coffs harbour city council ordinary meeting council … · 2017-09-08 · ordinary committee 24...

COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERSCOUNCIL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

CNR COFF & CASTLE STREETS, COFFS HARBOUR

24 JANUARY, 2002Commencing at 5.00pm

Contents

ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE

NOTICE OF MOTION

1 B-DOUBLE ROUTES 1

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT

1 2002/2003 MANAGEMENT PLAN - PROJECT SCHEDULE 4

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORTS 10

PED1 DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

2000: RURAL RESIDENTIAL LANDS, KORORA

10

PED2 SURPLUS ROAD CORRIDOR LAND AT MACAULEYS HEADLAND 24

PED3 COFFS HARBOUR DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2000(AMENDMENT NO. 14)

32

PED4 DRAFT AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL'S NOTIFICATION

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

35

ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY ENTERPRISES DEPARTMENT REPORTS

E1 TOURISM DEVELOPMENT PLAN 37

E2 SALE OF COUNCIL LAND - CHRISTMAS BELLS ROAD, COFFSHARBOUR - PART LOT 2 DP 840296

39

Minutes

Minutes for this meeting will be confirmed at the Planning Environment & Development Committee Meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, Council Administration Building, on 14 February, 2002 commencing at 5pm.

FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORTS 43

F1 OUTSTANDING REPORTS AND RESOLUTIONS AWAITING

IMPLEMENTATION

43

F2 GRANT APPLICATIONS AND APPROVALS FOR THE PERIOD 1 JULY2001 TO 31 DECEMBER 2001

47

F3 BANK BALANCES AND INVESTMENTS 54

F4 MONTHLY BUDGET REVIEW AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2001 57

CONFIDENTIAL ITEM

The following item either in whole or in part may be considered in ClosedMeeting for the reason stated:

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REPORT

1 TENDERS - COMMUNITY CONSULTATION - STAGE 1 SEWERAGE

STRATEGY

62

A portion of this report is confidential for the reason of Section10A (2):

(d) commercial information of a confidential nature that would, ifdisclosed:

(i) prejudice the commercial position of the person whosupplied it, or

(ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of thecouncil, or

(iii) reveal a trade secret.

and in accordance with Section 10A (1) the meeting may beclosed to the public.

ORDINARY COMMITTEE 24 JANUARY, 2002- 1 -

COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING

24 JANUARY, 2002

Mayor and Councillors

NOTICE OF MOTION

1 B-DOUBLE ROUTES

Councillor KD Rhoades has given notice of his intention to move:

“That Council amend it’s policy to allow B Double transport vehicles access to the Hi-TechDrive/Craft Close Industrial Estate off Hogbin Drive at Toormina.

That the proposed access route be provided from the Pacific Highway via Stadium Drivethen south along Hogbin Drive access the industrial estate.”

Councillors may recall that Council refused access to this industrial estate when we introducedpolicy to allow B Doubles into certain areas of the City. A revision of this policy is now due to allowthe above motion to be included.

Council’s current policy calls for B Doubles to be able to turn within the drop off areas not on publicroadways such as Lawson Crescent and the Cook Drive industrial estate. This does not happen atall within the Lawson Crescent area and only two premises can accommodate this in the CookDrive area.

Some 6 to 8 industrial premises can accommodate this within the Hi-Tech Drive estate. Councilonly recently approved the construction of industrial premises within this estate that caters for roadfreight and the building was designed and constructed to comply with Council’s policy for off streetturning of B Doubles.

With B Doubles not being able to access this industrial estate already 3 jobs have been lost withthe possibility of others to follow in the near future. One company may have lost a contract worthseveral hundreds of thousands of dollars, and more jobs by not being able to compete with theircompetitors on a level surface. Council is about assisting local companies in job creation notcreating job losses.

cont’d


1 B-Double Routes (cont’d)

The transport industry has changed a lot in recent years with design changes to vehicles and noisereduction systems introduced. By allowing access to the estate by the proposed route currentspeed limits on Stadium Drive allow for the non use of exhaust brakes on transport vehicles.Hogbin Drive has no residential dwellings that front the road reserve. The proposed access routebetter complies with Council’s current policy than do the industrial estates of Lawson Crescent orthe Cook Drive industrial area.

General Manager’s Comments:

Where a “B-Double” application involves a Regional or Local Road, Council is responsible for theassessment and approval.

The process must include reference to the Local Traffic Committee and on complex routes mustinclude an “Impact Assessment” addressing road safety and traffic management issues.

The Pacific Highway is now a gazetted B-Double route and freight companies are seeking approvalto run B-Doubles to depots and industrial areas.

Council has previously approved the following roads for B-Double access.

Hurley Drive Bosworth RoadRay McCarthy Drive Willis RoadCook Drive Featherstone DriveO’Keefe Drive Hawke DriveWingara Drive Orlando St (SH 10 to Lawson Crescent)Fraser Drive Lawson Crescent

GDT Seccombe Close

All these roads are within industrial areas with direct and high standard access to the PacificHighway.

A number of applications have been received from companies seeking B-Double access to the Hi-Tech Drive and Christmas Bells Road industrial areas. The local Traffic Committee has previouslyassessed these roads and determined their suitability for B-Double access, however formal B-Double Impact Statements have not been prepared.

The preferred heavy vehicle access to industrial areas off Hogbin Drive is via Stadium Drive.

It is therefore recommended that “B-Double Impact Statements” be prepared for Stadium Drive,Hogbin Drive and Christmas Bells Road and the Hi-Tech Drive Industrial Estate as shown on theattached plan.

- 3 -

Attachments:


GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT

1 2002/2003 MANAGEMENT PLAN - PROJECT SCHEDULE

Purpose:

To seek approval of a project schedule for developing Council's Management Plan for the2002/2003 financial year. This report recommends that development of the plan commence inFebruary.

Description of Item:

Council's Management Plan contains performance targets, budgets, fees and charges and relatedpolicies for services.

The recommended project schedule for developing Council's 2002/2003 Management Plan isprovided as Attachment 1 to this report. A list of meetings to develop the Plan that requireattendance by Councillors is provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

Consultation:

A list of priorities for Council's 2002/2003 Management Plan is to be established. This reportrecommends that the Mayor, Councillors and senior staff meet for informal preliminary sessions atdates to be determined, prior to February 12.

It is recommended that an independent facilitator be engaged to assist in this initial process ofreviewing performance objectives, measures and strategies, and to help identify issues andcommon objectives to develop the 2002/2003 Management Plan.

Staff will then prepare a first draft of the Plan and present this Plan to Council in early April fordiscussion. The draft Plan is to be considered for adoption by Council at a Special Meeting in lateApril.

Public exhibition of the draft Plan is to occur during May for a period of 28 days.

A final plan is to be adopted at a special meeting in late June, after considering submissions andother issues raised during the public exhibition period of the draft Plan.

The final Plan is to be printed and distributed in July.

Related Policy and / or Precedents:

This is to be Council's ninth Management Plan prepared under the 1993 Local Government Act.

Issues to be considered during the preparation of the 2002/2003 Management Plan include:

cont’d


1 2002/2003 Management Plan - Project Schedule (cont’d)

Roads to Recovery Funding

The federal government’s Roads to Recovery Program is expected to provide $716,484.00 to CoffsHarbour City Council for road works in 2002/2003. On July 12, 2001, Council resolved to adopt thefollowing works for funding for the financial years from 2003 to 2005:-

Year Proposed Work ProposedAllocation

Total Allocation

2002/2003 Sealed RoadsRehabilitation

$180,000 -

Sealed Roads Reseals $110,000 -Gravel Roads Resheeting $ 50,000 -Hogbin Drive Upgrade $250,000 -Bucca Road Blackspot $ 70,000 -Sawtell Road Upgrade(part)

$ 56,484 $716,484


$200,000 -

Sealed Roads Reseals $120,000 -Gravel Roads Resheeting $ 55,000 -Sawtell Road Upgrade(completion)

$341,484 $716,484


$188,242 -

Sealed Roads Reseals $120,000 -Gravel Roads Resheeting $ 50,000 $358,242

Other Resolutions of Council relating to the 2002/2003 Management Plan:

• It was resolved at Council’s September 27, 2001 meeting of the Economic and CommunityEnterprises Committee that Council give consideration in its 2002/2003 Management Plan toincrease its annual contribution to the North Coast Academy of Sport with the proviso that it bedesignated for the benefit of Coffs Harbour junior athletes.

• Council’s Economic and Community Enterprises Committee of 27 September, 2001, resolvedthat Council consider a funding allocation for site identification and building design for a SeniorCitizens Centre in conjunction with the development of the 2002/2003 Management Plan.

• Council’s Finance and Administration Committee meeting of 27 September, 2001, resolved thatCouncil, as part of the Management Plan procedures, hold a special consultation meeting withrepresentatives of all committees that have a role in development control and management ofCouncil’s facilities.

• Council’s Engineering Committee meeting of 8 November, 2001, resolved that Council includethe stream bank stabilisation works on Coffs Creek tributary, adjacent to No. 75 High Street, forconsideration of funding as a priority under the Environmental Levy Program in 2002/2003.

cont’d



• The 22 November, 2001, Economic and Community Enterprises Committee meeting of Councilresolved that the estimated costs for improvement works to the Coffs Harbour InternationalSports Stadium parking and access arrangements listed in the report at $730,000 beconsidered in conjunction with the 2002/2003 Management Plan.

• It was resolved at the 13 December, 2001 Ordinary Committee meeting of Council that aproposal to allocate funds of $368,000 in the 2002/2003 Management Plan for the provision ofservices (sewer, water and power) to the western area of the Coffs Coast Sport and LeisurePark be deferred until after the next Strategic Planning meeting of Councillors, and: that thematter be then considered at the next Council meeting, together with Council’s priorities for2002/2003.

Statutory Requirements:

Section 402-407 of the 1993 Local Government Act describes what needs to be included inCouncil's Management Plan.

Council is required, among other things, to adopt a Management Plan by June 30 each year. Thedraft Plan must be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days. Council must considersubmissions received on the draft Plan before adopting the final Plan.

Issues:

Community Consultation

This report recommends that in the interests of maximising efficiency of staff and Councillorresources, individual consultation meetings be scheduled to inform interested members of thepublic and community groups of issues associated with the Draft 2002/2003 Management Plan.

It is recommended that members of the community have access to meetings with Council directorsand/or senior staff to discuss the draft management plan during the 28-day public exhibition andconsultation phase of the management planning process for the 2002/2003 Plan.

This arrangement is recommended in preference to a public information session, as a result of lowattendance at the public information session during the consultation phase for the 2001/2002Management Plan.

It is considered that interested members of the public may receive more specialised assistancewith their inquiries if directors and/or senior staff are available for consultations during the publicexhibition period of the planning process.

A two-page advertisement highlighting the key issues in the draft Plan was prepared anddistributed through The Advocate newspaper to residents last year, during the public exhibitionperiod. This report recommends the same.

The draft Plan will be advertised in three local newspapers and also displayed at the three branchlibraries and Council's Administration Building foyer.

cont’d



Project Schedule

In developing the project schedule, consideration has been given to:• Committee meetings• The committee meeting recess that occurs in the first week of each month• Committee chairmen meetings• Informal meetings with staff• Public holidays

Environmental Levy

Council has previously resolved to include the determination of projects to be funded from theEnvironmental Levy in the Management Planning process.

Submissions for the 2002/2003 Environmental Levy closed on 14 December, 2001. TheEnvironmental Working Group has considered submissions and will prepare a recommended list ofprojects for consideration and adoption by Council in March 2001. These projects will then beincorporated into the first draft of the 2002/2003 Management Plan.

Other Departments’ Comments:

Comments are included from other Council departments in this report where appropriate.

Economic Implications:

Project Schedule

This project schedule is funded within Council's current Management Plan budget.

Management Plan/Budget

It is extremely difficult on an annual basis to match community expectations to the availableCouncil resources, particularly in the General Account. Council has previously concentrated ondelivering basic services as well as ensuring maintenance of assets is undertaken at a sufficientlevel to optimise their life cycle. Legislative responsibilities also continue to consume staffresources.

Implementation Date / Priority:

Subject to Council approval, development of Council's 2001/2002 Management Plan willcommence in February 2002.

cont’d



Recommendation:

1. That the project schedule for developing Council's 2002/2003 Management Plan, asoutlined in Attachment 1 of this report, be adopted.

2. That an independent consultant be engaged to facilitate a preliminary meeting involvingCouncillors and senior staff, to identify major objectives, strategies and measures forconsideration in the 2002/2003 Management Plan.

3. That Councillors note their attendance is requested at the meetings, as outlined inAttachment 2 to this report, to develop Council's 2002/2003 Management Plan.

4. That Special Meetings be held to adopt the Draft and Final 2002/2003 ManagementPlans.

5. That directors and senior staff be available for meetings with members of the public toinform them of issues associated with the 2002/2003 Management Plan, during thepublic exhibition phase of the Draft Plan.

6. That a leaflet highlighting the key issues in the Draft 2002/2003 Management Plan beprepared and distributed during the public exhibition phase of the Draft 2002/2003Management Plan.

7. That the Environmental Working Group's recommended list of projects to be fundedfrom the 2002/2003 Environmental Levy be submitted for consideration and adoption byCouncil by 31 March 2002.

P C LittlerA/General Manager

- 9 -

Attachments:

Attachment 12002/2003 Management Plan

Project Schedule

Task Start FinishInformal Sessions withCouncillors, staff andrepresentatives of all Section377 Committees to determinepriorities and develop 1st DraftPlan

Monday 4.2.02 Thursday 4.4.02

Consultation with Councillorsre 1st Draft

Thursday 4.4.02 Thursday 4.4.02

Revise 1st Draft Monday 8.4.02 Tuesday 23.4.02Adopt 1st Draft Tuesday 23.4.02 Tuesday 23.4.02Media Session on Draft Plan Tuesday 30.4.02 Tuesday 30.4.02Public Exhibition Period Tuesday 30.4.02 Monday 27.5.02Public Information Meetings Monday 6.5.02 Friday 10.5.02Revise Draft Plan Wednesday 22.5.02 Wednesday 5.6.02Adopt Final Plan Tuesday 11.6.02 Tuesday 11.6.02Revise Plan for Printing Thursday 12.6.02 Monday 24.6.02Printing Monday 24.6.02 Monday 8.7.02Submission Replies Monday 24.6.02 Monday 8.7.02

Attachment 2Proposed Meetings Involving Councillors to develop

the 2002/2003 Management Plan

Day Date Subject Venue TimeTo bedetermined

To bedetermined

Informal sessionswith Councillors todetermine priorities

To be determined To bedetermined

Thursday 24.1.02 Adopt projectschedule

Council Chamber 5-7pm

Thursday 4.4.02 1st Draft Budgetpresented toCouncillors fordiscussion


Tuesday 23.4.02 Adopt DraftManagement Plan(Special Meeting)


Tuesday 30.4.02 Media Briefing onDraft ManagementPlan (Mayor andFinance CommitteeChairman)

Council Chamber 10-11am

Tuesday 11.6.02 Adopt FinalManagement Plan(Special Meeting)



PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORTS

PED1 DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2000: RURALRESIDENTIAL LANDS, KORORA

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to:

1. Present the Draft Local Environmental Plan (LEP) for Council’s approval. The planincorporates adoption of:• an amendment to Coffs Harbour City LEP 2000;• a Development Control Plan (DCP).

2. Address the need to revise the draft developer contributions plan and re-exhibit it for furtherpublic comment.

3. Address the need to consider lands suitable for urban development (residential zoning).

Background:

The Coffs Harbour Rural Residential Strategy 1999 identified a demand for rural livingopportunities in Coffs Harbour. The Rural Residential Strategy was undertaken to provide astrategic direction to planning for rural residential development. The Korora rural residential area isthe first release under the Strategy.

Rural residential development has the potential to provide an alternative lifestyle option of lowdensity living in a rural setting.

The Korora area was selected to provide opportunity for rural living close to urban areas, allowingaccess to employment, commerce, recreation and community facilities.

The Draft LEP Amendment applies to the Korora area, including West Korora, Korora Basin andWest Sapphire. A detailed Local Environmental Study (LES) was prepared to support the DraftLEP Amendment. A Draft DCP and a Draft Developer Contributions Plan were also prepared toprovide detailed methods to implement the finding of the LES.

Report:

In accordance with Council’s resolution of 12 April 2001 the documents were placed on exhibitionat the Council Administration Building and in the Kororo Public School Hall for the period 12 Juneto 31 July 2001. (Note: the exhibition at the Kororo School Hall was not a formal exhibition).Letters were sent to all landowners within the Korora area identifying the exhibition period.Advertisements were also placed in the local newspaper.

A community information session was held on 11 July 2001 at Kororo Public School Hall withapproximately 90 landowners in attendance.

cont’d


PED1 Draft Amendment No. 3 to Local Environmental Plan 2000: Rural Residential Lands,Korora (cont’d)

Council also sought comment from the relevant Government authorities.

As a result of the exhibition a total of 128 submissions were received. Copies of submissionsreceived have been placed in the Councillors’ room.

The new LEP, when gazetted, will replace the existing LEP 2000 as it applies to the Korora area,and will modify subdivision clauses of LEP 2000 relating to 7A Environmental Protection adjoining1B Rural Living zones.

Issues:

1. Draft Local Environmental Plan Amendment No. 3

Under Draft Amendment No. 3 (to LEP 2000) areas of 1A zoned land are to be rezoned 1B forRural Living purposes. The LEP also proposes to introduce a new provision regarding thesubdivision of rural living land that adjoins an Environmental Protection zone.

Key issues arising from exhibition of the Draft LEP:

(a) Provision of habitat links and vegetated corridors.

Comment: While the LEP doesn’t propose rezoning land for habitat purposes, theexisting 7A lands were assessed and found to be appropriate for habitat and linkagepurposes. Additional controls are established in the Masterplan and DCP documents.

(b) Inclusion of other lands in study area and/or subsidiary area to allow subdivision.

Comment: Council has previously had representations from the community in regardto the extent of the study area and delineation of the subsidiary area. Council acceptedthe strategic rationale for defining a limit to the study area and the internal subsidiaryarea and determined it would be impractical and cause inappropriate and considerabledelays to redefine the areas.

(c) Landowners with two Council approved dwellings, each with separate effluent disposalsystems, sought the ability to subdivide these lands even though the resultantallotments may be less than one hectare.

Comment: Where it can be established that each existing dwelling can functionsatisfactorily to Council’s requirements for:

• bushfire hazard,

• access,

• effluent disposal,

• vegetation and habitat,

• water supply,

• water quality,

cont’d



• stormwater disposal,

• subdivision, involving 7A zoned land,

• banana land buffers,

such subdivision may be assessed for consent by Council.

(d) Opposition to proposed neighbourhood business centre.

Comment: Council has a civic obligation to plan for the total development of theKorora area, this includes establishing an appropriate location for a small businesscentre. The proposal for a business zone around the existing squash court buildingprovides an opportunity for future demand.

(e) Are tourist facilities consistent with Council’s rural zones?

Comment: Allowing and encouraging tourist facilities in the rural area of Coffs Harbourhas been a commitment of the Council. Special attention to the impacts of touristdevelopment is required. To achieve this the Draft DCP has additional requirements forproponents of these facilities.

(f) Loss of agriculture and loss of land with agricultural potential.

Comment: Whilst the study area was once a successful banana growing area, thegeneral decline in the industry in Coffs Harbour has resulted in many bananaplantations ceasing to operate. Options for reuse for agricultural production is limiteddue to slope and soils. This factor is identified in the steep lands study commissionedby the Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLAWC); no feasible alternativeto banana growing has been identified. Thus the land’s agricultural capacity andsustainability is limited. The proposed rezoning will formalise the trend of the last 15years, no major net loss of productive land or agriculture is likely to result.

(g) Density of development – one hectare lots too large, residential preferred.

Comment: Several landowners submit that residential subdivision is a better use of theland than rural residential. These landowners have sought to have their landconsidered for residential zoning rather than rural residential.

The Korora LES did identify that some lands could be deferred and further consideredfor residential type densities.

Some preliminary investigations have been undertaken and the result is that lands inthe West Korora area to 55 metres Australian Height Datum could be supplied with areticulated water supply. No consideration to sewering the area has been given in therevised Sewer Strategy. Consultants for landowners indicate that a reticulatedsewerage system may be achievable. Further investigation and detailed calculationsare required.

It is therefore proposed to defer the lands of West Korora Basin (as shown on theattached map) to allow examination of their potential for residential development.

cont’d



2. Draft Development Control Plan

The Draft DCP provides detailed guidelines for the development area. These guidelines arerequired to ensure that the development of the land is in accordance with Council’s strategic,environmental and economic provisions. The guidelines include controls relating to thefollowing:

• bushfire hazard,

• access,

• effluent disposal,

• vegetation and habitat,

• water supply,

• water quality

• stormwater,

• subdivision, involving 7A zoned lands,

• banana land buffers,

• building design,

• garbage service,

• letter boxes,

• erosion control, and

• tourist potential.

In response to public exhibition of the Draft DCP, the following issues were raised:

(a) Maintain the Pine Brush Creek Bridge, on the Old Coast Road, as one lane. Reviewthe need to modify (widen) as development occurs.

Comment: The traffic study of the area identified the need to widen the bridge inaccordance with the ultimate development of Korora. As staged development of Kororais considered, and established in the Developer Contributions Plan, the need toupgrade the bridge can be monitored.

(b) Council’s reconstruction of the Pine Brush Creek Bridge has led to a decrease in thecharacter of the bridge. Reinstatement of timber rails and “softening” the concreteappearance can increase the character of the bridge and reintroduce the “quaint”amenity experienced at the entry to the area.

Comment: Review of design and aesthetics of the bridge should be considered whilstcontemplating upgrading the bridge.

cont’d



(c) Roundabouts aren’t needed.

Comment: Whilst road works to improve the safety and functionality of the roadnetwork was welcomed, strong opposition to roundabouts (as suggested in the trafficstudy) was voiced. Alternative treatment to achieve safety and functionality can beincorporated at the design stage of road works prior to construction.

(d) General opposition to kerb and guttering, street lights and neon signs, which wouldchange the rural character of the area.

Comment: For safety reasons, street lights and kerb and guttering (to control runoff)may be required at upgraded main intersections.

The amenity of the area will not be adversely impacted by these. In general, Councilwill not be providing kerb and gutter or street lighting, nor will neon signs beencouraged.

(e) The 10,000 gallon water supply requirement solely for fire fighting is onerous.

Comment: Council has an absolute obligation to ensure appropriate bushfire facilitiesare provided in the locality and at each dwelling. The provision of an available on-sitewater supply is imperative in minimising the risk of damage to life and possessions frombushfires.

(f) The size and location of fuel free and fuel reduced zones was questioned.

Comment: Again Council has an obligation to impose standards for fire protectionmeasures. The actual proposed zones are reasonable given the slope, vegetation,access and other site considerations of the location.

(g) Opposition voiced to the proposed closure of north Old Coast Road intersection with thePacific Highway (near Hunter Close).

Comment: The traffic assessment prepared considered options to increase thefunctionality and safety of the road network. The primary concern with this intersectionwas south travelling vehicles turning from north Old Coast Road onto the PacificHighway.

In consultation with the community, closing the north Old Coast Road would mean aperceived major increase in traffic along the length of Old Coast Road, putting pressureon the southern intersection as well as the privately maintained The Mountain Way.

The solution is to modify the northern intersection to allow left in – left out manoeuvresonly.

cont’d



(h) The lack of provision of “basic” services such as reticulated water and sewer andgarbage collections.

Comment: The provision of services (water and sewer) whilst technically feasible isextremely difficult because:

• of the topography of the Korora area,

• of the cost of construction,

• the land has not been considered in the relevant servicing strategies.

Currently the road standard and character preclude a regular Council garbage collectionservice (a smaller contract vehicle does currently service some properties). Anopportunity to provide such a service may exist with the upgrade of the road network.

(i) The current level of service of the road network with one-lane bridges, blind corners andaccess points to the Highway, is inappropriate to allow rural residential development.

Comment: It is acknowledged that Korora is changing from a traditional ruralagricultural area to a higher use for residential in the rural setting. Whilst the level ofservice of roads, bridges and intersections is currently adequate, the rezoning results inthe requirement for major upgrading. The cost of this is to be borne by the proponentsof new development (one hectare subdivision) as detailed in the revised Draft Section94 Contributions Plan.

As staged development occurs and contributions paid, the road network will beupgraded.

Similarly, the access to/from the Highway will require works to improve efficiency,functionality and safety.

(j) Proximity to watercourse restriction on building is too extreme.

Comment: Water quality of the Korora catchment is important at a local and regionallevel. Locally water in the catchment is used for agricultural and domestic purposes.Regionally, the Korora catchment discharges into the unique Solitary Islands MarinePark.

Proximity of buildings to watercourse is an issue as the closer a building is the higherthe likelihood of pollution. The setbacks from watercourses are established in the DCPto assist in minimising adverse impacts.

(k) With an increase in population, a resultant increase in crime occurs.

Comment: There is no conclusive evidence to either support or reject this contention.The crime rate is affected by a variety of factors, some include:

• socio-economic,

• geographic (location in relation to and distance from other populated areas)

• on-site factors (ease of access, isolation, concealment, etc.).

cont’d



(l) With an increase in residences, there is a likely increase in the number of domesticanimals and thus a potential increase in threat to wildlife and habitat.

Comment: It is extremely difficult to exclude domestic animals from rural residentialareas. Although Council could place restrictions on dog and cat ownership in the area,policing and enforcement would prove extremely expensive and difficult.

(m) A tree preservation order is not warranted in the area.

Comment: The proposed regulations do not include a specific tree preservation order.The provisions of the Koala Plan of Management, together with other provisionsexpressed in the DCP require retention, enhancement and maintenance of habitatareas and corridors.

(n) Council should allow transferable development rights for land that is vegetated and/orcannot be subdivided.

Comment: The concept of transferable development rights enables issues of socialand economic equity to be addressed. Current legislation does not provide for thisconcept, however as the State government’s planFirst is refined and implemented,Council may be able to consider such provisions.

(o) The DCP proposes inadequate banana land buffers.

Comment: The DCP suggests a buffer network to banana lands as a mitigatingmeasure; three broad areas of banana plantations remain:

• West Korora Road,

• Bruxner Park Road,

• along the Old Coast Road.

Whilst other plantations do exist, these three areas are the remaining major bananalands.

Only three submissions in regard to maintaining banana growing were received; onefrom a West Korora Road grower, one from the Department of Agriculture and the otherfrom the Banana Growers Federation.

The West Korora Road area will not be immediately impacted by development of ruralresidential (one hectare) lands as it forms a deferred area for rezoning. This means theexisting zones prevail.

The Bruxner Park area will continue to have banana lands but growers in the area haveindicated their desire to cease banana production.

A similar scenario exists along the Old Coast Road; growers seeking to leave theindustry.

cont’d



(p) What impacts will occur, with increased development, on water quality?

Comment: The water quality of the catchments is an issue identified in the LES and insubmissions as warranting appropriate mitigation measures to lessen impacts. Toachieve desired water quality standards, the Draft DCP incorporates measures assuggested by the authorities (DLAWC, MPA, etc.).

(q) Availability of potable water for tourist developments.

Comment: Council’s policy to encourage tourism development is linked with itsenvironmental policies. Health, safety and environmental protection issues areintegrated into policies to provide suitable and appropriate standards.

Council requires potable water for tourist developments in accordance with theseideals.

3. Why do we need to revise the Developer Contributions Plan?

Council prepared the Draft Developer Contributions Plan and placed it on public exhibition withthe Draft LEP and Draft DCP. The Draft Developer Contributions Plan was prepared on thebasis that the proposed improvements to social, recreational and infrastructure were,essentially, incremental improvements.

Detailed consideration to this has been given and a revised Developer Contributions Plan isproposed.

The decision to propose an amended contribution plan has been guided by advice fromCouncil’s Finance and Administration Department and legal consultant.

The Finance and Administration Department advise that the exhibited Draft DeveloperContribution Plan:

“…requires revenue funding in the order of $1,320,000 to undertake the proposed works.There is no provision at all in the City Treasurer’s forward financial plan. The requiredfunding would have to come from within existing programs. These existing programs arealready struggling to fund the necessary outstanding works.

It is difficult to see how the proposed works will be funded.

Whilst it’s difficult to determine when the proposed works will need to occur, the introductionof the Contributions Plan is an indication to developers that the works will be undertakenwithin ‘a reasonable time’. Therefore there may be a need to forward fund some of theworks which will have an even greater detrimental effect on Council’s finances. Certainlythe Section 94 trust does not have the capacity to forward fund works. It may be possibleto include an amount for interest on proposed forward funded works.”

Consultation with Council’s legal advisers has indicated that Council can levy the costs of theproposed social, recreational and infrastructure requirements against the “new” development(subdivision). The reason is that the existing facilities satisfy the current rural/agricultural landuse activities to a suitable standard. The improvements and embellishments are only requiredbecause of the landowner’s desire to change the area to a residential area with rural character.

cont’d



It is therefore reasonable for Council to seek the total Section 94 from the new developmentonly.

It should be clearly understood that Council has one chance only to require land developers tomeet the cost of support services; the chance is available now.

Failure to take the opportunity now will result in the community paying in the future.

4. Consideration of Land Suitable for Urban Development

At the request of several landowners further consideration to two distinct areas for urbandevelopment (residential zoning) has been made.

The following text examines the merits of two areas:

• Area A - The area north of Pine Brush Creek, west of the Pacific Highway, east of OldCoast Road and south of Hunter Close.

The land is located west of existing urban development. Currently one tourist facility withinthe area is supplied with reticulated water and sewer; this being provided to satisfy healthand environmental requirements.

Whilst tourist facilities are permissible and appropriate in this area, rezoning of the land toresidential is not going to provide any greater flexibility for tourist developments.Residential development of this area is considered not appropriate given access,environmental, visual and servicing issues and constraints.

• Area B - Land south of Bruxner Park Road, west of the Pacific Highway and north of WestKorora Road.

The land is located north and immediately west of existing urban development.

A trunk water main traverses the land at the eastern edge of Area B, however no waterreticulation exists to Area B.

An existing tourist development is currently serviced by reticulated sewer.

Council’s engineers indicated that:

(a) the area could be serviced with reticulated water to approximately 55 metresAustralian Height Datum.

(b) reticulated sewer could be achieved to service the area.

The current water strategy does not identify this land to be provided with a reticulatedsystem.

The current Sewerage Strategy does not include this land for future reticulation.

Further studies are required to progress this matter to resolve the water, sewer, access andenvironmental impacts of this land being zoned residential. It is for this reason the land isto be “deferred” from the current amendment to the zone.

cont’d



5. Impact of the Coffs Harbour Highway Planning Strategy – Inner Route – on the studyarea.

The Inner Route of the Coffs Harbour Highway Planning Strategy is shown to cross lands in theWest Korora Road area and to connect with the current alignment of the Highway immediatelynorth of the Bruxner Park Road intersection. The western “edge” of this inner route extends tothe north to the Korora Nature Reserve, thus having a potential impact on properties on thenorth of Bruxner Park Road.

The lands in the west Korora area are identified to be “deferred” from the rezoning pendingfurther investigations. This could coincide with the decision process for the highway routeselection and eventual by-pass construction.

The Bruxner Park Road (and north) lands will remain included in this rezoning, however theHighway Planning Strategy may impact upon these lands.


The proposed draft plan has been prepared in accordance with the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act, 1979 and is consistent with the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies,the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan, Ministerial Directions and the NSW Coastal Policy.

The following statutory and strategic documents were considered in the preparation of the plans:

• Statutory- Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,- State Environmental Planning Policies,- North Coast Regional Environmental Plan,- Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000.

• Strategic- NSW Coast Government Policy,- North Coast Urban Planning Strategy,- Coffs Harbour Urban Development Strategy,- Rural Residential Strategy.

These documents provide the framework for rules or guidelines for preparation of the LEP and theprotection of the natural environment. The LEP addresses all the relevant requirements of thesedocuments.

Community Benefits:

The LEP proposes to rezone land for rural residential development in the Korora InvestigationArea, providing land to satisfy demand for rural residential allotments.

The proposed zonings will also assist in securing important habitat and habitat linkages throughoutthe investigation area.

cont’d



Requirements in the Section 94 plan for full recovery of development costs will ensure that thecommunity does not have to meet any shortfall.

Consultation:

The plan has been developed with input from all Departments within Council.

Summary:

The LEP proposed reflects relevant land capability and suitability studies carried out, submissionsreceived and advice from agencies and authorities.

The Draft DCP will regulate development enabling appropriate development of the Korora area.

The amended Development Contributions Plan will facilitate the provision of infrastructure andservices required by the rezoning and development of the area for rural residential purposes.

Legislative provisions allow the deferral of parts of rezoning proposals where issues areunresolved to allow other parts to proceed; it is recommended Council take this action.

The area which should be deferred is shown on the map included in the report. Once the issuesrelating to this are resolved the final zonings can be determined.

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. Adopt Local Environmental Plan 2000 (Amendment No. 3) as attached to PED1 for theKorora area and forward it to planningNSW for gazettal.

2. Defer from the Local Environmental Plan (Amendment No. 3) all that area shown as‘Deferred Area’ on the map attached to PED1 until issues relating to potential urban landand Pacific Highway Planning Strategy are resolved.

3. Adopt the Korora Rural Residential Development Control Plan, as circulated toCouncillors.

4. Place the amended Developer Contributions Plan, as circulated to Councillors, onexhibition for a period of one month.

5. Advise all landowners in the Korora Investigation Area of Council’s decision.

- 21 -

Attachments:

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979

DRAFTCOFFS HARBOUR CITY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2000

(AMENDMENT No. 3)

I, the Minister for Planning, in pursuance of section 70 of the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act 1979, make the local environmental plan set out hereunder. (……………)

Minister for Planning.

Sydney, 2002

___________________________

Citation

1. This plan is Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan 2000 (Amendment No. 3).

Aims, objectives etc.

2. This plan aims to:

(a) rezone certain land for rural living purposes;

(b) correct minor zoning anomalies for certain land;

(c) correct minor drafting anomalies for certain land;

(d) introduce a new provision regarding the subdivision of rural living land that adjoinsan environmental protection zone.

Land to which the plan applies

3. This plan applies:

(a) to the land coloured on the map marked “Coffs Harbour City Local EnvironmentalPlan 2000 (Amendment No. 3)” held in the office of Coffs Harbour City Council; and

(b) to land that Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan 2000 applies that is withinZone 7A and adjoins land within Zone 1B.

- 22 -

- 2 -

Relationship to other environmental planning instruments

4. This plan amends Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan 2000 in the manner set outin Clause 5.

Amendment of Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan 2000

5. Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan 2000 is amended by:

(a) inserting at the end of the definition of “the map” in the Dictionary the followingmatter:

Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan 2000 (Amendment No. 3).

(b) omitting clause 18(4)(b) and inserting the following clause:

“(b) if land in Zone 7A adjoins land in a residential or Zone 1B, consent maybe granted to a subdivision of the composite parcel provided:

(i) each resultant allotment contains an adequate building envelopeoutside the 7A zone and the subdivision is desirable for achievinglong term management of the land within the 7A zone; and

(ii) where the composite parcel contains land in Zone 7A and Zone1B, each allotment is not less than the minimum area specified in aCouncil adopted Development Control Plan, and in no case, notless than one hectare”.

(c) inserting in the Table to clause 18, after the words “Rural 1B Living Zone”, the words“unless a Council adopted Development Control Plan specifies a larger area”.

(d) inserting after clause 18, (8) the following matter:

“(9) Regardless of subclause (2) and (4):

if a parcel of land has two lawfully erected dwellings, and separatecomplying effluent disposal areas, consent may be granted to a subdivisionof the parcel providing each resultant allotment contains an appropriate areaof land to comply with Council’s requirements for bushfire hazard reduction,access, effluent disposal, vegetation and habitat, water supply, water quality,stormwater disposal and banana land buffers”.

__________________________

- 23 -


PED2 SURPLUS ROAD CORRIDOR LAND AT MACAULEYS HEADLAND

Purpose:

To convey to Council advice received from a number of Government organisations regarding theproposed zoning of the Surplus Road Corridor at Macauleys Headland.

In order to resolve the matters raised by the Government agencies, it is recommended that aWorkshop be held with all stakeholders to work through the issues and make a finalrecommendation.

The following map shows the area subject of the rezoning.

Background:

The subject land was part of a road corridor and is currently zoned 5A Classified Road. The landis owned by Beach Court Pty. Limited. As the land is no longer required for road purposes,Council was asked by the Roads and Traffic Authority to review the zoning of this strip of land.

cont’d


PED2 Surplus Road Corridor Land at Macauleys Headland (cont’d)

In July 2001, Council considered a Local Environmental Study and a recommended Draft LocalEnvironmental Plan (LEP) showing the northern portion of the land to be zoned 7A EnvironmentalProtection Habitat and Catchment and the southern portion to be 2C Residential Medium-HighDensity.

July 2001 – Council Supported Zonings

RECOMMENDED ZONES

cont’d



Council supported the proposed zonings and asked planningNSW to certify the Draft LEP forexhibition.

As a result of that request, planningNSW has asked Council to reconsider the northern zoning (7A)and asked for greater controls over the southern portion of land, proposed to be (2C). This is alsoin line with the advice given by the Coastal Council of NSW. planningNSW has also required theproposal be referred to the following State Government Departments for their more detailedcomments:

• National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS),

• Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC),

• Solitary Islands Marine Park,

• Environment Protection Authority,

• NSW Heritage Office.

planningNSW and Coastal Council of NSW Comments:

planningNSW has asked for -

“A stricter environmental protection – coastline zone be placed over the proposed 7A land.The objective of this ‘new’ zone should reflect the natural and cultural conservation valuesof the site. This zone would also limit the types of permissible uses unlike those permittedunder the Coffs Harbour 7A zone.”

In respect to the southern 2C zone, concern has been expressed by planningNSW as to:

• the site’s conservation values;

• the need for a buffer zone (e.g. road) along the eastern boundary of the proposed 2C landto protect the ecological values of the adjoining land;

• the flood levels;

• height limits being identified in the LEP for this zone to protect the visual qualities of thearea;

• the old BAT tramway route in this area;

• DLWC and the Marine Parks Authority being satisfied that this area could accommodateresidential housing (with regard to stormwater management in particular); and

• further investigations being carried out to establish if any of the former banana plantationarea is contaminated.

These concerns are also reflected in the Coastal Council of NSW’s comments.

cont’d



Other Government Authorities comments:

• National Parks and Wildlife Service

“The Minister of the Environment announced the Coffs Coast Regional Park on 3 August2001…. The main purpose of the Regional Park is to provide for recreation and publicaccess to coastal lands.

Macauleys Headland is a focal part of the Regional Park, important for its scenic andenvironmental qualities. The area is currently used extensively by the local community forrecreation…. It is intended to incorporate this land into the Regional Park “(the recentlyacquired 7C land to the east of the surplus road reserve).

A number of endangered or threatened species – both flora and fauna, exist on thisHeadland and ‘are a priority for conservation’.

It is considered that this land would be suitable for inclusion in the Regional Park…. But notpossible at this time….it is therefore recommended that Council ensure the zoning adjacentto the Regional Park is sensitive to the values of the Regional Park. …The NPWS is notsupportive of a zoning which would allow for a more intensive land use adjacent to theRegional Park.”

It would also be ideal to preserve the large stand of significant coastal vegetation immediatelyto the west of the road corridor land. This would create a significant buffer to the Regional Parkfrom the residential land adjacent to the vegetation.

• Department of Land and Water Conservation

Recommend:

“1. In considering the Coastal Policy, it may be more appropriate to zone the proposed7A section as a zoning of 7C.

2. The northern section of the proposed 2C land, comprising existing native vegetationcommunities and drainage flowline, be zoned 7C to maintain/enhanceexisting/natural hydraulic and ecosystem functions.”

• Solitary Islands Marine Park Authority

“The Marine Parks Authority supports the 7A zoning on the northern Lot. The southern lothas drainage lines and a drainage pathway running through the northern half, entering themarine park at the northern end of Park Beach.

If the south eastern part of the southern lot is a cleared and degraded swale, there will beincreased drainage problems associated with loss of retention from this area. Increasedrunoff rates will potentially effect the marine park through increased turbidity, siltation andincreased transport of gross pollutants.

cont’d



The development of the southern lot should be considered in conjunction with futuredevelopment pressure on the adjacent landward Lot (zoned 2C) which is currentlyundeveloped. Eventual development of the adjacent Lot will increase pressure onstormwater drainage in this area. The potential to buffer this pressure would be increasedby retaining this Lot as public open space….At the very least, the northern half and easternside of the southern lot should be retained as public open space… for drainage andbuffering purposes, as well as maintaining coastal vegetation within the Lot.”

Other concerns relate to increased run-off and reduction in the visual amenity from the MarinePark.

• Environment Protection Authority

Regarding the ex-banana lands and extent of contamination (if any):

“The nature and extent of the contamination assessment, and the level of clean up ifnecessary, should be based on the proposed uses of the land to be rezoned and on anassessment of environmental/health risk to those proposed land uses and to adjacentexisting land uses. … the attributes of the land in question … may also assist in evaluatingrisk.

SEPP 55 stipulates that Council must be satisfied that the land is suitable in itscontaminated state (or will be suitable after remediation) for all the purposes for which landin the zone concerned is permitted to be used.”

As the land affected by potential contamination (ex banana lands) is located in the far northwestern corner of the surplus road corridor, and is proposed to be zoned for Conservationpurposes, investigation of the extent of contamination is not considered necessary. The land isnot proposed to be used for residential purposes.

• NSW Heritage Office

The advice from the Heritage Office:

“The northern portion of the subject area is to be rezoned 7A (Environmental ProtectionHabitat and Catchment) which suggests that there would be little physical impact on thisarea. The northern portion contains the BAT tramway and quarry sites, as well as thewatercourse that has been assessed as having Aboriginal archaeological potential. Theproposed rezoning of this area should ensure that these features are not disturbed.

… any archaeological relics in this (southern) area are protected under the terms of theNSW Heritage Act, 1977. Any development approval issued by Coffs Harbour City Councilfor this area should include provisions in accordance with the Heritage Act. Should anyhistorical relics be unexpectedly discovered, then all excavation or disturbance to the areais to stop immediately and the Heritage Council of NSW should be informed in accordancewith Section 146 of the Heritage Act, 1977.”

cont’d



Report:

Following the advice received from the various Government departments and authorities thefollowing conclusions can be drawn:

• There is support from all bodies to retain the northern portion of the land for conservationpurposes.

• A more restrictive conservation zoning is suggested and required by planningNSW, CoastalCouncil and Department of Land and Water Conservation. A zoning such as 7C (withoutthe acquisition clause) has been suggested – allowing no development on the land thatwould jeopardise the significant conservation values of the site.

• The southern section of the land – proposed to be 2C – is supported in principle by mostauthorities, but may need to be altered/amended to:

- reflect the existing vegetation on the land, along the eastern strip in particular - theNational Parks and Wildlife Service require this, as do the Marine Parks Authority (forreducing runoff into the waterways and Marine Park).

- introduce height limits for residential development on the 2C land, particularly on thehigher land in this section – at the base of the hill.

- prevent development on the northern part of the 2C land. This will reduce potentialdrainage and erosion problems and runoff into the Marine Park. It would also limitvisual intrusion into the area that would affect the outlook from the Regional Park andthe marine park, and protect the visual qualities and significant vegetation of the land.

- require a buffer and a road along the eastern side of the 2C land, beside the existingvegetation on the site – to provide for access to the Regional Park for visitors and theRural Fire Service and to provide for a buffer to the Regional Park from domestic usesand animals.

• The southern 2C zone is not supported by:

- National Parks and Wildlife Service – due to its effects on the Regional Park

- Marine Parks Authority – concerns relating to increasing drainage pressure from the yetundeveloped 2C land to the west of the Surplus Road Corridor – wanting a buffer fromthat land.

Both these authorities would like to see the land retained for conservation purposes andbecome a part of the Regional Park.

An amended zoning map is attached – reflecting a summary of the views of the authoritiesinvolved.

cont’d



Summary:

In conclusion, it is recommended by the State Government authorities that the northern section bezoned 7C (Environmental Protection – Coastal Acquisition Zone) to prevent any developmentoccurring on the land that would detract from the significance of the headland and the adjacentRegional Park.

The aim of the 7C (Coastal Acquisition) zone is “to protect the sensitive coastal environment”, andrequires the Coastal Council to acquire the land. However, no indication has been given that theCoastal Council wishes to acquire the land. This requirement could be removed from an amended7C zone.

The southern portion of the land is recommended to be divided into three sections:

1. the northern section that is affected by slope, vegetation and water courses,2. the eastern vegetated strip adjacent to the Regional Park,3. the remaining section on the south westfor the purposes of reflecting the recommended zonings.

The authorities recommend rezoning the land north of the southern watercourse (which is heavilyvegetated and shown on the attached plan/aerial photograph) to 7C. This would extend the 7Czone, down the hill, to the flatter land and would provide the buffer required to screen developmentfrom the Regional Park. It would negate any potential concerns with regard to drainage and soilerosion, and protect the vegetation and the visual amenity of the area.

The eastern strip of coastal vegetation (approximately 20 metres wide) is suggested to beprotected by a 7C (Environmental Protection) zoning, in lieu of the 2C (Residential) zoning.

The Coastal Protection zoning would give respect to the Regional Park and acknowledge thetopography and existing vegetation of the environmentally sensitive headland.

As part of the requirement for development of the 2C land within the surplus road corridor, aperimeter road is suggested to be incorporated into the design, alongside the buffer to thevegetation to the east.

With regard to the retention of the existing vegetation to the west of the road corridor (currentlyzoned 2C), investigation could be carried out with regard to a Tree Preservation Order, ornegotiation with the land owners with regard to incorporating this vegetation into a developmentproposal.

Recommendation:

1. That Council note the comments and recommendations made by the State Governmentauthorities in relation to the proposed zonings of the surplus road corridor.

2. That a stakeholder workshop be held to work through the issues with a desire to providea zoning recommendation acceptable to the majority of the parties involved.

3. That the State Government authorities who made comment be advised of the proposedworkshop for the surplus road corridor and be invited to attend.

- 31 -

Attachments:


PED3 COFFS HARBOUR DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2000 (AMENDMENT NO.14)

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s adoption of Coffs Harbour City Local EnvironmentalPlan (LEP) 2000 (Amendment No. 14) being land adjacent to Lot 4, DP255791, Pacific Highway,Coffs Harbour.

Background:

On 14 February 2001 the owners of Lot 4, DP255791 lodged a road closure application withCouncil, with the resulting closure and land acquisition enabling the owners to replace a retainingwall which is constructed on the southern boundary of the allotment. The proposal was supportedby Council and the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA). At its meeting of 13 September 2001,Council resolved to prepare a Draft Amendment to Coffs Harbour City LEP 2000, to rezone theland from 5A Classified Road to 2A Residential Low Density.

The Draft Plan was prepared and placed on exhibition between 17 October 2001 and14 November 2001. A copy of the final Plan is attached to this report.

Consultation:

Council requested that planningNSW waive the requirement for a Local Environmental Study, andthis was granted on 5 October 2001. The RTA was also consulted. The RTA support the DraftPlan subject to general design and construction conditions pertaining to the retaining wall. Theland is not affected by the provisions of the NSW Coastal Policy 1997. No other submissions tothe Draft LEP were received.

Recommendation:

1. That Council adopt Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan 2000 (AmendmentNo. 14) attached to this report, being for land adjacent to Lot 4, DP255791.

2. That Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan 2000 (Amendment No. 14) bereferred to planningNSW for gazettal.

3. That persons directly affected by Council’s decision be notified.

- 33 -

Attachments:

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979

COFFS HARBOUR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2000(AMENDMENT No. 14)

I, the Minister for Planning, in pursuance of section 70 of the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act 1979, make the local environmental plan set out hereunder. (………………).

Minister for Planning.

Sydney, 2002

___________________________

1. Name of Plan

This plan is Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan 2000 (Amendment No. 14).

2. Aims of plan

This plan aims to rezone the land to which this plan applies for residential purposes.

3. Land to which plan applies

This plan applies to part of the Pacific Highway, Coffs Harbour (being land adjacent to Lot 4,DP255791), as shown edged heavy black and stippled on the map marked “Coffs Harbour CityLocal Environmental Plan 2000 (Amendment No. 14)” deposited in the office of Coffs Harbour CityCouncil.

4. Amendment of Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2000

Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan 2000 is amended by inserting in appropriateorder in the definition of the map in the Dictionary the following words:

Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan 2000 (Amendment No. 14)

__________________________________________

- 34 -


PED4 DRAFT AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL'S NOTIFICATION DEVELOPMENT CONTROLPLAN

Purpose:

This report reviews Council’s present Notification Development Control Plan (DCP); itrecommends that Council remove the requirement for advertising minor applications in businesszones.

A copy of the Notification DCP, including the recommended amendments, has been providedseparately to Councillors.

Background:

On 12 October 2000, Council amended its Notification DCP to require that all developmentapplications in Industrial and Business zones be advertised.

Report:

The present policy does not distinguish between major applications and minor ones. With respectto minor applications in Business zones:

1. the cost of advertising (currently $200.00 per application); and

2. increases in the processing time by adding a minimum of 14 days to the determinationprocess,

have been found to be unduly onerous.

This draft amendment allows for the requirement to advertise proposals in Business zones to bewaived if, in the opinion of Council, the proposal will not significantly affect the public interest.

Examples of proposals which may be regarded as being of insignificant interest to the community,as listed in the Draft Notification DCP, are:

• internal alterations,

• shop fit-outs,

• shopfront alterations,

• subdivision,• minor additions/alterations to existing uses.

Conclusion:

This draft amendment to the Notification DCP provides the means to reduce turnaround times fordevelopment applications when advertisement is not required. The draft amendment will simplifythe determination process for relevant development applications.

cont’d


PED4 Draft Amendment to Council’s Notification Development Control Plan (cont’d)

Recommendation:

That Council exhibit a draft amendment to its Notification Development Control Planspecifying that advertisement of development applications in Business zones is notrequired where Council considers that the application will not have a significant affect onthe public interest.

K R PowerDirector of Planning, Environment & Development


ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ENTERPRISES DEPARTMENT REPORTS

E1 TOURISM DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Purpose:

To request that Council adopt the final draft of the Coffs Coast Tourism Development Plan (CoffsHarbour, Bellingen and Nambucca).


The Coffs Coast Tourism Development Plan is the strategic plan of action to further the economicand employment well being for the community via the tourism industry.

The Plan recognises the need for and recommends a ‘whole of region’ Co-operative approachbetween Coffs Harbour City Council, Bellingen and Nambucca Shires, State Government agenciesand the tourism sector.

The Coffs Coast Tourism Development Plan outlines key issues crucial to ongoing thedevelopment of the industry and recommends a number of integrated strategies to achieve statedvision and objectives.

Consultation:

In developing the Plan, a Reference Group was formed which included representatives from thethree councils, key State Government agencies and the three local tourism associations.

The planning process included several workshops with the Reference Group. Workshops werealso conducted on two occasions each in Coffs Harbour, Woolgoolga, Bellingen, Dorrigo,Nambucca Heads, Bowraville and Macksville to obtain industry and community input.

The Draft Plan was made available in August inviting comment and feedback before production ofthe final draft. A number of comments and suggestions were received and where consideredappropriate included in the final Plan.

Council briefings were undertaken at Bellingen 11 December 2001, Coffs Harbour 12 December2001 and Nambucca 19 December 2001.

Issues:

Coffs Harbour, Bellingen and Nambucca all have high levels of unemployment almost twice thenational and State averages.

With the decline of jobs in traditional industries it is crucial to maximise employment opportunitiesin the growing service industries including tourism. Now a major contributor to economic andemployment generation in regional and rural Australia, tourism has the potential to deliveradditional economic, social and environmental benefits to our community.

cont’d


E1 Tourism Development Plan (cont’d)

Across the nation the opportunities offered by tourism have been recognised by many regions andlocal governments. Marketing of States, regions and local areas has now reached a highlysophisticated and professional level in many parts of the country. If we are to protect and grow theeconomy and jobs, strategic, long-term planning for the tourism industry must be implementednow.

With increasing demand on finite resources, it is also imperative that a more Co-operative,collaborative and cost effective approach be taken to the development and marketing of the region.

The Coffs Coast Tourism Development Plan has been prepared based on this scenario.


It is estimated that direct tourism expenditure generates for Coffs Harbour, Bellingen andNambucca $300 million per annum.

According to the NSW Department of State & Regional Development, 14.3 % of the Coffs Harbour,Bellingen and Nambucca workforces is employed in the ‘Tourism, recreation and cultural industriesand services’ sector.

The economic and employment implications from an increase (or decrease) of current visitationlevels is therefore most significant.

The aim of the Coffs Coast Tourism Development Plan is to grow long-term economic andemployment benefits.


Upon Council’s approval of the Plan contact will be made with Bellingen and Nambucca Councilsto advise accordingly.

Nambucca Council adopted the Plan 19 December 2001 and Bellingen Council will consider thePlan for adoption 22 January 2001.

Once all three Councils adopt the Plan, an initial project team made up of one representative eachfrom Coffs Harbour, Bellingen and Nambucca Councils will be formed to commenceimplementation of the Plan.

Recommendation:

That Council adopts the final draft of the Coffs Coast Tourism Development Plan.


E2 SALE OF COUNCIL LAND - CHRISTMAS BELLS ROAD, COFFS HARBOUR - PART LOT2 DP 840296

Purpose:

Report on the development and sale of part Lot 2 DP 840296 Christmas Bells Road, CoffsHarbour.


Council has recently been approached by the owners of a company called “Coffs CoastGreasetrap and Septic Service” who wish to purchase a section of Council land at Christmas BellsRoad, Coffs Harbour.

This company wishes to construct a waste treatment plant within Coffs Harbour to facilitate thetreatment of waste pumped from grease traps. The company currently transports waste to theCoffs Harbour Waste Disposal facility at Englands Road, however grease trap disposal at this sitewill ultimately cease due to Environmental Protection Authority requirements.

The company has investigated a number of sites in the locality and has attended Council’sTechnical Liaison Committee in this regard. However, none of their potential properties have beensuitable.

The company was introduced to Council’s land at Christmas Bells Road, which is zoned Industrialand is considered suitable, subject to formal approval, for the type of use proposed.

•• During a period of negotiation, the company has indicated they wish to proceed with the purchaseof approximately 2,500 square metres of Council’s land as shown on the attached plan. To createthe appropriate allotment a subdivision of the existing site will be required and the land serviced.The price agreed is $75,000 and is subject to the following terms:

1. Formal Council approval to the sale being obtained.

2. The sale being subject to Development Approval for the construction of the waste disposalplant and the subdivision required to create the lot.

3. All costs associated with the preparation, lodgement and processing of the DevelopmentApplication to be at the expense of Coffs Coast Greasetrap and Septic Service.

4. The cost of complying with any conditions resulting from a Development Consent over theland to be Coffs Coast Greasetrap and Septic Services responsibility.

5. The cost of survey for subdivision and plan registration being the responsibility of Council.

6. Each party paying their own legal costs.

7. The costs associated with the extension of sewer, water and power being the responsibilityof Council.

cont’d


E2 Sale of Council Land – Christmas Bells Road, Coffs Harbour – Part Lot 2 DP 840296(cont’d)

8. The land having access via a 6 metre wide right of way easement from Christmas BellsRoad.

9. A parcel of 2,500 square metres being made available as shown approximately on theattached plan. The area of 2,500 square metres will be exclusive of the 1 metre handle toChristmas Bells Road.

The cost for Council to proceed with the subdivision will involve minor servicing works andsubdivision fees which may cost in the vicinity of $35,000. The expenditure will also benefitCouncil’s adjoining industrial land.

Issues:

The company operates within the local economy and it would be advantageous if this enterprisecan be retained in the Coffs Harbour area, rather than relocate to another locality.

The land to be sold adjoins the Sewer Treatment Works and is considered suitable for the useproposed. It is noted that Council has previously resolved on two occasions to sell part of Lot 2,however neither of these deals have proceeded.

Council has always viewed the land on Christmas Bells Road as land that should be used for theestablishment or relocation of businesses to the Coffs Harbour area which will promoteemployment and economic growth in the City.

As the sale will be conditional upon development approval, the application would most likely beassessed by an independent consultant.

Other Departments’ Comments:

Engineering Department

1. Wastewater Branch utilises the proposed Right of Way as access to the rear of the CoffsHarbour Treatment Plant. We wish to retain this rear access and provision should be madeto do so.

2. An existing Rising Main runs along the proposed Right of Way and an easement will berequired through the proposed lot.

3. We have concerns that should owners fail to control odours on the site, Council’s treatmentplant will become implicated because of the proximity.

4. A drainage channel along the northern boundary of the site will be required to drain the landto the north and east of the site.

5. Developer contributions will be required for water and wastewater.

6. A conduit will be required under Christmas Bells Road for the water service. When the waterservice is installed the appropriate back flow prevention device will be required (RP2).

7. A fire service will be required for the site therefore a 100mm diameter main with detectorcheck valve will be required.

cont’d


E2 Sale of Council Land – Christmas Bells Road, Coffs Harbour – Part Lot 2 DP 840296(cont’d)

Planning Environment and Development Department

The site has not been inspected, however the site is zoned industrial and the proposed use ispermissible with consent. Any proposed development will be subject to a formal developmentapplication which will be assessed under the provisions of the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act. There is not enough information at this stage to determine whether an EIS isrequired. If not, any applications should have a comprehensive statement of environmental effectswith particular regard to odour, noise and waste disposal.

Council resolved on 14 June 2001 to cease operating the grease trap and oily waste disposalponds at the Englands Road Waste Management Facility. This took effect from late August 2001.As a transitionary measure, until contractors made their own arrangements, fully enclosed andbunded storage tanks were installed at the Englands Road Facility and grease trap and oily wasteshave been transferred to a processing facility outside the City.

It is intended that receipt of grease trap and oily wastes at the Englands Road Transfer Facilitycease shortly when contractors have made alternative arrangements such as that proposed byCoffs Coast Greasetrap Service.


The sale price for the land has been negotiated at $30 per square metre by Council’s Valuer andthis is considered fair and reasonable to both parties, having regard to the quality of the land.

Proceeds from the sale will be allocated in accordance with Council’s current policy with 20% goingto Revenue and 80% going to the Development Reserve for future investment and developmentpurposes.


Coffs Coast Greasetrap and Septic Service would be advised immediately following Council’sresolution.

Recommendation:

1. That the section of Lot 2 DP 840296 shown on the plan attached to this report be soldto Coffs Coast Greasetrap and Septic Service or nominee on the terms andconditions contained within the body of this report.

2. That any necessary documents be executed under the Common Seal of Council.

P C LittlerDirector of Economic & Community Enterprises

- 42 -

Attachments:


FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORTS

F1 OUTSTANDING REPORTS AND RESOLUTIONS AWAITING IMPLEMENTATION

Purpose:

To provide Council with an update of requests for reports and previous resolutions of Councilawaiting implementation.


Attached is a list of outstanding reports awaiting action and resolutions that are in the process ofimplementation.

Recommendation:

That the report be noted.

- 44 -

Attachments:

OUTSTANDING REPORTS

MeetingDate Report required on: Current Position

Planning Environment and Development

27/1/00 19 - PED.1 - DA NO. 247/95, Expansion of WasteManagement Facility, Englands Road. Further reporton the possibility of a quarry on the waste disposalfacility site be brought back to Council.

Pending resolution ofSouth Coffs LEP

12/4/01 87 – Development – Coffs Harbour Area. A report bebrought back on a comprehensive master plan fordevelopment of the entire harbour area which willpreclude one off approvals of development withoutreference to the amenity of the entire area.

Report pending

14/6/01 T45 – State Environment Planning Policy No. 64 –Advertising and Signage. Report back whenDepartment of Urban Affairs and Planning hasadvised of outcome of Council’s application forexemption.

Engineering Committee

14/6/01 EN49 - Tender – Reconstruction of Rail Bridge,Lower Bobo Road, Ulong. Council negotiation furtherwith SRA to determine satisfactory outcome andreport back to Council.

10/8/00 EN75 Trade Waste Policy. A report be presented ona review of Category 3 discharge management andfees for industries within the city connected to thesewerage system.

Report pending

- 45 -

RESOLUTIONS OF COUNCIL AWAITING IMPLEMENTATION

ORDINARY MEETING – 25 JANUARY 2001

• 16 - Purchase of Plant and Equipment

That the Finance and Administration Committee be asked to seek, from an externalprofessional source, a review of hire, purchase and lease of plant and equipment for Council inline with the new taxation requirements.

SPECIAL MEETING – 3 MAY 2001

• 108 – 9 - 2001/2002 Draft Management Plan

6. That the General Manager report back to Council with respect to Coffs Harbour FutureDevelopment Corporation and Streets Ahead Inc with regard to the current structure andformat of those organisations.

PLANNING ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE13 SEPTEMBER 2001

• T96 - F60 - National Summit - Value your Volunteers or Lose Them (EMA)

3. Council approach Commissioner Koperberg as to the feasibility of a combined regionalemergency training facility and headquarters for our rural fire service and state emergencyservice to be established in Coffs Harbour at the Coffs Harbour Airport.

ENGINEERING COMMITTEE – 13 SEPTEMBER 2001

• EN82 – 76 - Revisions to Floodplain Management Manual

That the report on the changes to the NSW Government Floodplain Management Manual benoted and a Workshop for Councillors be held on the issues.

• EN85 – 79 - Sewer Rehabilitation Strategy

1. That Council adopt the “Sewer Rehabilitation Strategy” as attached.2. That the Strategy be placed on public exhibition.3. That a Workshop be conducted for property conveyancers and Real Estate Agents to

explain “PipeChecks” and its proposed implementation.4. A quarterly report regarding the implementation of the sewer rehabilitation strategy and its

impacts on stormwater management be reported to Council.

- 46 -

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE – 27 SEPTEMBER 2001

• F84 - F67 - Section 377 Committees - Situation Report

1. That Council, as part of the Management Plan procedures, hold a special consultationmeeting with representatives of all Committees that have a role in development, controland management of Council’s facilities.

2. That the model used by the Community Service Section for obtaining S377 CommitteeReports be adopted for all other committees.

ENGINEERING COMMITTEE – 8 NOVEMBER 2001

• EN102 – 90 - Traffic Committee Meeting - 10/2001

T.82 – Azalea Avenue, Coffs Harbour – Pedestrian Crossing (1772 / 503800 [357469])

that traffic pedestrian counts be undertaken in Azalea Avenue, Coffs Harbour, over anextended period in the vicinity of St Joseph’s Hostel to determine whether warrants are met forthis location.


F2 GRANT APPLICATIONS AND APPROVALS FOR THE PERIOD 1 JULY 2001 TO 31DECEMBER 2001

Purpose:

To provide Council with the current status of grant applications and approvals.


A summary of information collated for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2001 is attached tothis report.

This information represents the application and approval process, the actual receipt of the moneyis not included in this exercise as it could span several years.

The information is presented in the same format as Council’s Management Plan, ie in Programcategories.

This information relates to the General Account only, Water & Sewerage have not been included.

In addition to the information contained in the attachment to this report further consideration isgiven to submitting grant applications as follows;

a) offers of grants which are not worthy of a formal application due to many reasons such as- inability to comply with assessment criteria- minimal likelihood of successful application- matching funding from Council not available- some offers are not consistent with Council activities or priorities- Council specifically determines not to proceed with a grant application.

b) assistance is provided to the various organisations within the community where grants maybe available to suit their needs, and in some cases, assistance is provided with lodging theapplication.

A brief description of the contents of this information is as follows;

Outstanding from Previous YearThis column represents grant applications lodged in the previous financial year where advice hadnot been received of approval or rejection. This column is required for balancing purposes.

LodgedThis column indicates the number and value of applications lodged for the period of the report.

ApprovedThis column indicates the number and value of applications approved for the period of the report.Where an application is approved for a lesser amount than applied for, the balancing figure willappear in the rejected column.

cont’d


F2 Grant Applications and Approvals for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2001(cont’d)

RejectedThis column represents the number and value of applications not approved, and as stated above,the value of partially not approved applications.

To be DeterminedThis column represents the number and value of applications where formal approval or rejection isyet to be advised.

Recommendation:

That the report on the status of grant applications be received and noted.

- 49 -

Attachments:

- 50 -

- 51 -

- 52 -

- 53 -


F3 BANK BALANCES AND INVESTMENTS

Purpose:

To list Council’s Bank Balances and Investments.


A copy of the state of Bank Balances and Investments as at 30 November 2001 is attached.

Recommendation:

That the Bank Balances and Investments totalling $133,882,410 as at 30 November 2001 benoted.

- 55 -

Attachments:

WARRANT NO 05/2002 - COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL

STATEMENT OF BANK BALANCES AS AT 30/11/01

Fund/Account G/L Folio Balance At1/11/01

Receipts To30/11/01

Payments To30/11/01

Balance At30/11/01

GENERAL FUND 1-00001-000-0000 616,630.55 12,955,717.20 8,080,097.96 5,492,249.79

TRUST FUND T-19001-000-0000 -5.18 0.00 0.00 -5.18

TOTAL OF ALL BANK ACCOUNTS 616,625.37 12,955,717.20 8,080,097.96 5,492,244.61

INVESTMENTS REPORT – 30/11/01

1.PRINCIPAL BALANCES/INTEREST EARNED

Princ/IntBalance01/11/01

TransfersTo/From

InterestAdded to

Princ/IntBalance30/11/01

InterestEarned– Nov

InterestEarned

Yr to date$ $ $ $ $ $

a Cash Plus Funds

National Mutual 18,913,126 (2,000,000) 55,199 16,968,325 55,199 339,632ANZ Cash Plus 18,744,330 (2,000,000) 61,167 16,805,497 61,167 360,235AMP 16,245,389 48,206 16,293,595 48,206 309,826UBS Credit Enhan. 14,663,551 59,040 14,722,591 59,040 289,941Macquarie 13,738,754 61,496 13,800,250 61,496 283,870Deutsche 13,738,458 49,937 13,788,395 49,937 267,939Commonwealth 14,953,257 53,419 15,006,676 53,419 302,523

110,996,865 388,464 107,385,329 388,464 2,153,966b Credit Unions

BCCU 2,000,000 8,509 2,000,000 8,509 45,161CPS Credit Union 2,000,000 8,548 2,000,000 8,548 24,219BCCU 6,000,000 24,904 6,000,000 24,904 131,088Big River 0 0 21,424

10,000,000 41,961 10,000,000 41,961 221,892c Capital Stable

FundsUBS Defensive 1,541,042 15,774 1,556,816 15,774 49,407Colonial Wholesale 1,531,116 8,997 1,540,113 8,997 27,334

3,072,158 24,771 3,096,929 24,771 76,741d Term Deposits

Commonwealth 6,155,813 35,012 6,155,813 35,012 178,5616,155,813 35,012 6,155,813 35,012 178,561

e CashWestpac-O’night 616,625 5,492,244 4,344 50,917Westpac-Cash Fnd 749,475 752,095 2,620 14,237

1,366,100 6,244,339 6,964 65,154TOTALS 131,590,936

Working Funds

Balances canVary daily

133,882,410 497,172 2,696,314

- 56 -

2 PERFORMANCE REVIEW TO November 2001

R E T U R N - A N N U A L I S E D %Cash Plus Funds Cap Stable Credit Unions

Per

iod

En

din

g

UB

SW

A

BA

NK

BIL

L IN

DE

X

WP

AC

C

AS

HFU

ND

DE

UT MA

CQ

AX

A

AN

Z

AM

P

UB

S

CB

A

UB

S

CO

LON

IAL BCCU

$2m $6m

BigR &CPS

$2m Wpc

O’N

ite

1 mths 4.47 4.60 4.98 5.36 3.84 4.34 3.96 5.23 4.72 12.96 7.68 5.35 5.05 5.20 4.123 mths 4.78 4.86 4.82 5.03 4.65 4.69 4.65 4.32 4.98 10.04 7.60 5.35 5.05 5.20 4.286 mths 4.97 5.01 5.15 5.44 4.80 4.95 4.97 5.25 5.31 8.68 7.92 5.49 5.25 5.47 4.5712 mth 5.42 5.47 - - 5.64 5.62 5.45 5.79 5.99 - - 5.76 5.90 5.81 5.07

N.B. Performance of Capital Stable funds should not be compared with cash over the short termgiven the long term nature of a significant portion of the underlying securities.

I hereby certify that Council’s investments have been made in accordance with the LocalGovernment Act, 1993, Regulation and Council’s Investment Policy.

……………………………………………Responsible Accounting Officer


F4 MONTHLY BUDGET REVIEW AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2001

Purpose:

To report on the estimated budget position as at 31 December 2001.


Estimated Budget Position as at 31 December 2001:

General Water Sewer Account Account Account

$ $ $

Original Budget 545,004 (D) 339,407 (D) 87,260 (D)

Approved Variations to 30 November 2001 Nil 130,000 (S)People mover for Botanic Gardens 9,000 (D) Sails installation 26,000 (D)Fire Safety Review 30,000 (D)Bunker Cartoon Gallery 5,500 (D)Increase NSW Fire Brigades contribution 1,700 (D)Adjust Financial Assistance Grant 6,888 (D)Adjust Englands Park tennis Club loan 13,551 (S)

65,537 (D)

Recommended variationsfor December 2001 37,272 (S) Nil 559,500 (D)

Estimated result 2001/02 as atDecember 2001 573,269 (D) 339,407 (D) 516,760 (D)

General Account Surplus Deficit $ $

Advances & Repayments to new Long 37,272 (S)Term Debtors including CHDCA, BridgeClub & Volunteer Coastal Patrol

Water Account

Nil Variations

Sewer Account

Acquisition of 36 & 38 Gordon St Properties(Economic & Community Enterprises 22/11/01) 559,500 (D)

cont’d


F4 Monthly Budget Review as at 31 December 2001 (cont’d)

Consultation:

Managers have been provided with budget analysis reports for each program. Requested variationsand variations adopted by Council have been included in the report.

Recommendation:

1. That the budget variations of $37,272 Surplus in the General Account be adopted.

2. That the budget variations of $559,500 Deficit in the Sewer Account be adopted.

3. That the estimated budget position as at 31 December 2001 as follows, be noted:

General Water Sewer Account Account Account $ $ $

Original Budget 545,004 (D) 339,407 (D) 87,260 (D)

Approved Variations to 30 November 2001 Nil 130,000 (S)People mover for Botanic Gardens 9,000 (D) Sails installation 26,000 (D)Fire Safety Review 30,000 (D)Bunker Cartoon Gallery 5,500 (D)Increase NSW Fire Brigades contribution 1,700 (D)Adjust Financial Assistance Grant 6,888 (D)Adjust Englands Park Tennis Club loan 13,551 (S)

65,537 (D)

Recommended variationsfor December 2001 37,272 (S) Nil 559,500 (D)

Estimated result 2001/02 as atDecember 2001 573,269 (D) 339,407 (D) 516,760 (D)

C E GreggA/Director of Finance & Administration

- 59 -

Attachments:

- 60 -

- 61 -


ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REPORTS

1 TENDERS - COMMUNITY CONSULTATION - STAGE 1 SEWERAGE STRATEGY

Purpose:

To report on tenders received for the Community Consultation – Stage 1 of the Sewerage Strategy.


Public tenders were called in local and national newspapers and the AWA weekly tendersnewsletter closing at 3.30pm on 14 November, 2001.

Five tenders were received as follows:

1. Twyford Consulting

2. Sinclair, Knight, Merz

3. Green Logic Consulting

4. Michael Wiles Planning Consultancy & Debra Colson Choosing Life

5. Pramax

Related Policy and / or Precedents:

Tendering procedures were carried out in accordance with the Local Government tenderingregulations.

Council’s tender value selection system was applied during the tender review process and itspolicy that the highest weighted score becomes the recommended tender was used to select therecommended tenders.


The calling, receiving and reviewing of tenders was carried out in accordance with localgovernment tendering regulations.

Discussion:

After reviewing all tenders the selection panel felt there would be a good deal of value added to theconsultation process if peer reviews were undertaken on an annual basis or at such time theProject Team or Steering Committee deems as being beneficial to the project. This peer reviewshould be undertaken by experienced external consultants able to critically review the consultationprocesses in place and its effectiveness and then provide suggested changes to the consultationprocess to improve the outcomes.

The selection panel recommends the use of Twyford Consulting to carry out these reviews.Twyfords have extensive experience in community consultation for wastewater projects and wereinvolved in the consultation during the development of the Sewer Strategy.

cont’d


1 Tenders - Community Consultation - Stage 1 Sewerage Strategy (cont’d)

DLWC Concurrence

DLWC were represented on the selection panel by Mr G Marshall.

DLWC have concurred with the recommended community consultant but has asked that Councilacceptance of the recommended tenderer be subject to Ministerial approval of funding for Stage 1works.

Recommendation:

1. That Council accept the upper limit fee of $109,301.50 inclusive of GST from PramaxCommunication for community consultation for Stage 1 – Coffs Harbour SewerageStrategy, subject to Ministerial approval of funding for Stage 1 works for the CoffsHarbour Sewerage Strategy.

2. That Council engage Twyford Consulting to conduct peer reviews of the communityconsultation process as deemed necessary by the Project Team or SteeringCommittee.

L T FordA/Director of Engineering

coffs harbour city council ordinary meeting council … · 2017-09-08 · ordinary committee 24...

Documents