320 fee for the integrated referral application.  That fee is payable to the DPI – Water being for the approval to undertake work on a waterway.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with Business Services, Finance and Town Planning staff.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no risks.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is a balance in the donations budget of $796.40.  This donation will result in a minor deficit with 6 weeks of the financial year remaining.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is a minor impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no service level implications.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     17 May 2018

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.8      DA2009/119      170518         Deferred Developer Contribution Request - Tony & Belinda Smith, 82 Smiths Lane, Congarinni North

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

An application has been received for consideration for the deferment of developer contributions under Council’s ‘Payment of Developer Contributions Policy’.

 

Clause 2 of the Planning Agreement provides that the contribution shall be made prior to the release of any Subdivision Certificate in respect of the development.  Effectively the request seeks to amend this agreement by making provision for the payment of contributions for the two (2) lots from the proceeds from the first sale (settlement) of the two lots.

 

This proposal is a variation on other deferred settlement requests which generally propose the payment of developer contributions for each lot as it is sold (settles).  There is less administrative burden with the proposal put forward and for this reason as well as the reasons set out in the request in Closed meeting it is recommended that Council support the request.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council enter into a Deed of Agreement with Anthony Smith and Belinda Smith for deferral of developer contributions for two (2) lots whereby contributions for both lots are paid upon the first settlement with Council’s interest in the payment of such contributions being “secured” by a deed of agreement.  Further that the contributions be indexed from 2011 with payment to be based on the applicable index from the previous quarter.

 

2        That Council’s seal be attached to the Deed of Agreement as required.

 

3        That the Council note the information provided in relation to the matter in Closed meeting.

 

4        That the Mayor, General Manager and Manager Development & Environment be provided with delegated authority to determine requests for deferred payment of developer contributions provided all three agree with a request and that it generally comply with Council’s adopted policy.

 

5        That the contributions when received be held in an internally restricted reserve for expenditure on Smiths Lane as per 2011 planning agreement.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can refuse the request.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received a request from Brian Finlayson on behalf of Tony and Belinda Smith for the deferral of developer contributions for the proposed sale of two allotments as part of a four lot rural-residential subdivision of Lot 82 DP 755537 at 82 Smiths Lane Congarinni North.  A copy of the request which contains private information is reported in Closed meeting.

 

The applicants lodged a Section 96 modification application to allow the subdivision to be carried out in three stages and later entered into a planning agreement with Council dated 30 March 2011 to pay to Council the sum of $20,000 (indexed from 2011) in respect of each of the three blocks to be created pursuant to DA 2009/119.

 

The planning agreement which was entered into was consistent with a Section 94 Developer Contribution Plan prepared for Smiths Lane.

 

Clause 2 of the Planning Agreement provides that the contribution shall be made prior to the release of any Subdivision Certificate in respect of the development.  Effectively the request seeks to amend this agreement by making provision for the payment of contributions for the two (2) lots from the proceeds from the first sale (settlement) of the two lots.

 

This proposal is a variation on other deferred settlement requests which generally propose the payment of developer contributions for each lot as it is sold (settles).  There is less administrative burden with the proposal put forward and for this reason as well as the reasons set out in the request in Closed meeting it is recommended that Council support the request.

 

In relation to Council’s policy it provides as follows:

 

“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.

 

As indicated the proposal has less administrative burden that payment upon settlement of each lot and meets all of the requirements of the policy except that it is rural residential land rather than a residential subdivision.

 

As Council is currently dealing with a strong property market with frequent requests for the use of a deferred payment arrangement it is recommended that to avoid the administrative expense of individually reporting on each and every request that the Mayor, General Manager and Manager Development & Environment be provided with delegated authority to determine such requests provided all three agree with a request and that it generally complies with Council’s adopted policy.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Brian Finalyson briefly raised the matter with the General Manager prior to submitting the letter placed in Closed meeting.

 

Belinda Smith has spoken with the General Manager.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

 

No impact.

 

Social

The provision of additional rural residential housing at North Congarinni which can support the town of Bowraville will have positive social implications.

 

Economic

The provision of additional rural residential housing in the Smiths Lane precinct will provide support to the services provided in Bowraville.

 

Risk

With a deferral of contributions payment, Councils only security is by way of a deed of agreement and caveat.  A caveat is a form of statutory injunction provided for under the Real Property Act.  When a Caveat form is lodged with Land and Property Information (LPI) it effectively prevents the registration of any dealing. The caveat effectively prevents the developer from transferring the land without making arrangements for the payment of contributions and at which time the Council releases the caveat.

 

However the caveat, whilst providing a bar to registration, is not in itself financial security for the deferred contributions.  In the event that the developer was to become insolvent then those entities holding mortgages would be able to sell the lots with Council being an unsecured creditor.  Council has to carefully assess such risk against the benefit of allowing the deferred payment arrangement.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The figure of $20,000 stated in the correspondence as owing to Council is subject to CPI indexing from 30 March 2011 so it will be more than $20,000.  The indexed contribution is yet to be determined and will need to be updated to the quarter applicable to the settlement date.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

The implementation of deferred contribution agreement does increase risk to Council and is an administrative burden in terms of ensuring the contributions are paid.  The Council does not know when settlement occurs and is reliant on the Deed giving effect to the arrangement.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     17 May 2018

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.9      DA2018/076      170518         Donation of DA Fees for Road Access to the New Macksville Hospital

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council approve a Section 356 donation of $6,981.75 (including GST) being the development application fees for DA2018/076 (the proposed access road to the new Macksville Hospital) and require Health Infrastructure to pay the Planning Reform fee of $2,688 being a statutory fee payable to the Department of Planning (State Government).

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The Council has the option of requiring Health Infrastructure to pay 100% of the DA fees.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Council has received a development application for the proposed access road to the new Macksville Hospital which is to be built on a flood free site to the east of the new Highway and between Mattick Road and Letitia Close.  Health Infrastructure intend to commence early work on constructing this road whilst the hospital proper is scheduled to commence construction late in 2018.

 

The proposed hospital access road will connect to the roundabout at the end of the North Macksville off ramp and will run parallel to the highway northwards to the elevated site where Pacifico had their temporary offices for the highway construction.

 

Based on the estimated cost of development Council staff have assessed the DA fee as $9,669.75 which includes the State Government’s Planning Reform fee of $2,688.00.  This means that there is $6,981.75 owing to Council for DA assessment with $2,688.00 to be remitted to the Department of Planning for the Planning Reform Fee.

 

The Council has successfully lobbied for a new hospital on a free standing site in preference to the redevelopment of the existing, constrained site.  This has resulted in a previously announced expenditure of $50m on a redevelopment of the existing site being increased to $75m for the new hospital on a “greenfield” site.  As part of this lobbying it agreed to collaborate with Health Infrastructure in the provision of water and sewerage services to the site.

 

The Council has previously and successfully collaborated with the Mid North Coast Local Health District and with Health Infrastructure in the provision of health services to this local government area.  Such collaboration has:

 

·       improved the standard of health infrastructure in the Nambucca Valley

·       improved the “buy in” and timeliness of decision making by Council staff in such projects which are not the responsibility of Council but nonetheless are very important to community wellbeing.

·       allowed the Mayor and Council staff good access to information concerning the progress of important health infrastructure which in turn is important for community “buy in”.

·       provided financial savings to Health Infrastructure which works within a “capped” budget and contends that such savings will go to improving the finish/fit out of the building.

·       contributed to a desirable perception in State agencies that Nambucca Shire Council will be a useful partner in getting important public works done.

 

It is proposed that this collaboration continue with Council meeting the on-costs of application processing for the proposed access road.  Whilst technically amounting to a donation under Section 356 it is via an acceptance of the on-costs associated with the processing of the application rather than a cash donation.

 

Whilst Council can collaborate in relation to the development application (DA) fees it receives, the DA fee comprises a Planning Reform fee of $2,688 which is payable to the Department of Planning (State Government).  If Council were to pay this fee it would be an “out of pocket” donation.  As the payment of the Planning Reform fee amounts to the same funding circulating through the State Government it is recommended that Health Infrastructure be instructed to pay this component of the DA fee.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with Town Planning staff and Health Infrastructure.

 

Such collaborative endeavours may contribute in a small way to improving the relationship between councils and NSW State agencies.  The feedback I receive from State agencies is that such collaboration is highly regarded.  The “patchy” results of the past are perhaps an important factor in the formation of Joint Organisations.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

Besides a $75m spend on the new hospital at North Macksville, there will be economic multipliers in relation to the existing site and potentially other opportunities at North Macksville.

 

Risk

 

There are no risks.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is a balance in the donations budget of $796.40.  This donation will result in a significant deficit to the donations budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no significant service level implications to Council.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     17 May 2018

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.10    SF734              170518         Addition of Crown Land being Lot 178 DP 727302 (car park in front of the Swimming Creek Caravan Park) to Crown Reserve 81006

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Nambucca Shire Council in its capacity as corporate manager of Nambucca Heads (R81006) Swimming Creek Public Recreation Reserve accept the inclusion of Crown Land being Lot 178 DP 727302 within that Reserve.

 

2        That Council’s seal be attached to any documents relating to the transfer of the land to R81006 as may be required.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The Council as corporate manager of the Trust has the option of not agreeing to the inclusion of Crown Land being Lot 178 DP 727302 with the Nambucca Heads Swimming Creek Public Recreation Reserve (R81006)

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

There has been correspondence and discussions between Nambucca Shire Council and the Department of Industry, Crown Land and Water and the owner of the caravan park in relation to the Nambucca Heads Holiday Park structures at the entrance to the park.

 

A number of tenancy and encroachment issues were discussed with Crown Lands at a meeting in Grafton in 2015.  Since that meeting the caravan park owner has been working on the creation of easements for the existing infrastructure and appropriate conditions whereby the caravan park owner will be responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructure.

 

Crown Lands has advised that once the Crown land being lot 178 has been added to the adjoining Crown Reserve an appropriate Trust tenure would be granted to the caravan park owner, Dennien Superannuation Custodian Pty Ltd.  This would be in the form of a lease or licence.

 

Crown Lands has sought that Council, in its capacity as corporate manager of Nambucca Heads (Reserve 81006) Swimming Creek Public Recreation Area resolve to agree to the addition of Lot 178 DP 727032 to Reserve 81006.

 

Presumably the reason for the addition of Lot 178 to Reserve 81006 is so that dealings in relation to the caravan park are restricted to a single Reserve and single determining authority.

 

The terms of the proposed easement have been examined and they provide Council with sufficient protection in terms of not being obliged to maintain the infrastructure which has been erected on the land.  The major infrastructure is the bridge access to the caravan park.  The easement provides that the owner of the lot benefited must keep the bridge in good repair and safe condition.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with staff from the Grafton Office of Crown Lands.

 

The matter has been discussed with the Manager Business Development.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There is no change to the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no financial risks to Council as according to the terms of the easement the maintenance of the bridge is the responsibility of the caravan park.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no significant budgetary impact.  Council will receive a lease or licence fee.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no significant resourcing or staffing implications.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     17 May 2018

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.11    SF251              170518         Schedule of Council Public Meetings 2018

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

SUMMARY:

 

The following is a schedule of dates for public Council meetings to be held in 2018.  The meeting dates may change from to time and this will be recorded in the next available report to Council.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1.       That the schedule of dates for Council meetings in 2018 be noted and received for           information by Council.

 

2.       Council note the Special (Budget) Council Meeting scheduled for 5.30pm Wednesday 23 May           commencing at 5.30pm in the Council Chambers.

 

 

 

MEETING

DATE

VENUE

COMMENCING

Ordinary Council Meeting

17 May

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

Access Committee

22 May

Council Chambers

2.00 PM

Special (Budget) Council Meeting1

23 May

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

31 May

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

Land Development Committee Meeting

14 June

Council Chambers

4.00 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

14 June

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

Access Committee

26 June

Council Chambers

2.00 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

28 June

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

 

1Council management will be meeting to review the draft operational plan (budget) on Tuesday 15 May and proposes providing a hard copy version to Councillors which is balanced (or nearly balanced) at this meeting.  As per last year management will provide a list of the changes made to achieve a balanced result.  Councillors will then be able to consider the revised budget for a week and forward any questions or comments prior to the Special Council meeting on 23 May.  Management will be in attendance at the Special Council meeting to answer those questions (if not previously answered).  The draft budget would then be advertised for 28 days from 24 May.  There will be a further opportunity to review the budget when it is considered by Council at its meeting on 28 June following a 28 day public exhibition period.  Council also has the opportunity of conducting workshops on the budget whilst it is on exhibition.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     17 May 2018

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.12    SF2329            170518         Progress with Macksville CBD Revitalisaion

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1.       That Council make provision for additional expenditure of $10,000 for architectural and           design services for the Main Street Improvement Program.

 

2.       That Council close off the opportunity for further Macksville CBD properties to come onto           the “Main Street” program unless the property owners can demonstrate financial           commitment to the implementation of a concept plan.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The Council has the option of not voting any additional funds to the project.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

At Council’s meeting on 18 January 2018 it was resolved to make provision for an expenditure of $15,000 for architectural and design services for CBD revitalisation.

 

Subsequently Alan Rudge Architects were engaged on 8 February 2018 for a three month period to prepare base information; attend meetings of the Business Advisory Committee and with property owners; provide advice to property owners who may be interested in upgrading their buildings; and to make recommendations to Council in relation to building upgrades.

 

Alan Rudge Architects have now reached the end of their three month engagement and the agreed fee cap of $15,000.  There has been extensive consultation with property owners in the CBD.  Strong interest has been shown by many property owners in the reinstatement of building verandahs and other features and Alan Rudge Architects have been busy meeting their requests.

 

Mr Rudge has now reported he has received firm expressions of interest and has undertaken work in relation to the following buildings.

 

Building

Work Completed

5 River Street

As built plans, concept and pricing underway

8 Princess Street (cnr McKay Street)

As built plans, concept approved, pricing TBC

Bridge Café

As built plans drawn

Department Store

Measurements taken, concept drawing underway

Valley Emporium

Measurements taken

Remnant Basket

Measurements taken

Pharmacy Corner (Wallace & Cooper Street)

Measurements taken

 

Mr Rudge has also reviewed plans for the replacement of the Cedar Room at the Nambucca Hotel and has made a number of suggestions which are currently being considered by the applicant.  He has also prepared a base drawing for the placement of murals in Wallace Lane which are currently underway.

 

Given the extensive consultation which has occurred it is recommended that Council now close off on the opportunity for further properties to come onto the program and fund some additional expenditure to allow the completion of concept plans for each of the seven properties.  It is estimated that the completion of the concept plans which will be to “DA standard” will cost a maximum of $10,000.

 

Besides an application already lodged under the Growing Local Economies Fund for $2m, the Council has now lodged an application for grant funding under Stronger Country Communities for $150,000 for the implementation of these plans.

 

With a $ for $ arrangement from property owners this means at a minimum there would be $300,000 for implementation.  Council has made a commitment of $50,000 to cover development application fees and the like.

 

If the Growing Local Economies application for $2m was successful then the Council could implement a much broader program.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with Alan Rudge Architects.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

There are no significant implications to the natural environment.

 

The amenity of the urban environment of the CBD will be greatly enhanced by these projects.

 

Social

The significant benefit from a Main Street CBD revitalisation is creating a social hub.  It creates a more inviting place for people and commerce to mix.  There will be a greater sense of belonging and community spirit.  This can be illustrated by contrasting the social outcomes of “big box” retailing with successful main streets such as Sawtell and Bellingen.

 

Economic

 

As per the comments concerning social impacts, the economic benefits of Main Street revitalisation programs have been demonstrated in small towns across Australia.

 

Risk

 

The risks essentially pertain to the cost/benefit of the public funding which is being used.  For this reason the private sector should have “buy in” and for this reason a $ for $ partnership with property owners has previously been suggested.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The recommendation will require a commitment of $10,000 from working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

By definition Main Street Improvement Programs require significant staff and contractor resourcing.  There are many property owners who have to be informed and responded to in a timely way.  No buildings are the same in terms of the opportunities which might be available and the circumstances of the property owners.  There are many complexities which have to be resolved in a consultative manner.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     17 May 2018

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.13    SF2368            170518         Investment Report to 30 April 2018

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Faye Hawthorne, Accountant         

 

Summary:

 

The return on investments from 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 is currently estimated to be $1,040,410.

 

The original budget allocation for the financial year “2017/18” is $979,000.

 

Council currently has $37.686 Million invested:

 

·      $   6.259     Million with Managed Funds,

·      $   2.201     Million with On Call Accounts

·      $ 24.476     Million on Term Deposits

·      $   4.750     Million with Floating Rate Notes

 

This report details all the investments placed during April and Council funds invested as at 30 April 2018.

 

The following investment report has been drawn up in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 (as amended), the Regulations and Council Policy 1.9 – Investment of Surplus Funds

 

 

 

C P Doolan

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the Accountants’ Report on Investments placed to 30 April 2018 be noted.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

This report is for information only.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

This report details all the investments placed during April 2018 and Council funds invested as at April 2018.

 

Details below are the following report and graphs:

 

·      Investments Matured & Interest & Returns 1 to 30 April 2018

·      Investments Held at 30 April 2018

·      Managed Funds, On/Call and Floating Rate T/D & Notes

·      Term Deposits

·      Monthly Investments Revenue Earned

·      Weighted Average Return

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Grove Research and Advisory

 

 


 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental implications.

 

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

 

Economic

 

That Council may not meet its budget returns for 2017/2018 based on current performance.

 

Risk

 

That Council may not meet its budget returns for 2017/2018 based on current performance.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

A review of budgeted interest returns for 2017/2018 has been completed with the March 2018 Budget Review and GPG Research & Advisory has provided Council with the updated interest rates.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Interest on investments have been assessed with the March 2018 Budget Review. Variances will be distributed between the Water, Sewerage and General Funds for the financial year during the year.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

Not applicable

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     17 May 2018

General Manager

ITEM 9.14    SF2460            170518         LEP & DCP Amendments - Horticulture, Clause 4.2A & Tree Preservation

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Daniel Walsh, Manager Development and Environment         

 

Summary:

 

This report seeks Council approval to proceed with a planning proposal to amend clause 4.2A of the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP) to ensure that the existing restrictions to the erection of dwellings within the rural and environmental protection zones apply to all development applications for dwellings within those zones.

 

This report also seeks amendments to the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 (DCP) including controls which regulate the establishment of horticulture development on land zoned R5 Large Lot Residential and the removal of vegetation within the Pearl Estate, Valla.

 

This report was last considered by Council at its meeting on 26 April 2018 when the matter was deferred. Additional discussion has been added to the body of the report to address the proposal raised by Cr Finlayson at that meeting.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        Council staff forward the planning proposal contained within attachment 1 to the Minister for gateway determination in accordance with section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

2        If the Minister determines that the matter should proceed, Council staff undertake community consultation in accordance with the gateway determination.

 

3        Following community consultation, Council staff report the planning proposal back to Council for consideration of any submissions received and a final decision as to whether Council will proceed to make the planning proposal. 

 

4        Council endorse the draft amendments to the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 (DCP) contained within attachment 2 and exhibit the draft DCP for 28 days pursuant to Part 3 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

5        The draft DCP be reported back to Council following the completion of the exhibition period for consideration of any submissions received and a final decision as to whether Council will proceed to amend the DCP.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1    Approve some or all of the recommended amendments to the LEP and DCP.

2    Modify the recommended amendments to the LEP and DCP.

3    Refuse some or all of the recommended amendments to the LEP and DCP.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Additional discussion to address the proposal raised by Cr Finlayson

At Councils meeting on 26 April 2018 the following resolution was made:

 

“That Council defer the matter to a workshop to enable consideration to be provided to the proposal put forward by Cr Finlayson.”

 

The proposal put forward by Cr Finlayson is outlined in italics below with planning staff comment provided after each point:

 

Council's planning staff be requested to prepare further draft amendments to the LEP which

will reflect the following provisions:

 

1.   Horticulture in areas zoned RU1 and RU2 will be subject to a development application but no application will be required if landowner complies with following requirement, namely:

a) no horticulture (including erection of netting) to take place within a radius of 100 metres of existing house on adjoining land

b) the 100 metres is to be measured from that house, not the boundary

Comment: This can be done by amending the current planning proposal to make horticulture permissible with consent within the RU1 and RU2 zones within the LEP land use table and adding the specific requirements to schedule 2 of the LEP. This would mean that horticulture would be exempt from requiring development consent in the RU1 and RU2 zones only if it complied with the above requirements.

Such an amendment is supported by staff, however was not included within the current planning proposal due to item 3 of Councils resolution (527/17) made on 26 October 2017 and outlined within the original report below.

Aside from increasing the size of the buffer from the adjoining dwelling, one suggested amendment would be to require the buffer to be from a dwelling on an adjoining lot not associated with the horticultural activity. This would ensure that farmers operating on a holding with multiple lots would not be required to lodge a development application if the horticultural activity encroached within the buffer to a dwelling on one of their own allotments.

 

2) Horticulture in areas zoned R5 will be subject to a development application and any approval shall include inter alia the following provisions;

 

a) where the property adjoins other land zoned RU1 or RU2 but where there is no existing house, no buffer will be required. No horticulture will be carried out within a radius of 100 metres of any existing house, the 100 metres being measured from the house, not the boundary

Comment: This control could be incorporated into Part F of the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 (DCP) and enforced as part of any development consent. However, it is recommended that the originally recommended buffers in the draft Part F contained within attachment 2 be maintained (200m without a landscape buffer or 80m with a 40m wide landscape buffer incorporated within it.

 

b) where the property adjoins other land zoned R5 which is vacant no horticulture will take place (including erection of netting) within 20 meters of the boundary and that 20 metres shall contain a 10 metre vegetative buffer.

Comment: Refer to comment below.

 

c) No building envelope shall be permitted to be located within 40 metres of a boundary on the other side of which horticultural activities have been permitted.

Comment: Refer to comment below.

 

d) when the property adjoins land zoned R5 on which houses are located, no horticulture will be permitted within a radius of 50 metres of that house (such radius measured from the house) and there shall be a vegetative buffer provided along the boundary of the said radius within the land where horticulture is to take place.

Comment: The above three controls could be incorporated into Part F of the DCP and enforced as part of any development consent. However, it is recommended that the buffer not be inconsistent with those required within the rural zones; especially not to a lower standard. It is recommended that the originally recommended buffer in the draft Part F contained within attachment 2 be maintained (80m from an adjoining boundary with a 40m wide landscape buffer incorporated within it). The R5 zone is a residential zone. Any reliance on adjoining land as a buffer in these instances should not be permitted as it could impact the adjoining land owners ability to develop their residential land in the future to its full potential. Any reliance on adjoining land should be left as a merit decision as part of the development assessment process. This is because it is at this stage that it can be validated that the reliance on part of the adjoining land as a buffer will not impact its development potential.

As a minimum, the buffers referred to in the above three controls should be consistent, as the first two controls result in a 60m buffer and the last control requires a 50m buffer. 

 

3. The applicant will ensure that any operations on the property requiring the use of chemicals shall be under the supervision of a person who is the holder of a Farm Safety Management Certificate and an Agricultural Chemical Users Certificate.

Comment: This control could be incorporated into Part F of the DCP and is supported.

 

4. No bird netting shall be erected anywhere in the shire of a colour other than black.

Comment: This control could be incorporated into Part F of the DCP as well as the exempt provisions within schedule 2 of the LEP if consent were to be required within the RU1 and RU2 zones. However, it is not recommended that black netting be required to be used in all areas of the shire. This is because some farmers prefer to use white netting and there are areas of the shire where white netting could be used which would not be visually obtrusive to the surrounding area due to separation, screening and topography. It is recommended that black netting be required as part of any horticultural development within the R5 zone and as part of any exempt provisions with schedule 2.

 

5. s149 Certificates issued by Council will be amended accordingly so that potential purchasers of property are put on notice of these requirements

Comment: The applicable zone land use table is incorporated within any s149 certificate (now called s10.7 certificates). The land use table identifies whether or not development consent is required for horticulture.

 

Comment from General Manager

 

Notwithstanding the growth of the blueberry industry and the good intentions to reduce potential land use conflicts, consideration should also be given to the unintended consequences of regulatory regimes.  I remain wary about a suggested buffer requirement for horticulture in RU1 and RU2 zones for the reason that horticulture covers a myriad of crops and farming practices and the strategic purpose of the zones is to facilitate agriculture.   By way of example a farmer might decide to plant a small crop (0.5 hectares) of water melons.  The farmer might rotate his crop from year to year and want to include good quality land which is close to their boundary.  But the land close to the boundary might fall within the specified buffer generating the requirement for a development application.  If Council wishes to have regulatory provisions in relation to the RU1 and RU2 zones it needs to accept such unintended consequences.

 

My concerns don’t pertain to the proposals for the R5 zone as its strategic purpose is the provision of large lot residential subdivision.

 

Original Report

 

At the meeting on 26 October 2017, Council made the following resolution (527/17):

 

1        Pursuant to the section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council staff prepare a planning proposal to support an amendment to the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 (NLEP 2010) which:

 

·      Removes ‘horticulture’ from ‘permitted without consent’ in the land use table for the R5 Large Lot Residential, and relocates it to ‘permitted with consent’.

 

2        That a report come back to council on a revision of the DCP to incorporate appropriate standards for Horticulture in the R5 zone.

 

3        That as requested by the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) Council not amend the NLEP in relation to Horticulture in the RU1 and RU2 zones in light of the Blueberry Code of Conduct currently being developed by the Blueberry Interagency Working Group and the Australian Blueberry Growers Association (AGBA) with the support of DPI to address rural land use conflict; and the recently announced proposal by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment to implement “a package of reforms to update and improve the planning framework for primary production and rural development” which includes a new SEPP,  changes to Ministerial Planning Directions under section 117 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 and a revision of definitions and clauses in the Standard Instrument LEP. 

 

4        That Council staff forward the planning proposal to the Minister for gateway determination in accordance with section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

5        That if the Minister determines that the matter should proceed, Council staff undertake community consultation in accordance with section 57 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and any requirements specified by the Minister.

 

6        Following community consultation, Council staff report the planning proposal back to Council for consideration of any submissions received and a final decision as to whether Council will proceed to make the planning proposal to support an amendment to NLEP 2010. 

 

The purpose of this report is to:

 

·           Include an additional amendment to the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP) in the above mentioned planning proposal prior to sending the planning proposal to the Minister for gateway determination as per item 4 of the above resolution. The additional amendment is to clause 4.2A of the LEP which relates to the permissibility of dwellings within rural and environmental protection zones and is not related to the horticulture amendment. The reasons for the amendment are outlined later in this report and within the planning proposal contained within attachment 1.

 

·           Enable Council to consider an amendment to Part F of the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 (DCP) as required by item 2 of the above resolution. The recommended DCP amendments have been included within attachment 2.

 

·           Enable Council to consider an amendment to Part A of the DCP to address clearing activities within the Pearl estate Valla which are contrary to the intentions of the development consent for the subdivision. The recommended DCP amendments have been included within attachment 2.

 

Planning Proposal – LEP Amendment

 

Prior to sending the planning proposal to the Minister for the amendment to the land use table of the R5 Large Lot Residential Zone as referred to in the above resolution, it is considered appropriate to include an amendment to clause 4.2A of the LEP in the same planning proposal. The reason for this is that combining the planning proposal will save staff time and enable the change to occur as quickly as possible given the implications of not making the amendment.

 

Clause 4.2A restricts the erection of dwellings within the rural and environmental protection zones to lots which meet the criteria specified within the clause. The intent of restricting dwellings in these zones to particular lots is to minimise unplanned rural residential development which create impacts such as drain on infrastructure and increased potential for land use conflict and fragmentation. The existing wording of the clause results in it only being applicable to a lot which is vacant and has had no dwelling erected on it in the past. This results in the clause not being applicable to a lot which contains an existing dwelling which has been constructed without development consent and to lots which have had dwellings erected on them but have been demolished or decommissioned as part of a development consent on an adjoining lot in the same ownership.

 

It is recommended that the wording of clause 4.2A of the LEP be amended so that it applies to all development applications seeking approval to erect or use a dwelling within the rural and environmental protection zones. This will ensure the controls within the clause are applicable to development applications seeking continued use of an unlawful dwelling. It is also recommended that the wording be amended to ensure it is permissible to erect a dwelling which is replacing a previous dwelling that has been destroyed by events such as a natural disaster or house fire.

 

The recommended wording for the amendment to clause 4.2A is contained in the planning proposal within attachment 1.

 

DCP Amendment – Part F

 

Development controls applicable to development applications seeking approval for horticulture within the R5 Large Lot Residential zone have been included within an amendment to Part F of the DCP contained within attachment 2. The amendments to the existing DCP are shown as track changes for clarity.


A summary/justification for the proposed amendments to Part F is as follows:

 

·      Housekeeping amendments on pages 1 and 2 which clarify what development applications are required to be accompanied with details of existing land uses on surrounding lots, that the 300m building setback to unsealed roads only applies to dwellings, setbacks to boundaries, and that the land use buffer controls apply to all development applications. This will ensure a development application for horticulture will be required to specify proximity to surrounding dwellings and will be required to comply with the buffer controls within Part 4.

 

·      An amendment to the buffer distance between horticulture development and dwellings by increasing it from 150m to 200m. Increasing the distance to 200m is in line with chapter 6 of the ‘Living and Working in Rural Areas’ handbook. The handbook has been prepared by the NSW Department of Primary Industries and is a practical guide aimed at reducing and avoiding rural land use conflict on the NSW North Coast.

 

Please note that due to the mandatory requirements for the implementation of a landscaped buffer for horticulture developments in the R5 Large Lot Residential zone in the proposed additional clause F1.3.6 (addressed below) and that development consent is not required for horticulture within the rural zones, the 200m separation distance will effectively only be applicable for dwellings within the rural zones.

 

·      Clarification on the requirements for vegetation buffers to ensure they meet their objective.

 

·      An additional clause F1.3.6 has been added which requires a 40m wide landscape buffer to be incorporated within an 80m separation buffer from adjoining residential zoned lots and from dwellings within an adjoining rural or environmental protection zone. The reasoning behind this control is to protect the future development of adjoining residential zoned land and existing dwellings within the rural and environmental protection zones which have been approved with no rural buffer requirements due to the adjoining land (on which the horticultural use is proposed) being zoned residential.

 

This clause also requires plans of the landscape buffers to be submitted to Council for approval, any netting to be black to minimise visual amenity impacts, and the provision of a water management plan. The requirement for a water management plan has been included as a result of the findings of a recent study prepared by Southern Cross University titled ‘Water Quality on Bucca Bucca Creek and the potential impacts of intensive plant agriculture’, dated 3 January 2018.

 

Please note that requirements regarding impacts on flora and fauna are taken into account under section 1.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and are reinforced within Part A of the DCP.

 

DCP Amendment – Part A

 

Council received a two submissions to the exhibition of the most recent amendments to the DCP (reported to this meeting separately) relating to vegetation clearing within the Pearl Estate, Valla. The submissions request that Council include vegetation within the Peal Estate within the DCP so that a permit is required for the removal of vegetation under Part 3 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 (the SEPP). They also request Council erect signage outlining the significance of vegetation within the estate and for Council to undertake tree surveys to form a data base of existing vegetation. The submissions have been included within attachment 3. It was not considered appropriate to consider the requested amendments to the DCP under the previously exhibited document due to insufficient public consultation on the matters raised in the submissions. It is considered that any such amendment could be incorporated with the amendment to Part F as outlined above and exhibited at the same time.

 

The development consent for the Pearl Estate was approved by the Department of Planning and Environment and included conditions which required vegetation within certain areas of the estate to be retained. The conditions were based off specialist Flora and Fauna reports which included a plan of the areas of vegetation to be retained. This plan has been included within attachment 4. The conditions required those areas of vegetation to be retained to be protected during subdivision works and for a restriction on use of land under section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 to be created prior to the issue of the subdivision certificate which restricted the removal of the vegetation in perpetuity. However, the required restriction on the use of land was not created, the subdivision certificate was approved by Council, and the lots have been registered. Furthermore, the terminology of the development consent does not enable the vegetation intended to be protected (except for the koala corridor) to be regulated post issuing the subdivision certificate.

 

Due to the Pearl Estate being located within the R5 Large Lot Residential zone, the only approval required for the removal of vegetation within the estate would be from the Native Vegetation Panel under Part 4 of the SEPP. However, this approval is only required if more than 5000m² of vegetation is to be removed. Please note that the Native Vegetation Panel has not yet been established. Council has been advised that NSW Local Land Services will accept and process these applications until the panel is established.

 

Having regard to the above and the submissions received, it is considered appropriate to protect those areas of vegetation identified in the development consent as vegetation to be retained. To do this, it is recommended that Council amend Part A of the DCP by adding clause A5.14 which restricts the clearing of vegetation from the areas identified in the plan within attachment 4 as vegetation to be retained.

 

Please note that the above approach will only require a permit under the SEPP for the removal of native vegetation within the areas specified on the plan. It will not apply to all vegetation within the estate. Furthermore, under clause 8(3) of the SEPP, a permit would not be required to remove vegetation within the areas identified to be retained if council is satisfied that the vegetation is a risk to human life or property.

 

The recommended amendment to Part A of the DCP has been included within attachment 2. The additional clause A5.14 has been shown as a track change for clarity.

 

The request for the erection of signage and tree surveys is not supported as it is not something Council has the resources to do for other areas of the shire with equally or more significant habitat due to the substantial costs which would be imposed.

 


 

CONSULTATION:

 

Senior Town Planner

Coordinator Strategic Planning & Natural Resources

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

It is not considered that the recommended amendments will have any adverse environmental impacts.

 

Social

 

It is not considered that the recommended amendments will have any adverse social impacts.

 

Economic

 

It is not considered that the recommended amendments will have any adverse economic impacts.

 

Risk

 

Not implementing the recommendations would weaken Councils ability to defend an appeal against a refusal of a development application for the continued use of an unlawful dwelling as clause 4.2A of the LEP could not be relied on; inconsistent approaches could be implemented into development consents to minimise the land use conflicts associated with horticulture; and vegetation identified to be retained as part of a development consent could be removed without any ability for regulation.

 

 

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

 

Nil

 

Attachments:

1

8338/2018 - Attachment 1 - Planning Proposal

 

2

8431/2018 - Attachment 2 - Draft DCP Amendments

 

3

8336/2018 - Attachment 3 - Submissions

 

4

8335/2018 - Attachment 4 - Vegetation Plan

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

LEP & DCP Amendments - Horticulture, Clause 4.2A & Tree Preservation

 

  


Nambucca Shire Council

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planning Proposal

Nambucca Local Environmental Plan

Amendment No. 22

Horticulture and Clause 4.2A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared by:

Development & Environment Section

Nambucca Shire Council

 

Dated: February 2018

 

File:SF2460


Table of Contents

 

 

Preliminary.. 1

Part 1    Objectives AND Intended outcomes. 1

Part 2    Explanation of Provisions. 1

2.1 – Horticulture. 9

2.2 – Clause 4.2A.. 9

Part 3    Justification.. 9

Section A – Need for the Planning Proposal. 9

Section B –Relationship to strategic planning framework. 9

Section C – Environmental, social and economic impact. 9

Section D – State and Commonwealth Interests. 10

Part 4    Mapping.. 10

Part 5    Community Consultation.. 10

Part 6    Project Timeline.. 11

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

LEP & DCP Amendments - Horticulture, Clause 4.2A & Tree Preservation

 

Preliminary

 

This planning proposal has been drafted in accordance with Section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and ‘A guide to preparing planning proposals’ (DoP, 2016) for amendment to the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP). A gateway determination under Section 3.34 of the Act is requested.

 

Part 1    Objectives and Intended outcomes

 

The objective and intended outcomes of this planning proposal are:

·      To require development consent prior to undertaking horticulture development within the R5 Large Lot Residential Zone, and

·      To ensure that clause 4.2A of the LEP applies to land on which an unlawful dwelling has been erected and land on which a lawful dwelling has been destroyed by events such as a natural disaster or house fire.

 

Part 2    Explanation of Provisions

 

2.1  Horticulture

 

The proposed outcome will be achieved by removing ‘horticulture’ from ‘permitted without consent’ in the land use table for the R5 Large Lot Residential zone and relocating it to ‘permitted with consent’.

 

2.2 Clause 4.2A

 

The proposed outcome will be achieved by rewording clause 4.2A (3) and (4) as follows:

 

Existing Sub-Clauses

(3)  Development consent must not be granted for the erection of a dwelling house or a dual occupancy (attached) on a lot in a zone to which this clause applies, and on which no dwelling house or dual occupancy (attached) has been erected, unless the lot is:

(a)  a lot that is at least the minimum lot size specified for that lot by the Lot Size Map, or

(b)  a lot created before this Plan commenced and on which the erection of a dwelling house or dual occupancy (attached) was permissible immediately before that commencement, or

(c)  a lot resulting from a subdivision for which development consent (or equivalent) was granted before this Plan commenced and on which the erection of a dwelling house or a dual occupancy (attached) would have been permissible if the plan of subdivision had been registered before that commencement, or

(d)  an existing holding.

Note.  A dwelling cannot be erected on a lot created under clause 9 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 or clause 4.2.

 

(4)  Despite any other provision of this clause, development consent may be granted for the erection of a dwelling house or a dual occupancy (attached) on land in a zone to which this clause applies if:

(a)  there is a lawfully erected dwelling house or dual occupancy (attached) on the land and the dwelling house or dual occupancy (attached) to be erected is intended only to replace the existing dwelling house or dual occupancy (attached), or

(b)  the land would have been a lot or a holding referred to in subclause (3) had it not been affected by:

(i)  a minor realignment of its boundaries that did not create an additional lot, or

(ii)  a subdivision creating or widening a public road or public reserve or for another public purpose.

 

Proposed Sub-Clauses

(3)  Development consent must not be granted for the erection or use of a dwelling house or a dual occupancy on a lot in a zone to which this clause applies unless the lot is:

(a)  a lot that is at least the minimum lot size specified for that lot by the Lot Size Map, or

(b)  a lot created before this Plan commenced and on which the erection of a dwelling house or dual occupancy (attached) was permissible immediately before that commencement, or

(c)  a lot resulting from a subdivision for which development consent (or equivalent) was granted before this Plan commenced and on which the erection of a dwelling house or a dual occupancy (attached) would have been permissible if the plan of subdivision had been registered before that commencement, or

(d)  an existing holding.

Note.  A dwelling cannot be erected on a lot created under clause 9 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 or clause 4.2.

 

(4)  Despite any other provision of this clause, development consent may be granted for the erection of a dwelling house or a dual occupancy on a lot in a zone to which this clause applies if:

(a)  there is a lawfully erected dwelling house or dual occupancy on the lot and the dwelling house or dual occupancy to be erected is intended only to replace the existing dwelling house or dual occupancy, or

(b) there was a lawfully erected dwelling house or dual occupancy on the lot which was destroyed by natural disaster or house fire.

(c)  the land would have been a lot or a holding referred to in subclause (3) had it not been affected by:

(i)  a minor realignment of its boundaries that did not create an additional lot, or

(ii)  a subdivision creating or widening a public road or public reserve or for another public purpose.

 

 

Part 3    Justification

 

Section A – Need for the Planning Proposal

 

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

 

The planning proposal is not the result of any strategic study or report.

 

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

 

It is considered that the planning proposal is the best and only means of achieving the objectives and intended outcomes.

 

With regards to horticulture, the following table compares the permissibility of horticulture within the R5 Large Lot Residential Zone in the Nambucca local government area compared to other local government areas on the north coast.

 

LGA

Permissibility

Kyogle

Prohibited

Clarence Valley

Permissible with consent

Coffs Harbour

Permissible with consent

Bellingen

Permissible with consent

Nambucca

Permissible without consent

Kempsey

Permissible with consent

Port Macquarie

Prohibited

 

As can be seen above, Nambucca Shire Council is the only Council out of those mentioned which permit horticulture without development consent within the R5 Large Lot Residential zone.

 

The objectives of the R5 Large Lot Residential zone are as follows:

 

·      To provide residential housing in a rural setting while preserving, and minimising impacts on, environmentally sensitive locations and scenic quality.

·      To ensure that large residential lots do not hinder the proper and orderly development of urban areas in the future.

·      To ensure that development in the area does not unreasonably increase the demand for public services or public facilities.

·      To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

 

Having regard to the above, the intent of the R5 zone is to promote the development of residential land uses within the zone which minimise conflict with land uses, such as agriculture, within adjoining zones. While it is considered reasonable to require any residential development in the R5 zone to provide the necessary rural buffers from agricultural activities in any adjoining rural zone; it is not considered to be reasonable to require additional buffers to agricultural land uses within the R5 zone. This is not only because it is contrary to the intent of the zone, but because in many cases the residential land uses have commenced first, as promoted by the relevant planning instruments, and implementing the required buffers from the agricultural activities in many situations would result in residential zoned land which cannot practically be developed for residential uses.

 

Having regard to clause 4.2A of the LEP, it is considered that the following section of subclause (3) should be deleted:

 

“and on which no dwelling house or dual occupancy (attached) has been erected”

 

It is considered that the above wording should be deleted as it results in the clause only being applicable to a lot which is vacant and has had no dwelling erected on it in the past. It is also considered that the wording of the subclause should be amended to include developments which are seeking to use existing buildings such as unlawful dwellings.

 

An example of when the existing clause 4.2A would be contrary to the objectives of the clause and result in unplanned rural residential development is if a dwelling house or dual occupancy were to be erected on a lot without development consent. In this situation clause 4.2A does not apply to any development application seeking approval to continue to use the dwelling house or dual occupancy as the dwelling house or dual occupancy has already been erected on the lot. Making the suggested amendment to the clause would reinforce Councils position to refuse such an application where it did not conform with the provisions within subclause (3)(a)-(d).

 

The proposed change would result in the clause being applicable to any development application for the erection or use of a dwelling house or dual occupancy on a lot within a zone to which the clause applies. Given that the clause would then apply to land on which a dwelling house or dual occupancy has been erected, it is also considered that subclause (4) should be amended by adding a provision which permits the granting of development consent for the erection of a dwelling house or dual occupancy when it is replacing a lawfully erected dwelling house or dual occupancy on the lot which was destroyed by natural disaster or house fire. It is considered that this provision is necessary as the existing provision within sub clause (4) (a) is reliant on there being an “existing” dwelling house or dual occupancy.

 

An example of a scenario when the above additional provision would be necessary is for a lot created under clause 4.1C of the LEP which was below the minimum lot size and the existing dwelling house or dual occupancy was destroyed by a natural disaster or house fire. Such a provision would allow for the replacement of the previous dwelling house or dual occupancy with development consent which would be consistent with the objective of the clause.

 

Section B –Relationship to strategic planning framework.

 

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

 

The proposed amendments will not be contrary to any existing or draft plans or strategies.

 

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

 

The proposed amendments will not be contrary to Councils Community Strategic Plan or any other strategic plan. The planning proposal includes housekeeping amendments which are aimed at reinforcing the existing objectives of the R5 Large Lot Residential zone and Clause 4.2A.

 

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

 

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

 

·              State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands)

 

The aims of this SEPP are:

 

(a)  to facilitate the orderly and economic use and development of rural lands for rural and related purposes,

(b)  to identify the Rural Planning Principles and the Rural Subdivision Principles so as to assist in the proper management, development and protection of rural lands for the purpose of promoting the social, economic and environmental welfare of the State,

(c)  to implement measures designed to reduce land use conflicts,

(d)  to identify State significant agricultural land for the purpose of ensuring the ongoing viability of agriculture on that land, having regard to social, economic and environmental considerations,

(e)  to amend provisions of other environmental planning instruments relating to concessional lots in rural subdivisions.

 

The SEPP identifies rural planning principles within clause 7 that must be taken into account when a Council prepares a planning proposal. These are brought into effect through a Section 117 Direction. The Rural Planning Principles are as follows:

 

(a)  the promotion and protection of opportunities for current and potential productive and sustainable economic activities in rural areas,

(b)  recognition of the importance of rural lands and agriculture and the changing nature of agriculture and of trends, demands and issues in agriculture in the area, region or State,

(c)  recognition of the significance of rural land uses to the State and rural communities, including the social and economic benefits of rural land use and development,

(d)  in planning for rural lands, to balance the social, economic and environmental interests of the community,

(e)  the identification and protection of natural resources, having regard to maintaining biodiversity, the protection of native vegetation, the importance of water resources and avoiding constrained land,

(f)  the provision of opportunities for rural lifestyle, settlement and housing that contribute to the social and economic welfare of rural communities,

(g)  the consideration of impacts on services and infrastructure and appropriate location when providing for rural housing,

(h)  ensuring consistency with any applicable regional strategy of the Department of Planning or any applicable local strategy endorsed by the Director-General.

 

The proposed amendments are considered to be consistent with the provisions of the SEPP as they will assist in minimising land use conflict within the R5 Large Lot Residential zone by enabling suitable buffers to be provided by way of development consent from horticulture to residential development which is considered to be the preferred and the predominant land use in the zone. Given the intention of the R5 zone is to provide residential housing in a rural setting to contribute to the social and economic welfare of rural communities; it is considered that protecting the residential uses in the zone from potential land use conflict is important in ensuring consistency with the SEPP and the objectives of the zone.

 

Furthermore, the proposed amendments to clause 4.2A will ensure rural housing is appropriately located having regard to land use conflict, impacts on services and infrastructure, and protection of opportunities for current and potential productive and sustainable economic activities in rural areas.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The planning proposal is not considered to be contrary to the requirements of this SEPP as it will ensure development for horticulture within the R5 zone will be assessed against the potential impacts on core koala habitat.

 

·              State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

 

SEPP 55 provides that Council is not to include in a particular zone any specified land if the inclusion of the land in that zone would permit a change of use of the land unless:

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

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

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

 

Given that this planning proposal does not include any rezoning of land, it is not considered that the planning proposal is contrary to the SEPP.

 

·              State Environmental Planning Policy No 71 – Coastal Protection

 

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

 

The amendments within this planning proposal are not contrary to the requirements of this SEPP.

 

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

 

Directions under Section 117 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 applicable to this planning proposal are addressed as follows:

 

1       Employment and Resources

 

Direction 1.2         Rural Zones

 

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

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a planning proposal that affects land within an existing or proposed rural zone (including the alteration of any existing rural zone boundary). Because clause 4.2A of the LEP applies to rural zones, this direction is applicable.

 

In accordance with this direction, the planning proposal shall not rezone land from a rural zone to a residential, business, industrial, village or tourist zone. Given the planning proposal does not include rezoning; it is not contrary to this direction.

 

Direction 1.5         Rural Lands

 

The objectives of this direction are to:

 

a        protect the agricultural production value of rural land,

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

 

This direction applies when:

 

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

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

 

What a council must do if this direction applies

 

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

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

 

The amendment to clause 4.2A of the LEP affects land within rural and environmental protection zones. The amendment is considered to be consistent with this direction as outlined under State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 earlier in this report.

 

2       Environment and Heritage

 

Direction 2.1         Environment Protection Zones

 

The objective of this direction is to protect and conserve environmentally sensitive areas. This direction applies when a council prepares a planning proposal.

 

What a council must do if this direction applies:

 

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

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

 

This direction is applicable to the proposed amendment to clause 4.2A. Given the proposed amendment will ensure all dwellings in the environment protection zones are subject to existing intended provisions which are partly aimed at minimising environmental impacts, it is not considered that the proposal is contrary to this direction.

 

Direction 2.2         Coastal Protection

 

The objective of this direction is to implement the principles in the NSW Coastal Policy. This direction applies when a council prepares a planning proposal that applies to land in the coastal zone.

 

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

 

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

b        the Coastal Design Guidelines 2003, and

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

 

The amendments within this planning proposal are consistent with the requirements of this direction. The LEP contains provisions which address coastal development and will not be impacted by the proposal.

 

Direction 2.3         Heritage Conservation

 

The objective of this direction is to conserve items, areas, objects and places of environmental heritage significance and indigenous heritage significance. This direction applies when a council prepares a planning proposal.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

The amendments within this planning proposal are not contrary to the requirements of this direction as they will not impact the conservation of the above. Furthermore, the LEP contains provisions to address heritage areas and items which will not be impacted by the proposal.

 

Direction 2.4  Recreation Vehicle Areas

 

The objective of this direction is to protect sensitive land or land with significant conservation values from adverse impacts from recreation vehicles.

 

This direction applies when Council prepares a planning proposal. The planning proposal must not enable land to be developed for the purpose of a recreation vehicle area (within the meaning of the Recreation Vehicles Act 1983):

(a) where the land is within an environmental protection zone,

          (b) where the land comprises a beach or a dune adjacent to or adjoining a beach,

(c) where the land is not within an area or zone referred to in paragraphs (4)(a) or (4)(b) unless the relevant planning authority has taken into consideration:

(i) the provisions of the guidelines entitled Guidelines for Selection, Establishment and Maintenance of Recreation Vehicle Areas, Soil Conservation Service of New South Wales, September, 1985, and

(ii) the provisions of the guidelines entitled Recreation Vehicles Act, 1983, Guidelines for Selection, Design, and Operation of Recreation Vehicle Areas, State Pollution Control Commission, September 1985.

 

The planning proposal is not contrary to this direction as it does not enable land to be developed for the purpose of a recreation vehicle area.

 

3       Housing, Infrastructure and Urban Development

 

Direction 3.1         Residential Zones

 

The objectives of this direction are:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

d        be of good design.

 

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

 

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

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

 

The amendments within this planning proposal will not impact existing provisions which make the LEP complaint with this direction.

 

4       Hazard and Risk

 

Direction 4.1         Acid Sulfate Soils

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Given the proposed amendments will not increase potential development with areas mapped on the Acid Sulfate Soils Map and will not regulate works in acid sulfate soils, it is not considered that the proposal will be contrary to this direction.

 

5       Regional Planning

 

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

 

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

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

(b) to prevent inappropriate development fronting the highway;

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

The amendments proposed as part of the planning proposal are not contrary to this direction.

 

Direction 5.10 Implementation of Regional Plans

 

The objective of this direction is to give legal effect to the vision, land use strategy, goals, directions and actions contained in Regional Plans. This direction applies to land to which a Regional Plan has been released by the Minister for Planning.

 

This direction applies when Council prepares a planning proposal. Planning proposals must be consistent with a Regional Plan released by the Minister for Planning.

 

The two amendments the subject of the planning proposal will not be contrary to the North Coast Regional Plan.

 

6       Local Plan Making

 

Direction 6.1         Approval and Referral Requirements

 

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

 

A planning proposal shall:

 

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

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

i         the appropriate Minister or public authority, and

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

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

c        not identify development as designated development unless the council:

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

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

 

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

 

Direction 6.2         Reserving Land for Public Purposes

 

The objectives of this direction are:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

a        reserve the land in accordance with the request, and

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

c        identify the relevant acquiring authority for the land.

 

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

 

a        include the requested provisions, or

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

 

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

 

This Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction

 

Section C – Environmental, social and economic impact

 

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

 

The proposed amendments will not result in any greater disturbance to the natural environment than what would already occur as horticulture is currently permissible without consent and the amendment to clause 4.2A will assist regulate dwellings within the rural and environmental protection zones.

 

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

 

It is not considered that there are any environmental effects resulting from the planning proposal.

 

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

 

The proposed amendments in this planning proposal are aimed at rectifying issues with the LEP which have the potential to result in significant social and economic impacts.

 

Section D – State and Commonwealth Interests

 

10         Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal?

 

The planning proposal relates to housekeeping and policy amendments for which additional public infrastructure are not required.

 

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

 

Government authorities have not been formally involved in this planning proposal as it is yet to receive gateway approval. However, the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) were consulted with regards to the amendment to horticulture within the R5 zone prior to Council resolving to proceed with the preparation of the planning proposal. DPI responded with no objections to the proposed amendment.

 

Part 4    Mapping

 

No new or amended maps are required as part of the proposed amendments.

 

Part 5    Community Consultation

 

It is intended to undertake community consultation by way of an advertisement in the local newspaper and Councils website advising the public of the planning proposal and the opportunity to make a submission. It is intended to advertise the planning proposal for 28 days.

 

Part 6    Project Timeline

 

April 2018                                 Gateway determination issued by Department of Planning & Environment

May 2018                                 Public exhibition of planning proposal and consultation with government agencies

June 2018                                Analysis of public submissions and agency responses

                                               Preparation of Council report

July 2018                                 Endorsed planning proposal submitted to Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

LEP & DCP Amendments - Horticulture, Clause 4.2A & Tree Preservation

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

LEP & DCP Amendments - Horticulture, Clause 4.2A & Tree Preservation

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

LEP & DCP Amendments - Horticulture, Clause 4.2A & Tree Preservation

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     17 May 2018

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.15    DA2017/291      170518         Development Application DA2017/291 - 3 Adin Street Scotts Head

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Daniel Walsh, Manager Development and Environment         

 

Summary:

 

The proposed development includes the the demolition of the existing structures at 3 Adin Street, Scotts Head and the construction of shop top housing. Copies of the proposed plans have been included within attachment 2.

 

The application has been notified and assessed in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

The development application is being referred to Council for determination because staff are not satisfied with the proposed servicing arrangements of having vehicles reverse into the site from Adin Street. Council’s development controls require these vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction. Given Council have created a precedent through the determination of development consent DA2016/142 which is considered to have made this development control redundant; it is considered appropriate for Council to determine this development application as it will result in a continuation of this precedent set by Council.

 

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 Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, grant consent to Development Application 2017/291 for shop top housing at Lot 15 Sec F DP 20823 3 Adin Street, Scotts Head, subject to the schedule of conditions outlined in attachment 1 of this report.

 

OPTIONS:

 

(a)        Grant consent to the development application, either unconditionally or subject to conditions, or

(b)        Refuse consent to the development application.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Subject Site

 

The subject site is located at 3 Adin Street, Scotts Head and is legally known as Lot 15 Sec F DP 20823. It is located within the B4 Mixed Use Zone under the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010. The site is rectangular in shape and is sloped down towards the north-western boundary which fronts Adin Street. The site contains an existing dwelling house and detached garage, with surrounding development comprising commercial uses directly to the south-west along Adin Street, residential development, a caravan park, and public open space (recreational areas).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Locality Plan

 

Proposed Development

 

The proposed development seeks approval for the demolition of the existing structures on the site and the construction of shop top housing comprising.

·      Two retail premises including a drive through bottle shop and a café.

·      Two first floor dwellings.

The site is proposed to be levelled, with all cuts retained by retaining walls.

 

A copy of the proposed development plans have been included within attachment 2, statement of environmental effects within attachment 3, and traffic impacts assessment within attachment 4.

 

The proposed development is considered to be satisfactory with regards to the relevant sections of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as follows:

 

Section 1.7 - Application of Part 7 of Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of Fisheries Management Act 1994

 

It is considered that sufficient information is available to satisfy Council that the proposed development will not be contrary to the matters for consideration outlined in this section subject to the recommended conditions of consent. As such, it is not considered that the proposal will have any significant effects on threatened species, populations, communities or their habitats.

Section 4.14 - Consultation and development consent—certain bush fire prone land

 

The proposal will not be contrary to Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

Section 4.15(1) In determining a development application a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application:

 

(a)(i)   The provisions of any environmental planning instrument (EPI)

 

 

 

 

 

NAMBUCCA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010

 

The proposed development is assessed against the relevant clauses of the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 in the following table:

 

Clause

Complies

Comments

2.3 - Zone objectives and land use table

Yes

The proposed development is permissible with consent and is considered to be consistent with the relevant objectives of the zone.

4.3 - Height of buildings

Yes

The proposal does not exceed the 10m maximum building height specified for the land.

5.5 - Development within the coastal zone

Yes

Subject to the conditions of consent, the proposed development will not result in any significant impacts on the coastal environment.

5.9AA – Trees or vegetation not prescribed by a development control plan

Yes

The Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 (NDCP) is the only DCP applicable to the proposed development. The NDCP does not prescribe for the purposes of clause 5.9 any tree or other vegetation.

7.4 - Public utility infrastructure

Yes

The proposed development will be connected to reticulated sewer, water and power.

7.6 - Earthworks

Yes

The proposed earthworks will not impact significantly on surface water flows, will not result in any significant impacts on the future uses on the land or redevelopment, will not impact any contaminated soil or the amenity of surrounding properties, is unlikely to disturb any relics, and appropriate erosion control measures have been included within the recommended conditions of consent.

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

 

The proposed development is assessed against the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies in the following table:

 

State Environmental Planning Policy

Complies

Comments

SEPP 55 - Remediation of Land

Yes

The land is not considered to be contaminated because there are no known previous uses or activities on the site that would have resulted in any contamination of the land and the proposal does not include a change of use of the land as referred to in this SEPP.

SEPP 62 - Sustainable Aquaculture

Yes

It is not considered that the proposed development will result in any adverse effects on oyster aquaculture development or a priority oyster aquaculture area because of the sites location from any of these areas, with earthworks and stormwater flows resulting from the development being appropriately managed by conditions of consent.

SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018

Yes

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant matters for consideration outlined in Part 2 because it will not result in any significant impacts on the coastal environment, values, or processes; and it will not adversely affect vegetation, undeveloped headlands, rock platforms, existing public open space, safe access within the coastal zone,  archaeological significance, use of the surf zone, scenic qualities, overshadowing, wind funneling or the loss of views from public places to foreshores.

SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

Yes

A valid BASIX certificate No 892313M, issued on 21 December 2017, was lodged with this application. A condition requiring the development to meet the commitments of this BASIX certificate is included in the conditions of consent.

 

 (a)(ii)   The provision of any draft environmental planning instrument (EPI)

 

There are no draft environmental planning instruments relevant to the proposed development.

 

(a)(iii)   The provision of any Development Control Plan

 

NAMBUCCA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2010

 

The proposed development is assessed against the relevant clauses of the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 in the following table:

 

NAMBUCCA DCP 2010

Complies

Comments

Notification and advertising (Part A)

Yes

The application was notified in accordance with Part A of the DCP. Two submissions were received and have been included within attachment 5.

Environmental context (Part A)

Yes

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent and as assessed throughout this report, the proposed development is considered to be satisfactory having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under clause A5.0.

Car Parking & Traffic (Part C)

Yes

Under clause C2.6, loading and unloading facilities are to be provided to Councils satisfaction. Deliveries to the proposed development will include the use of heavy rigid vehicles to service the proposed bottle shop. Given these vehicles will be delivering pallets of product to the bottle shop and due to the location of the site within Adin Street; onsite loading/unloading is considered to be the only satisfactory location for these facilities. This is recognised by the applicant with the provision of a loading zone onsite as part of the proposed development.

However, the design of the proposed development does not allow these service vehicles which are to park in the loading zone the ability to manoeuvre on site to enable them to enter and exit in a forward direction. This is contrary to clause C2.7.1. This will result in these service vehicles having to either reverse from Adin Street into the site or out of the site onto Adin Street. This will result in potential safety implications which are contrary to the objectives of the control.

The ability to provide manoeuvring areas for vehicles to enter and exit Adin Street in a forward direction was removed as a consequence of the recent determination of development consent DA2016/142 for the commercial development on the adjoining property. Council’s decision to reject this development control in that determination has essentially made the development control redundant. Instead, the only practical way forward is to accept the applicant’s alternate solution to compliance with the development control in accordance with s4.15(3A) of the act, which is the preparation of an ‘Access and Parking Management Plan’. Given the precedent set by Councils previous decision, failure to accept the applicant’s alternate solution would be likely to be overturned by the court as part of any appeal.

As such, a condition has been included within the recommended conditions of consent requiring the implementation of an ‘Access and Parking Management Plan’.

The relevant floor areas of the proposed mixed use development are:

Drive in Liquor – 128m²

Café – 47.5 m²

Dwellings – 1 @ 87m² and 1 @ 85m²

The applicant has stated that the 2 drive through lanes are not ‘browse lanes’. This means that the 6 spaces required by the DCP for a ‘browse lane’ would not be required and the 2 drive through lanes are serviced by staff.

Having regard to the above, the following parking spaces are required to be provided on site:

Drive in Liquor – 3.2 spaces for the floor area + 1 space for 2 employees = 5 spaces (rounded up)

Café – 1.58 spaces = 2 spaces (rounded up)

Dwellings – 3 spaces + 0.4 visitor spaces = 4 spaces (rounded up).

Total parking spaces required = 11

The proposed development includes the provision of 12 onsite parking spaces including 1 disabled space. However, 2 of these spaces are within a proposed loading zone which is considered to be unacceptable as the proposed loading zone is the only area on the site where a vehicle can park outside the designated parking spaces without creating an obstruction. Although some delivery vehicles will be required to access the site during restricted times (conditions of consent), there will still be potential for other service vehicles to access the site during business hours.

The applicant has stated that the proposal only requires 8 parking spaces. This is due to errors with the calculation of floor space ratio; most notably calculating the dwellings parking spaces based off a floor area of less than 85m² when the proposed floor areas are greater than 85m² which triggers an increased parking requirement. Given the proposal only exceeds the 85m² trigger point by 2.02m² it is considered practical for the proposal to be amended to reduce the dwelling floor areas to below 85m² to ensure compliance with this part. This will result in no reliance on parking within the loading zone to comply with this part. A condition to this effect has been included within the recommended conditions of consent.

Furthermore, a condition has been included requiring the management of the loading zone to enable it to be available for use by all delivery vehicles to ensure all loading/unloading occurs within the development site in a manner which does not create obstructions. This will enable the site operators to utilise the loading zone for parking by customers if they wish, as long as appropriate management is provided which ensures it is clear for service vehicle use when required. This still provides the operators with the ability to prohibit parking in the loading zone if they wish.

Sediment and erosion control (Part D)

Yes

All works to be undertaken as part of any consent will be subject to a condition of consent requiring the installation of adequate erosion and sedimentation devices which are consistent with Part D of the DCP.

Signage (Part E)

Yes

Signage was not proposed as part of this development.

Residential developments (Part H)

Yes

With regards to compliance with this part, the following matters are raised:

·  The proposed rear setback does not comply with the 6m minimum control. However, given the design of the adjoining property to the rear, this proposed variance is considered acceptable as it will not result in any adverse impacts on the amenity of the surrounding area.

·  While the separation of the deck/windows of unit 2 from the existing dwelling at 1 Adin Street does not comply with this part, it is proposed to include a 1.8m high privacy screen along the side of the deck to screen views. This is considered to be a reasonable means of eliminating privacy impacts.

·  There are no existing fixed awnings within Adin Street.

·  To achieve the desired development potential of the site it is not considered practical to achieve a 25% deep soil zone. As part of the recommended conditions of consent, the development will be required to implement stormwater detention and treatment devices to ensure it is consistent with the objectives of the clause. It is to be noted that the site is opposite the Village Green.

·  Excavated areas will be confined to the site, with retaining structures certified by Engineers (conditioned).

·  The proposed 2.7m commercial ceiling height does not comply with the 3.5m requirement. This proposed variance is considered acceptable as it will not adversely alter the sense of space in the building as well-proportioned rooms will still be provided which will comply with the BCA.

Waste Minimisation and Management (Part N)

Yes

Sufficient room has been provided for the storage of waste bins. Given the nature of Adin Street and the limited frontage the site has to Adin Street once access ways are excluded; it is considered inappropriate for waste to be collected from the road reserve. As such, a condition has been included within the recommended conditions of consent which requires all waste to be collected on site.

 

(a) (iiia) Any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4.

 

There are no planning agreements applying to the subject site.

 

(a) (iv) Any Matters prescribed by the Regulation

 

The proposed development is assessed against the relevant matters for consideration prescribed by the regulation in the following table:

 

Clause

Complies

Comments

Clause 92(1) (a) - For the carrying out of development on land to which the Government Coastal Policy applies, the provisions of that Policy.

Yes

Matters for consideration to implement the NSW Coastal Policy are provided in Clause 5.5 (Development within the coastal zone) under the NLEP 2010. These are similar to Clause 8 (Matters for Consideration) under SEPP 71. It is considered that the matters for consideration under Clause 5.5 of the NLEP 2010 and Clause 8 of SEPP 71 have been satisfactorily addressed, therefore, satisfying the requirements of the NSW Coastal Policy.

Clause 92(1)(b) — For development involving building demolition, refer AS 2601

Yes

A condition has been included within the consent requiring any demolition works to be undertaken in accordance with AS2601.

 

(a) (v) any coastal zone management plan

 

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.

 

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent and as addressed elsewhere in this report; it is not considered that the proposal will result in any significant impacts on the natural or built environments or any social or economic impacts on the locality due to its scale, location and consistency with surrounding uses.

(c)      The suitability of the site for the development

 

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent and as addressed elsewhere in this report; it is considered that the site is suitable for the proposed development because it will not result in any significant impacts on the natural, social, or economic environments.

 

d)      Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the Regulations

 

Two submissions were received during the notification of the development application in accordance with the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 with the following matters raised:

 

Summary of Matters Raised in Submissions

Reporting Officers Comment

Comments regarding previously proposed service laneway for vehicles servicing the proposed development and the adjoining development at 3 & 7 Adin Street (DA2016/142).

As part of Councils recent determination of an application to modify DA2016/142, approval was given to the removal the service laneway, with permission given to heavy vehicles reversing into the development site from Adin Street. As such, the subject DA has not been amended as there is no longer opportunity to provide the service lane.

Comments regarding components of DA2016/142.

There matters are not relevant to the subject DA.

 

(e)     The public interest

 

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

 

Section 7.11 - Contribution towards provision or improvement of amenities or services

 

Development Contribution Plan

Applicable

N/A

Contribution Amount

Community Facilities and Open Spaces

x

 

$1,747.00 existing credit

2 x 2 bed units = $2,186.00

Total = $2,186.00 - $1,747.00 = $439.00

Local Roads & Traffic Infrastructure

x

 

$4,034.00 existing credit

2 x 2 bed unit = $5,378.00

Total = $5,378.00 - $4,034.00  = $1,344.00

Surf Lifesaving Equipment

x

 

$116.00 existing credit

2 x 2 bed units = $168.00

Total = $168.00 - $116.00 = $52.00

Mines and Extractive Industries

 

x

 

Upper Warrell Creek Overbridge

 

x

 

Upper Warrell Creek Road

 

x

 

Smiths Lane Upgrade

 

x

 

Section 94A Development Contribution Plan

 

x

 

Administration 

x

 

10% of the above contributions = $183.50

 

Section 64 – Construction of Works for Developers (Local Government Act 1993)

Section 64 of the Local Government Act 1993 enables council to levy developer charges for water supply, sewerage and stormwater. This derives from a cross-reference in that Act to Section 306 of the Water Management Act 2000.

 

Development Servicing Plan

Applicable

N/A

Contribution Amount

Water Supply

x

 

Existing 1ET credit = $12,974.00

2 x 2 bed units = $7,784.40 (0.6ET) x 2 = $15,568.80

Bottle shop = $0 (0.00ET) x 128 (m²) = $0.

Café = $129.74 (0.01ET) x 47.5 (m²) = $6,162.65.

Total = $21,731.45 - $12,974.00 = $8,757.45

Sewerage

x

 

Existing 1ET credit = $17,137.00

2 x 2 bed units = $12,852.75 (0.75ET) x 2 = $25,705.50

Bottle shop = $0 (0.00ET) x 128 (m²) = $0.

Café = $171.37 (0.01ET) x 47.5 (m²) = $7,711.65.

Total = $33,417.15 - $17,137.00 = $16,280.15

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Senior Town Planner, General Manager, Manager Technical Services, and Councillors with regards to the previously recommended service laneway.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Addressed within the above report.

 

Social

 

Addressed within the above report.

 

Economic

 

Addressed within the above report.

 

Risk

 

Addressed within the above report.

 

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

16208/2018 - Attachment 1 - Schedule of Conditions

 

2

16131/2018 - Attachment 2 - Proposed Plans

 

3

16130/2018 - Attachment 3 - Statement of Environmental Effects

 

4

16209/2018 - Attachment 4 - Traffic Impact Assessment

 

5

16128/2018 - Attachment 5 - Submissions

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 May 2018

Development Application DA2017/291 - 3 Adin Street Scotts Head

 

ATTACHMENT 1 - SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THIS CONSENT

 

Development is to be in accordance with approved plan(s)

 

1.       The development is to be implemented in accordance with the plan(s) endorsed with the Council stamp, dated TBC and set out in the following table except where modified by any conditions of this consent.

 

Plan Title/Description

Sheet. No

Prepared by

Dated

Site Plan

35.01.1

Keith Eric Knight Design Studios

6/7/17

Upper Floor Plan

35.02.2

Keith Eric Knight Design Studios

14/12/17

Roof Plan

35.04.2

Keith Eric Knight Design Studios

14/12/17

Elevations

35.07.1

Keith Eric Knight Design Studios

12/10/17

Elevations

35.07.2

Keith Eric Knight Design Studios

12/10/17

Sections

35.06.1

Keith Eric Knight Design Studios

12/10/17

 

In the event of any inconsistency between conditions of this development consent and the plan(s) referred to above, the conditions of this development consent prevail.

 

Retaining Walls

 

2.       Retaining walls within 1m of the lot boundary, greater than 600mm above existing ground level, or within 2m of another retaining wall/structural support require a Construction Certificate and Occupation Certificate.  All works associated with such retaining walls eg backfill, drainage, supporting footing shall be wholly contained within the allotment boundary.

 

Annual Fire Safety Statement

 

3.       The owner of the premises must provide an annual fire safety statement to Council and the Fire Commissioner. An annual fire safety statement is a statement issued by or on behalf of the owner of a building to the effect that:

a        each essential fire safety measure specified in the statement has been assessed by a properly qualified person and was found, when it was assessed, to be capable of performing to a standard no less than that specified in the current fire safety schedule,

b        the building has been inspected by a properly qualified person and was found, when it was inspected, to be in a condition that did not disclose any grounds for a prosecution under Division 7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

Availability of Car Parking Spaces

 

4.       Tenants and customers of the development must have unrestricted access to the car parking spaces on a daily basis during business hours of the development.

 

No car parking spaces are to be reserved (generally or specifically) for any tenant or customer. Only car parking spaces required for the residential component of the development are to be reserved and made available for particular residents.

 

Operation of car parking area

 

5.       All car parking spaces are to be provided and maintained, together with all necessary access driveways and turning areas, to the satisfaction of Council. All driveways and turning areas must be kept clear of obstructions that prevent compliance with this condition.

 

Loading and unloading not to occur on the street

 

6.       The loading and unloading bay must be available at all times for the loading and unloading of goods for the development. All loading and unloading is to take place within the curtilage of the premises.

 

Access to the site for deliveries is to be confined to between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm daily. Vehicles which cannot enter and exit the subject land in a forward direction from Adin Street are to be restricted to no more than 2 per week between 6-7am. In this regard, a sign clearly indicating the delivery times is to be displayed at the entry to the development.

 

Maintenance of gross pollutant trap

 

7.       The basin of the outflow control pit and the debris screen must be cleaned of debris and sediment on a regular basis by the owner.

 

Mechanical Equipment Noise

 

8.       All mechanical equipment is to be adequately located/soundproofed so as not to create offensive noise as defined by the Protection of the Environmental Operations Act 1997 and supporting regulations.

 

Waste Collection

 

9.         A waste bins are to be stored on the subject land within screened enclosures as illustrated on the approved plans and are to be managed so as not to cause offensive impacts on surrounding residents. All waste not kept within the buildings must be located within the bins. If more than 50 litres per day of meat, seafood or poultry waste is generated from the development, the waste must be collected on a daily basis or must be stored in a dedicated and refrigerated waste storage area until collection.

 

All waste must be collected from vehicles parked wholly within the subject land. Waste collection must occur within reasonable hours so as not to cause unreasonable impacts on the amenity of surrounding development.

 

Advertisements and Advertising Structures

 

10.     No advertisements or advertising structures other than that which are permissible without consent are to be erected as part of the approved development until a formal application has been submitted to Council and development consent has been issued.

Note: Advertisements and advertising structures which are permissible without consent are outlined in Schedule 2 of the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 and within the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.

 

Safer by Design in Business Areas

 

11.     Windows fronting the pedestrian walkways on each elevation (front and side) shall use and maintain transparent clear glass and not be covered or obstructed with any medium that prevents surveillance and visibility.

 

Site Drainage

 

12.     Do not re-direct surface water onto adjoining private land. Alterations to the surface contours must not impede or divert natural surface water run-off, so as to cause a nuisance to adjoining property owners or create an erosion or sediment problem.

 

Size of residential units

 

13.     The gross floor area of each shop top dwelling is to be less than 85m2.

 

 

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

 

On-Site Stormwater Detention

 

14.     Stormwater drainage is to be designed to direct all water to a Council approved drainage system to prevent discharge runoff onto adjoining land. The drainage system is to be designed for 1 in 20 year storm event. On-site stormwater detention is required, restricting stormwater discharge to the pre-development runoff rate, for a 1 in 5 year storm event. This system must be designed in accordance with AS/NZS 3500.3:2003 - Plumbing and drainage, Part 3: Stormwater drainage. All piped drainage lines over adjoining land are to be located within drainage easements. All costs are the responsibility of the proponent.

 

Provision shall be made for onsite treatment of stormwater prior to discharge to Council’s piped drainage system where that runoff is from areas other than roofs. The proposed method of stormwater treatment shall be approved by Council and may consist of standard oil/sediment traps, grass filters, infiltration areas or combinations of these arrangements.

 

The engineering plans and specifications are to be designed by a qualified practising Civil Engineer and submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of any constructioncertificate. The Civil Engineer is to be a corporate member of the Institution of Engineers Australia or is to be eligible to become a corporate member and have appropriate experience and competence in the related field.

 

Trade Waste Section 68 Approval

 

15.     An approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 to discharge liquid trade waste into Council’s sewer from the proposed café must be obtained prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The application is to be consistent with Council’s Liquid Trade Waste Management Policy and is to include details of appropriate liquid trade waste pre- treatment facilities.

 

Long Service Levy

 

16.     A Long Service Levy must be paid to the NSW Long Service Corporation prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. In accordance with clause 14 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Regulation 2011, the amount payable at the date of this consent is 0.35% of the estimated cost of the work. This is a State Government Levy and is subject to change.

Note: These payments may be made at Council’s Administration Office. All cheques are to be made payable to Nambucca Shire Council.

 

Driveway and Car Parking Plans

 

17.     The application for a Construction Certificate is to include plans and specifications that indicate vehicular access from the site boundary to the proposed car space(s). Vehicular access must be in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004: Parking facilities, Part 1: Off-street Car Parking No 1. Plans are to include the following items:

 

a        Pavement description (grades exceeding 15% must be sealed);

b        Site conditions affecting the access;

c        Existing and design levels;

d        Longitudinal section from the road centreline to the car space(s);

e        Cross sections every 20 metres;

f        Drainage (open drains, pipes, etc), including calculations and catchment details;

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

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

i        A clearance height 2.2m for all internal car parking areas. Where disabled parking is to be provided a minimum clearance height of 2.5m is required. Building elements such as pipes, ducts, conduits and beams are not to encroach below the specified clearance height;

j         Turning paths; and

k        Line marking and signs.

 

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

 

Section 64 Contributions

 

18.        Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate 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

0.675

$12,974.00

$8,757.45

30 June 2018

Sewer