kempsey shire council · kempsey shire council ... day for aboriginal centre – kempsey high...

Kempsey Shire Council – Ordinary Meeting 18 June 2013

KEMPSEY

SHIRE COUNCIL

AGENDA

ORDINARY COUNCIL

MEETING

to be held

9.00 AM 18 June 2013

at

COUNCIL CHAMBERS CIVIC CENTRE

CORNER TOZER AND ELBOW STREETS

WEST KEMPSEY NSW 2440


ORDER OF BUSINESS

1 OPENING PRAYER

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TRADITIONAL ABORIGINAL LAND OWNERS

2 APOLOGIES

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4 ASSESSMENT OF ITEMS LISTED FOR CONFIDENTIAL CONSIDERATION

5 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

6 PUBLIC FORUM / PRESENTATIONS

7 CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF

BUSINESS AND CONSIDERATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY OR LATE

REPORTS

8 CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS RELATING TO PUBLIC FORUM MATTERS

9 MAYORAL MINUTES

10 NOTICES OF MOTION

11 RESCISSION MOTIONS

12 DELEGATES REPORTS

13 COMMITTEE REPORTS

14 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

15 COMMUNITY STRATEGIC AND MANAGEMENT PLAN REPORTS

16 QUESTIONS FOR NEXT MEETING

17 CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

18 CONCLUSION


BUSINESS PAPER INDEX

1 OPENING PRAYER ............................................................................................................... 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL ABORIGINAL LAND OWNERS......................... 5

2 APOLOGIES ......................................................................................................................... 5

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. 5

4 ASSESSMENT OF ITEMS LISTED FOR CONFIDENTIAL CONSIDERATION ................................ 5

5 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ............................................................................................. 5

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF KEMPSEY SHIRE COUNCIL DATED 21 MAY 2013 ............................................. 5

6 PUBLIC FORUM / PRESENTATIONS ..................................................................................... 5

PUBLIC FORUM ................................................................................................................................................ 5 PRESENTATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 5

7 CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AND CONSIDERATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY OR LATE REPORTS .................................................. 5

8 CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS RELATING TO PUBLIC FORUM ............................................. 5

9 MAYORAL MINUTES ........................................................................................................... 6

MM1 MAYOR AND COUNCILLOR ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 6

10 NOTICES OF MOTION .......................................................................................................... 8

11 RESCISSION MOTIONS ........................................................................................................ 9

12 DELEGATES REPORTS ........................................................................................................ 10

13 COMMITTEE REPORTS ...................................................................................................... 12

14 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE .................................................................................................... 13

15 COMMUNITY STRATEGIC AND MANAGEMENT PLAN REPORT .......................................... 14

GOAL 1: TO FACILITATE ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMICAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE SHIRE ................................................................................................................................ 14

1.1 PROPOSED TOURIST FACILITY ................................................................................................................. 14 1.2 PROPOSED MODIFIED CONSENT - DRAG RACING AT KEMPSEY AIRPORT ......................................................... 37 1.3 PROPOSED DWELLING AND BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT ................................................................................. 47 1.4 PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER DONDINGALONG ........................................................................ 90 1.5 PLANNING SYSTEM REVIEW – WHITE PAPER ........................................................................................... 101 1.6 DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE KEMPSEY STANDARD LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN (DRAFT K LEP 2012) ................. 129 1.7 DRAFT LOCAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY RURAL RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT .................................... 161

GOAL 2: TO FOSTER AND ENHANCE EFFECTIVE SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS BUILDING RESPECT AND CIVIC PRIDE .............................................................................. 170

2.1 KALATEENEE RECREATIONAL RESERVE .................................................................................................... 170 2.2 AMENDMENT TO FEES AND CHARGES FOR MACLEAY VALLEY COMMUNITY ART GALLERY ................................ 171

GOAL 3: TO PLAN AND FUND THE SHIRE’S INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICE NEEDS...................... 173

3.1 EXPANSION OF THE CRESCENT RURAL FIRE SERVICE .................................................................................. 173

GOAL 4: TO PURSUE BENEFICIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH REGIONAL NEIGHBOURS AND OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT ............................................................................................... 175

4.1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT REVIEW TASKFORCE ....................................................................................... 175 4.2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL ................................................................................ 178 4.3 MIDROC STRATEGIC PLAN ................................................................................................................. 194 4.4 ESTABLISHMENT OF INCORPORATED ENTITY - MIDROC............................................................................ 195


GOAL 5: TO ENSURE LEADERSHIP AND EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT, ACCOUNTABLE MANAGEMENT .... 198

5.1 STATEMENT OF CASH AND INVESTMENTS ............................................................................................... 198 5.2 APPOINTMENT OF A DELEGATE TO THE MID NORTH COAST REGIONAL ARTS BOARD FILE: F12/612-02 ............ 198 5.3 PANEL SOURCE TENDER FOR SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF HYGIENIC SERVICES .................................................. 199 5.4 TENDER FOR THE PROVISION OF EXTERNAL AUDIT SERVICES ..................................................................... 200

16 QUESTIONS FOR NEXT MEETING ..................................................................................... 203

17 CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS ..................................................................................................... 205

MOTION FOR CONFIDENTIAL SESSION ..................................................................................................... 205

GOAL 1: TO FACILITATE ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMICAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE SHIRE .............................................................................................................................. 206

1.1 PROPOSED TOURIST FACILITY ............................................................................................................... 206 1.2 DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT CONSENT FILE: LA10371 ................................................................................ 206 1.3 DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT CONSENT FILE: LA16574, LA16575, LA16576 & LA8883 ................................ 206 1.4 DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT CONSENT FILE: LA9850 .................................................................................. 206 1.5 POSSIBLE LAND SALE FILE: LA 10371 ................................................................................................... 207

GOAL 5: TO ENSURE LEADERSHIP AND EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT, ACCOUNTABLE MANAGEMENT .... 208

5.1 VARIOUS LEGAL MATTERS ................................................................................................................... 208

18 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 209

MINUTES FROM LAST MEETING ........................................................................................................ 210


1 OPENING PRAYER

"Dear Lord, help us in our deliberations today so that our decisions will be for the

greater good for the whole of Kempsey Shire - Amen".

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL ABORIGINAL LAND OWNERS

“Council acknowledges that this meeting is being held on the traditional lands of the

Dunghutti People”.

2 APOLOGIES

That the apology submitted by Councillors for non-attendance at the meeting be

accepted and leave of absence granted.

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

That Councillors‟ declared interests be noted.

4 ASSESSMENT OF ITEMS LISTED FOR CONFIDENTIAL

CONSIDERATION

That the confidential reports be considered in the confidential section of the

meeting.

5 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Minutes of the ordinary meeting of Kempsey Shire Council dated 21 May

2013

That the minutes of the ordinary meeting of Kempsey Shire Council dated 21 May

2013 be confirmed.

6 PUBLIC FORUM / PRESENTATIONS

Public Forum

Presentations

7 CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF

BUSINESS AND CONSIDERATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY OR LATE

REPORTS

That the Agenda Order of Business be adopted and that late reports be considered

in conjunction with the relevant Director‟s reports.

8 CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS RELATING TO PUBLIC FORUM

MATTERS

That the reports relating to the items dealt with in Public Forum be brought forward

and dealt with immediately.

Mayoral Minute Kempsey Shire Council – Ordinary Meeting 18 June 2013

9 MAYORAL MINUTES

SUMMARY

Reporting on activities for the month of May 2013.

That the information be noted.

RECOMMENDATION IMPLICATIONS

Environmental, Social, Economic (Financial), Policy or Statutory: Nil

REPORT DETAILS

Mayor

Date Event

4 May 2013 Kinchela Boys Home Exhibition – Official Opening at

Dunghutti-Ngaku Aboriginal Art Gallery

7 Councillors‟ Workshop on Community Strategic Plan, Delivery

Program, Operating Plan – Council Chambers

7 Barrunba Ngundakang (Dream about Tomorrow) Opening

Day for Aboriginal Centre – Kempsey High School

8 Meeting with Department Premier and Cabinet, Civic Centre

8 Local Traffic Committee meeting

13 Saltwater/Freshwater Festival meeting

14 Local Government Review Panel Workshop – Port Macquarie

16 MIDROC Executive Meeting - Bellingen

20 Meeting with Director General, Premier & Cabinet - Taree

20 Councillors Question and Answer Session on the

Operating/Delivery Plans – Council Chambers

21 Ordinary Council meeting

21 National Broadband Network (NBN) Briefing for Councillors by

Aurecon

22 Mid North Coast (MNC) Division of Sydney Legacy, Kempsey

and Nambucca Valley Regions - Changeover Luncheon at RSL

Club

22 Continuation of Ordinary Council meeting

23 Meeting with ratepayer

23 Macleay Funerals‟ Groundbreaking Ceremony for

Chain-O-Ponds Memorial Park Crematorium and Ceremony

24 Mid North Coast Regional Organisation of Councils (MIDROC)

meeting - Nambucca

25 Sorry Day Barbecue

25 Hat Head Surf Life Saving Club (SLSC) Presentation Night

28 Creative Communities Briefing Seminar with David Engwicht

28 Meeting with Regional Development Australia (RDA) – Port

Macquarie

30 Local Government Act Taskforce meeting – Port Macquarie

31 Arts Mid North Coast – Port Macquarie

MM1 Mayor and Councillor Activities

RECOMMENDATION

Mayoral Minute Kempsey Shire Council – Ordinary Meeting 18 June 2013

Date Event Councillor

7 Councillors‟ Workshop on Community

Strategic Plan, Delivery Program, Operating

Plan – Council Chambers

All councillors

7 Barrunba Ngundakang (Dream about

Tomorrow) Opening Day for Aboriginal

Centre – Kempsey High School

Williams

8 Bush Fire Management Committee meeting,

Macksville

Morris

14 Local Government Review Panel Workshop

– Port Macquarie

McGinn, Morris

14 Sing out Loud Concert – Kempsey West

Public School

Williams

16 Wigay Park Meeting Green

20 Salvation Army Flag Raising Ceremony Green, Saul

20 Councillors Q & A Session on the

Operating/Delivery Plans – Council

Chambers

All Councillors

21 Ordinary Council meeting All Councillors

21 NBN Briefing for Councillors by Aurecon All Councillors

21 Art Gallery Meeting Green

21 Melville Hall Annual General Meeting Green

22 Continuation of Ordinary Council meeting All councillors

22 MNC Weeds Coordinating Committee

meeting, Port Macquarie

Saul

23 Sod Turning Crematorium Collombatti Green,Saul,Patterson

28 Floodplain Management Authority (FMA)

Conference, Tweed Heads

Green

28 Creative Communities Briefing Seminar

with David Engwicht

Shields

…………………………………

MAYOR – E A CAMPBELL

Notice Of Motion Kempsey Shire Council – Ordinary Meeting 18 June 2013

10 NOTICES OF MOTION

Nil

Rescission Motion Kempsey Shire Council – Ordinary Meeting 18 June 2013

11 RESCISSION MOTIONS

Nil

Delegates Report Kempsey Shire Council – Ordinary Meeting 18 June 2013

12 DELEGATES REPORTS

SUMMARY

Attendance and preliminary report on attendance at the Floodplain Management

Association National Conference held at Tweed Heads 28 to 31 May 2013.

1 That the information be noted.

2 That Councillors and relevant staff take note of the Floodplain video

tabled.

3 That a more detailed report be provided to Council in July 2013.


Environmental: Good environmental outcomes could result from review and

implementation of some of the activities outlined in the papers presented.

Social: Improved outcomes for the community, landholders and business owners

could result from implementation of recommendations from some of the papers.

Economic (Financial): Some costs could be involved. However, this would be

offset by reduction in future recovery costs.

Policy or Statutory: Nil

REPORT DETAILS

This was a very well attended conference with 380 delegates from across Australia

and 6 international attendees. Held at the Twin Towns RSL Club, Tweed Heads (a

good venue), we had good food and plenty of exercise moving from the different

presentation venues.

Themes were:

Land Use Planning

Identifying Flood Risk including insurance issues

National Solutions and Co-ordination

Environment

Climate change and sea level rise

Structural works and technology

Community engagement and communications

DR1 Floodplain Management Association (FMA) – 2013 National Conference File: *

RECOMMENDATION

Delegates Report Kempsey Shire Council – Ordinary Meeting 18 June 2013

Emergency response and flood recovery

Continuing theme throughout was building resilience rather than just

addressing recovery.

It was pleasing to see less of the technical papers and more of the hands-on. This is

what needs to be done, or has been done, papers which have many messages for

all of us.

There were three keynote speakers:

1 Comparison of Insurance and messages to be learnt from the USA

experiences.

2 Activities arising from the Queensland Floods Commission of Enquiry [the

best paper of the conference].

3 Decision Making During Extreme Events.

All papers from the Conference will be posted on the Conference website and also

the FMA‟s website at a later date. I would recommend them to all Councillors and

relevant staff.

It was very hard to pick the sessions to attend as many were relevant to the

Macleay Valley‟s flood issues.

Tabled is a video which I think all Councillors and relevant staff should view. It was

developed by Gosford City Council with a grant from the SES, FMA and Gosford City

Council on the relevance of good floodplain planning. This came out of the 2011

Gosford Floodplain Management Conference.

The FMA‟s AGM included changes to the Constitution including the admission as full

members of other organisations and government bodies not part of a local

government in NSW organisation. This is part of the move for recognition as a

national body necessary to be relevant at Federal Government level.

A more detailed report will be provided when the papers are posted on the web and

I have time to digest all the information received at the conference.

………………………………..

COUNCILLOR E A GREEN

Committee Reports Kempsey Shire Council – Ordinary Meeting 18 June 2013

13 COMMITTEE REPORTS

Nil

Questions On Notice Kempsey Shire Council – Ordinary 18 June 2013

14 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

(Excerpt from code of meeting practice)

2.4 Questions at Council meetings

2.4.1 Questions on Notice

Questions on Notice shall be included in the order of business on the council meeting agenda and shall be provided to the general manager by 9.00am one week prior to the meeting for inclusion in the meeting agenda. (Local)

Nil

Goal 1 Kempsey Shire Council – Ordinary Meeting 18 June 2013

15 COMMUNITY STRATEGIC AND MANAGEMENT PLAN REPORT

This report is to be read in conjunction with Confidential Report No. 1.1

1211 RBP

SUMMARY

Reporting that Council has received a Development Application for a tourist facility

at Crescent Head for which objections have been received.

Applicant: D Dunn and C Shilling

Subject Property: Lot 24 DP1014666, 10 Penn Place, Crescent Head

Zone: 1(c) (Rural (Small Holdings “C” Zone)

A That Development Application T6-12-372 be approved subject to the

following conditions:

PARAMETERS OF THIS CONSENT

1 The development is to be implemented in accordance with the plans

and supporting documents set out in the following table except

where modified by any conditions of this consent.

Plan No./

Supporting

Document

Version Prepared by Dated

Proposed location

site plan

A

Barron & Carroll

Building Design

16.12.12

Proposed eco hut

floor plan

-

Barron & Carroll

Building Design

8.11.12

Proposed eco hut

elevations

-

Barron & Carroll

Building Design

8.11.12

Proposed yoga

room

-

Barron & Carroll

Building Design

8.11.12

Shed plan &

elevations

-

Barron & Carroll

Building Design

8.11.12

In the event of any inconsistency between conditions of this

development consent and the plans/supporting documents referred

to above, the conditions of this development consent prevail.

GOAL 1: To Facilitate Ecological and Economical Sustainable Development in the Shire

1.1 Proposed Tourist Facility File: T6-12-372

RECOMMENDATION DIVISION REQUIRED


The approved plans and supporting documents endorsed with the

Council stamp and authorised signature must be kept on site at all

times while work is being undertaken.

2 All building work must be carried out in accordance with the

requirements of the Building Code of Australia as in force on the

date the application for the relevant construction certificate or

complying development certificate was made.

This condition does not apply:

a) To the extent to which an exemption is in force under clause

187 or 188, subject to the terms of any condition or

requirement referred to in clause 187 (6) or 188 (4), or

b) To the erection of a temporary building.

3 This consent does not permit commencement of any site works.

Works are not to commence until such time as a Construction

Certificate has been obtained and the appointment of a Principal

Certifying Authority.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO

ISSUE OF ANY CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE FOR THE SITE

4 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, engineer‟s details

for all proposed works, including structural, foundation, cut and fill,

retaining walls, driveway and car parking area pavement, etc., shall

be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval. All

engineer‟s details must be prepared by an appropriately qualified,

experienced and practicing Engineer in accordance with Council‟s

Development Control Plan No. 36 and the current Building Code of

Australia. All engineer‟s details shall be approved by the Principal

Certifying Authority as part of any Construction Certificate.

5 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, an approval under

Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 shall be obtained from Council

and provided to the Principal Certifying Authority for all necessary

works within the road reserve. Three (3) copies of engineering

construction plans shall accompany the application for consent for

works within the road reserve. Such plans shall be in accordance

with Council's Adopted Engineering Standard. This approval shall be

approved by the Principal Certifying Authority as part of any

Construction Certificate.


Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 to carry out water

supply work shall be obtained from Council and provided to the

Principal Certifying Authority. In this regard, it will be necessary to

include details of the means proposed to connect to the existing

trickle feed system, including adequate storage. This approval shall

be approved by the Principal Certifying Authority as part of any


7 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, a Sediment and

Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying

Authority for approval. This Sediment and Erosion Control Plan shall

be prepared by an appropriately experienced and qualified


professional, in accordance with the most recent version of the

Landcom publication "Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and

Construction." The Sediment and Erosion Control Plan shall include

measures to manage weeds in and around the construction areas.

This Sediment and Erosion Control Plan shall be approved by the

Principal Certifying Authority as part of any Construction Certificate.


Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 for on-site effluent

disposal shall be obtained from Council and provided to the Principal

Certifying Authority. The application for Section 68 approval shall be

accompanied by an Effluent Disposal Management Plan prepared by

a suitably qualified professional with demonstrated experience in

effluent disposal matters, which addresses the site specific design of

sewage management in accordance with the requirements of the

Local Government Act 1993, the Regulations and relevant guidelines.

9 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, stormwater

drainage engineer‟s details for the provision of a stormwater

drainage system to convey all existing and proposed stormwater

flows through this development shall be submitted to Principal

Certifying Authority for approval. These stormwater drainage

engineer‟s details shall be prepared by an appropriately

experienced, qualified and practicing Civil Engineer in accordance

with Council's Adopted Engineering Standard, the most recent

version of Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987), and AS/NZS

3500.3:2003 - Plumbing and drainage, Part 3: Stormwater drainage.

The stormwater drainage system shall be designed for 1 in 10 year

storm event. All piped drainage lines over adjoining land are to be

located within drainage easements. All such stormwater drainage

engineer‟s details shall be approved by the Principal Certifying

Authority as part of any Construction Certificate.

10 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, a Water Supply

Management Plan shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying

Authority for approval. This Water Supply Management Plan shall be

prepared in accordance with Section 4.1 and Section 10 of the NSW

Health Private Water Supply Guidelines, and demonstrate that the

proposed drinking water supply will comply with the “Australian

Drinking Water Guidelines – 1996”. This Water Supply Management

Plan shall be approved by the Principal Certifying Authority as part

of any Construction Certificate.

11 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, details for the

design and fit-out of all food preparation areas shall be submitted to

the Principal Certifying Authority for approval. These details shall

include a floor plan at a scale of 1:50, and shall demonstrate

compliance with AS 4674-2004: Design, construction and fit-out of

food premises. All such details shall be approved by the Principal


12 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate a schedule of

finishes shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority

demonstrating which details the colour and type of all finished

surfaces for the development. The colours and materials shall be in

accordance with those detailed on the approved plans. The colours

shall match colours found in the surrounding natural and built

environment. The materials and colours of external features of


driveways, walkways or large paved areas shall be in colours that

blend with the surrounding natural earth materials (e.g.: red

browns, darker browns, sandy brown). All finishes shall be non-

reflective. This schedule of finishes shall be approved by the


13 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, details of how the

pond is to be isolated from the development in accordance with the

current Building Code of Australia shall be submitted to the Principal

Certifying Authority for approval. All such details shall be approved

by the Principal Certifying Authority as part of any Construction

Certificate.

14 The particulars of the contributions levied pursuant to Section 94 of

the Act are set out in the following table:

The specific public

amenity or service in

respect of which the

condition is imposed.

The contributions plan

under which the

condition is imposed

Date of

contributions

plan

Local Roads and Traffic

Infrastructure

(Catchment 10)

Local Roads and Traffic

Infrastructure

Developer Contribution

Plan 2009

January 2010

Public Domain

Kempsey Town Centre

Public Domain Section

94 Development

Contribution Plan

August 2010

Outdoor Recreation

Outdoor Recreation

2001

September

2001

Section 94 – Project

Administration

Project Administration

10 August 2007

The above plans may be viewed during office hours at the Council

Customer First Centre located at 22 Tozer Street West Kempsey.

Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate the Principal

Certifying Authority shall ensure that the contributions set out in the

following Schedule have been paid to Council. The following

contributions are current at the date of this consent. The

contributions payable shall be adjusted in accordance with the

relevant plan and the amount payable will be calculated on the basis

of the contribution rates that are applicable at the time of payment.

The contribution rates for specific dates are available from Council

offices during office hours. Payments shall only be accepted by cash

or bank cheque.

Schedule of Contributions pursuant to Section 94 of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

Public amenity or

service Unit type

No. of

Units

Contribution Rate

(Amount per Unit)

Contribution Levied

Date until which Contribution rate

is applicable


Roads and

Traffic

Infrastructure

(Catchment

10)

EP 1.2 $1,415.00 $1,698.00 30 June 2013

Public Domain EP 1.2 $412.00 $494.40 30 June 2013

Open Space ET 0.4 $497.00 $198.80 30 June 2013

Sub total $2,391.20

S94

Administration

6% of total Section

94 charge applicable

$143.45 30 June 2013

TOTAL $2,534.65

15 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate a Certificate of

Compliance pursuant of Section 305 of the Water Management Act

2000 shall be obtained from Council and provided to the Principal

Certifying Authority. This Certificate of Compliance shall be approved


Certificate.

Please refer to the Advice section of consent for additional

information on water supply works and contributions.

16 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate the Principal

Certifying Authority shall ensure that a Long Service Levy has been

paid to the Long Service Payments Corporation. The amount payable

is currently based on 0.35% of the cost of the work. This is a State

Government Levy and is subject to change without notice. The

requirements of the State Government supersede this condition.

This payment may be made at Council‟s Customer Service Centre.

Cheques shall be made payable to Kempsey Shire Council.

17 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate details

demonstrating full compliance with all General Terms of Approval

shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval.

These details shall be approved by the Principal Certifying Authority

as part of any Construction Certificate.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO ANY

WORKS COMMENCING

18 Council shall be notified of the commencement of works not less

than two (2) days prior to any works commencing. The two (2) day

notification to Council shall be in writing and specify the date of

commencement.

19 Prior to any works commencing evidence shall be provided to the

Principal Certifying Authority of public liability insurance cover for a

minimum of $20 million.

20 Prior to the commencement of any works a sign or signs shall be

erected in a prominent position at the frontage to the site:


a) Showing the name, address and telephone number of the

Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) for the work;

b) Showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any

building work and a telephone number on which that person

may be contacted outside working hours; and

c) Stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

The sign/s shall be maintained while the building work, subdivision

work or demolition work is being carried out, and shall be removed

when the work has been completed. No sign is to have an area in

excess of one (1) m2.

21 Prior to the commencement of any works toilet facilities shall be

provided or made available at or in the vicinity of the work site at a

rate of one toilet for every 20 persons (or part of 20 persons)

employed at the site. Each toilet provided shall be a flushing toilet

connected to a Council approved onsite sewage management

system, or to an approved temporary chemical water closet.

22 All controls shall be in place in accordance with the approved

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH DURING ANY

WORKS

23 The public liability insurance cover required by this consent shall be

maintained for the duration of the period of all works and during any

maintenance period.

24 Construction works must not unreasonably interfere with the

amenity of the neighbourhood. In particular construction noise,

when audible on adjoining residential premises, can only occur:

a) Monday to Friday, from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm.

b) Saturday, from 8:00 am to 1:00 pm.

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

25 Construction noise is to be limited as follows:

a) For construction periods of four (4) weeks and under, the L10

noise level measured over a period of not less than fifteen

(15) minutes when the construction site is in operation shall

not exceed the background level by more than 20 dB(A); or

b) For construction periods greater than four (4) weeks and not

exceeding twenty-six (26) weeks, the L10 noise level

measured over a period of not less than fifteen (15) minutes

when the construction site is in operation shall not exceed the

background level by more than 10 dB(A).

26 All erosion and sediment controls shall be maintained at all times in

accordance with the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

until the site has been stabilised by permanent vegetation or hard

surface.


27 All builders rubbish is to be contained on the site in a „Builders

Skips‟ or an enclosure. Building materials are to be delivered directly

onto the property. Footpaths, road reserves and public reserves are

to be maintained clear of rubbish, building materials and all other

items.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO THE

OCCUPATION/USE OF ANY PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT

28 Prior to the occupation/use of any part of the development and/or

the issue of any Occupation Certificate, written evidence from

Council shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority

demonstrating that Council is satisfied that any and all required

works within the road reserve have been completed in full. Council

shall not issue such written evidence until it is satisfied that all

required works have been completed in full in accordance with an

approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and all

accompanying approved plans and details.



Council shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority

demonstrating that Council is satisfied that all required water supply

works have been completed in full. Council shall not issue such

written evidence until it is satisfied that all required water supply

works have been completed in full, in accordance with relevant

approvals under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 and

all accompanying approved plans and details.


the issue of any Occupation Certificate, stormwater shall be

adequately collected and disposed of in a controlled manner in

accordance with the approved stormwater drainage engineer‟s

details.


the issue of any Occupation Certificate, the approved on-site effluent

management systems shall be completed in accordance with

approved plans and current specifications and standards. These

systems shall not be used and/or operated until a Council Officer has

inspected the system and authorised its use.


the issue of any Occupation Certificate, all landscaping shown on the

approved plans shall be completed in full.


the issue of any Occupation Certificate, all fences required by this

consent to protect trees in the vicinity of the works shall be

removed. No fences shall be removed until all works (including any

rectification works) have been completed.


the issue of any Occupation Certificate, evidence shall be provided to

the Principal Certifying Authority demonstrating that all relevant

General Terms of Approval have been completed.





demonstrating that Council is satisfied that all infrastructure is

maintained/repaired to pre-development conditions and that no

further work is to be carried out that may result in damage to

Council‟s roads, footpaths, services, etc. Council shall not issue such

written evidence until such time as evidence has been provided to

Council indicating the pre development condition of the surrounding

public land and infrastructure. Such evidence must include

photographs. The proponent will be held responsible for the repair of

any damage to roads, kerb and gutters, footpaths, driveway

crossovers or other assets caused as a result of construction works

under this consent.


the issue of any Occupation Certificate, all of the works shown on

the plans and granted by this consent, including any other consent

that is necessary for the completion of this development, and any

rectification works to damaged Council land or infrastructure, have

been completed in full and approved by the Principal Certifying

Authority and any other relevant consent authority/s.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH AT ALL TIMES

37 No part of the tourist facility shall be used as a permanent dwelling

at any time at any time. No person shall be permitted to stay onsite

for more than thirty (30) days in any twelve (12) month period,

other than the permanent residents of the existing dwelling.

38 All landscaping as shown on the approved plans shall be maintained

in a neat and tidy manner at all times.

39 All water supply and water supply infrastructure shall be maintained

in accordance with the approved Water Supply Management Plan at

all times.

40 All car parking areas shown on the approved plans shall be

maintained and reserved for car parking at all times.

41 Signs must be maintained in a structurally sound, neat and

attractive condition at all times to the satisfaction of Council.

42 The period during which the signage may be carried out is limited to

fifteen (15) years from the date of commencement. All items and/or

works associated with the signage shall be removed from the land

upon the expiration of this period and any damage to the land

repaired by the owner of the site.

43 The occupier of the premises must ensure that there is at all times a

sign in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool bearing the

words „Young children must be supervised when using this

swimming pool‟. The sign is to be in a prominent position and be

otherwise in accordance with clause 9 of the Swimming Pools

Regulation. Fences, gates, walls, etc. enclosing the general

swimming pool area are to be maintained in good repair and

condition at all times. Depth markers are to be installed 150 mm

above the water line of the proposed swimming pool.


The discharge of waste water from the swimming pool is to be in

accordance with AS/NZS 3500.2.2, Section 10.9 & Figure 10.2.

The swimming pool water is to be re-circulated, filtered and

disinfected in accordance with the requirements of Council‟s Senior

Environmental Health Officer and the Health Department of New

South Wales. The swimming pool water is to be maintained at

satisfactory levels of purity for bathing at all times and operated in

accordance with NSW Department of Health's Public Swimming Pool

and Spa Pool Guidelines 1996.

44 The following conditions of consent have been imposed by the NSW

office of Water as “general terms of approval” under Section 91 of

the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Water

Management Act 2000, and shall be complied with at all times:

Number

Condition

Plans, standards and guidelines

1 These General Terms of Approval (GTA) only apply to

the controlled activities described in the plans and

associated documentation relating to and provided by

Council:

(i) Site plan, map and/or surveys

(ii) Works Schedule

(iii) Soil and Water Management Plan

Any amendments or modifications to the proposed

controlled activities may render these GTA invalid. If

the proposed controlled activities are amended or

modified the NSW Office of Water must be notified to

determine if any variations to these GTA will be

required.

2 Prior to the commencement of any controlled activity

(works) on waterfront land, the consent holder must

obtain a Controlled Activity Approval (CAA) under the

Water Management Act from the NSW Office of Water.

Waterfront land for the purposes of this DA is land and

material in or within 40 metres of the top of the bank

or shore of the river identified.

3 All plans must be prepared by a suitably qualified

person and submitted to the NSW Office of Water for

approval prior to any controlled activity commencing.

The following plans must be prepared in accordance

with the NSW Office of Water‟s guidelines located at

www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-

Licensing/Approvals/default.aspx

(i) Outlet structures

Rehabilitation and maintenance

http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-Licensing/Approvals/default.aspx

http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-Licensing/Approvals/default.aspx


Number

Condition

4 The consent holder must reinstate waterfront land

affected by the carrying out of any controlled activity in

accordance with a plan or design approved by the NSW

Office of Water.

Disposal

5 The consent holder must reinstate waterfront land

affected by the carrying out of any controlled activity in

accordance with a plan or design approved by the NSW

Office of Water.

Drainage and Stormwater

6 The consent holder is to ensure that all drainage works

(i) capture and convey runoffs, discharges and flood

flows to low flow water level in accordance with a plan

approved by the NSW Office of Water; and (ii) do not

obstruct the flow of water other than in accordance

with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.

7 The consent holder must stabilise drain discharge

points to prevent erosion in accordance with a plan

approved by the NSW Office of Water.

Erosion control

8 The consent holder must establish all erosion and

sediment control works and water diversion structures

in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office

of Water. These works and structures must be

inspected and maintained throughout the working

period and must not be removed until the site has been

fully stabilised.

Proposed Dam

9 The proposed dam must not exceed 0.13 mega litres

In capacity.

Excavation

10 The consent holder must ensure that no excavation is

undertaken on waterfront land other than in

accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of

Water.


Rural Fire Service as “general terms of approval” under Section 91

of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the

Rural Fires Act 1997, and shall be complied with at all times:

a) The development proposal is to comply with the proposed

location site plan identified on the drawing prepared by


Barron and Carroll Building Design numbered A2 revision A,

dated 16 December 2012.

Asset Protection Zones

The intent of measures is to provide sufficient space and maintain

reduced fuel loads so as to ensure radiant heat levels of buildings

are below critical limits and to prevent direct flame contact with a

building. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

b) At the commencement of building works and in perpetuity the

entire property shall be managed as an inner protection area

(IPA) as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of

'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural

Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection

zones'.

c) To allow for emergency service personnel and residents to

undertake property protection activities, a defendable space

that permits unobstructed pedestrian access is to be provided

around the building.

Water and Utilities

The intent of measures is to provide adequate services of water for

the protection of buildings during and after the passage of a bush

fire, and to locate gas and electricity so as not to contribute to the

risk of fire to a building. To achieve this, the following conditions

shall apply:

d) Water, electricity and gas are to comply with the following

requirements of section 4.1.3 of 'Planning for Bush Fire

Protection 2006'.

i) Fire hydrant spacing, sizing and pressures shall comply

with Australian Standard AS 2419.1 – 2005 'Fire

Hydrant Installations'.

ii) Where the rear or most distant part of a proposed

building is greater than 70 metres from the nearest

hydrant, a new hydrant is required to be installed as

per Australian Standard AS 2419.1 – 2005 'Fire Hydrant

Installations'.

Locations of fire hydrants are to be delineated by blue

pavement markers offset 150mm from the centre of the

road. The direction of offset shall indicate on which side

of the road the hydrant is located.

iii) The water source shall be made available or located

within the inner protection area (IPA) and away from

the structure.

iv) A hardened ground surface for truck access is to be

supplied up to and within 4 metres of the water source.

v) A 65mm metal Storz outlet with a gate or ball valve

shall be provided.


vi) Polycarbonate/plastic tanks shall be shielded from the

impact of radiant heat and direct flame contact.

vii) The gate or ball valve, pipes and tank penetration are

adequate for full 50mm inner diameter water flow

through the Storz fitting and are metal.

viii) All associated fittings to the tank shall be

non-combustible.

ix) An 'SWS' marker shall be obtained from the local NSW

Rural Fire Service and positioned for ease of

identification by brigade personnel and other users of

the SWS. In this regard:

Markers must be fixed in a suitable location so as

to be highly visible; and

Markers should be positioned adjacent to the most

appropriate access for the static water supply.

x) Reticulated or bottled gas is to be installed and

maintained in accordance with Australian Standard

AS/NZS 1596:2002: 'The storage and handling of LP

gas' and the requirements of relevant authorities. Metal

piping is to be used.

xi) All fixed gas cylinders are kept clear of all flammable

materials to a distance of 10 metres and be shielded on

the hazard side of the installation.

e) New electricity transmission lines are to be located

underground.

Access

The intent of measures for property access is to provide safe access

to/from the public road system for fire fighters providing property

protection during a bush fire and for occupants faced with

evacuation. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

f) The proposed internal access road shall comply with sections

4.1.3(2) 'Property Access' of 'Planning for Bush Fire

Protection 2006'

Evacuation and Emergency Management

The intent of measures is to provide suitable emergency and

evacuation (and relocation) arrangements for occupants of special

fire protection purpose developments. To achieve this, the following

conditions shall apply:

g) Arrangements for emergency and evacuation are to comply

with section 4.2.7 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

i) An Emergency/Evacuation Plan is to be prepared

detailing the following:


under what circumstances will the complex be

evacuated;

where will occupants be evacuated to;

roles and responsibilities of persons co-ordinating

the evacuation;

roles and responsibilities of persons remaining with

the complex after evacuation; and

a procedure to contact the NSW Rural Fire Service

District Office/NSW Fire Brigade and inform them of

the evacuation and where they will be evacuated to.

Design and Construction

The intent of measures is that buildings are designed and

constructed to withstand the potential impacts of bush fire attack.

To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

h) New construction shall comply with Sections 3 and 5 (BAL

12.5) Australian Standard AS3959-2009 'Construction of

buildings in bush fire-prone areas' and section A3.7

Addendum Appendix 3 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection'.

i) The existing dwelling is required to be upgraded to improve

ember protection. This is to be achieved by enclosing all

openings (excluding roof tile spaces) or covering openings

with a non-corrosive metal screen mesh with a maximum

aperture of 2mm. Where applicable, this includes any sub

floor areas, openable windows, vents, weepholes and eaves.

External doors are to be fitted with draft excluders.

Landscaping

j) Landscaping to the site is to comply with the principles of

Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

ADVICE

a) Certain additional approvals and action is required by you prior to

and during construction works. The Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979 require you to:

Obtain a Construction Certificate prior to the commencement of

any works. An application may be lodged with Council, or you

may apply to a private accredited certifier for a Construction

Certificate. An accredited certifier must obtain Council‟s approval

to certain conditions of this development consent, where

indicated before issuing the Construction Certificate.

Nominate a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) which may be

either Council or an accredited certifier and notify Council of that

appointment. You cannot lawfully commence works without

complying with this requirement.


Give Council at least two (2) days notice of your intention to

commence the erection of a building before commencing

construction works by lodging the „Notice of Commencement of

Building Works and Appointment of the Principal Certifying

Authority‟ form enclosed. You cannot lawfully commence works

without complying with this requirement.

Obtain an Occupation Certificate before commencing occupation

or commencing to use the building or on the completion of other

works including the erection of a sign by lodging the „Application

for Occupation Certificate‟ form enclosed. You cannot lawfully

commence occupation or the use of a building without complying

with this requirement.

b) Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate a Certificate of


2000 shall be obtained from Council and submitted to the Principal


A Certificate of Compliance shall be issued by Council when all

contributions are paid in full and all infrastructure necessary to

service the development has been completed in full.

Contributions set out in the following table are to be paid to Council

prior to the issue of any Certificate of Compliance. Contributions are

levied in accordance with Council‟s Kempsey Shire Council Macleay

Water Developer Service Plans (DSP) for Water dated July 2006. The

Plans may be viewed during office hours at Council‟s Offices.

The contributions payable will be adjusted in accordance with



Payments will only be accepted by cash or bank cheque.

The Certificate of Compliance under Section 306 of the Water

Management Act 2000, identifying payment of the contributions, is

to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue


Public service

No. of Equivalent Tenements

Contribution Rate

(Amount per ET)

Contribution Levied

Date until which

Contribution rate is

applicable

Office Use Only

Receipting Codes

Water 1 ET $8,797.00 $8,797.00 30 June

2013

AW

TOTAL $8,797.00

c) All earthmoving contractors and operators should be instructed that,

in the event of any bone, or stone artefacts, or discrete distributions

of shell, being unearthed during earthmoving, work must cease

immediately in the affected area, and the Local Aboriginal Land

Council and officers of the National Parks and Wildlife Service,

informed of the discovery. Work must not recommence until the

material has been inspected by those officials and permission has

been given to proceed. Those failing to report a discovery and those

responsible for the damage or destruction occasioned by

unauthorised removal or alteration to a site or to archaeological


material may be prosecuted under the National Parks and Wildlife

Act 1974.

B That the objectors be advised of Council‟s decision.


Environmental: It is not likely that there will be any adverse environmental

impacts from the proposal.

Social: The tourist facility will provide an additional form of recreation and leisure

for the area, which is likely to have a positive social impact.

Economic (Financial): The additional tourism options and increased tourism

generated by the proposal is likely to result in some minor strengthening of the

local economy, and have a positive economic impact. The proposal is considered to

provide an economic benefit only for the period of construction.

Policy or Statutory: The proposal complies with all relevant legislation, policies,

and guidelines.

REPORT DETAILS

Proposed Development

The proposal is to erect a tourist facility on a site that currently contains a single

dwelling. The proposed works include:

Two (2) single bedroom cabins;

Yoga building and pond;

Garden shed;

Advertising feature wall;

Internal roads and parking areas; and

Landscaping.

(Appendix A - Page SE1)

The proposed tourist facility has a maximum tenancy of four (4) guests at any one

time and employs one (1) manager who will reside in the existing dwelling.

Heads of Consideration

The proposal has been examined having regard to the Heads of Consideration

identified under Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

1979.

Kempsey Local Environment Plan 1987

The proposed development is defined as either a “rural tourist facility” or a “tourist

facility” and is permissible with consent under KLEP 1987.

http://www.kempsey.nsw.gov.au/council/meetings/2013/2013-06-18/index.html


rural tourist facilities means an establishment that provides holiday

accommodation or recreation activities of a kind that do not adversely affect

the agricultural use of land in the vicinity of the establishment.

tourist facilities means an establishment providing for holiday

accommodation or recreation and may include a boat shed, boat landing

facilities, camping ground, caravan park, holiday cabins, hotel, house boat,

marina, motel, playground, refreshment room, water sport facilities or a club

used in conjunction with any such activities.

Clause 9(3) of KLEP 1987 provides:-

(3) Except as otherwise provided by this plan, the Council shall not grant

consent to the carrying out of development on land to which this plan applies

unless the Council is of the opinion that the carrying out of the development is

consistent with the objectives of the zone within which the development is

proposed to be carried out.

The objectives of the 1(c) (RURAL (SMALL HOLDINGS “C” ZONE) are:

(a) to provide sufficient land to meet demand for hobby farms and rural

residential development, and

(b) to permit uses which are compatible with more intensive rural development.

The effect of Clause 9(3) is that Council must firstly form the opinion that the

development is consistent with the zone objectives before it gives any consideration

to the merits of the proposal. Under relevant case law, in determining consistency

with the zone objectives, the guiding principle is that the proposed development is

generally consistent with the objectives if it is not incompatible or inconsistent with

them. It is not necessary that the development promotes or is ancillary to those

objectives.

The estate contains predominantly large single dwellings and out-buildings/sheds.

It is considered that whilst the introduction of tourist cabins into the estate could be

considered to be inconsistent with objective (b) and to a lesser extent objective (a),

the fact that KLEP 1987 provides for some form of development of the type

proposed, the low-key nature of the proposed development, and that no intensive

rural development exists, or is likely to exist within proximity to the estate,

indicates that the proposal is not inconsistent to the objectives of the zone to the

extent that it should be considered as being prohibited under Clause 9(3).

In respect to the future likelihood of more intensive forms of rural development

occurring in the estate, the amenity of the proposed development and of existing

residents would be afforded protection through the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act and Protection of the Environment Operations Act to ensure that no

adverse impacts would occur. It is also noted that the subject land is bounded on

two (2) sides by road reserves and a drainage reserve to the south, further

reducing the likelihood of sterilising future potential uses, relative to other existing

dwellings in the locality.

Clause 51 of KLEP 1987 includes specific provisions related to development within

the Dulconghi Estate as follows:-

Clause 51 Planning Comment

(2) - In granting consent, in


accordance with any other provision

of this plan, to development of land

to which this clause applies, the

Council shall:

a) ensure that provision has been

made for the identification of

watercourses as drainage

reserves and for the protection of

vegetation within those reserves,

Acceptable. See “Stormwater Disposal”.

b) ensure that the abovementioned

drainage reserves extend from

the designated wetlands under

State Environmental Planning

Policy No 14—Coastal Wetlands

to the land within Zone No 7(d),

wherever possible,

Although this provision is not relevant to

the current proposal, the drainage

reserve to the south-west of the subject

site extends via easements to the SEPP

14 wetland area to the south-east.

c) ensure that each dwelling-house

is so located within an allotment

as to allow bushfire hazard

reduction works to be contained

within the allotment boundaries,

and that such works will not

encroach onto land within Zone

No 7 (d) or the abovementioned

drainage reserves,

The bushfire report accompanying the

application was referred to the NSW

Rural Fire Service which has provided its

consent by way of a Bushfire Safety

Authority. The bushfire asset protection

zone is not within any drainage reserve

or 7(d) zone.

d) ensure that a reticulated water

supply is available to each

allotment, to the satisfaction of

the Council,

Reticulated water supply is available and

connected to the property. See “Water

Supply”.

e) ensure adequate measures will

be taken for the treatment and

disposal of wastewater from any

dwelling-house,

The proposed means of disposing of

effluent is acceptable. See “Effluent

Disposal”.

f) ensure that the colours and

building materials to be used for

the exterior of any building are

approved by the Council prior to

the release of any building

approval and are visually

acceptable in the locality, and

The applicant has elected to use subtle,

non-reflective, earth toned colours on

masonry buildings with Colorbond

roofing which is considered to be

acceptable, given the character of

buildings and natural environment in the

locality.

g) ensure that the character,

location, siting, bulk, scale,

shape, size, height, design and

external appearance of any

building or structure that will

result from carrying out the

development is such as to

minimise the visual impact of the

All proposed buildings are single storey

only with a single bedroom in each.

The single storey cabins, gazebo and

small shed are considered to be

compatible in scale and bulk to

surrounding buildings within the estate.


development.

The character, design and external

appearance of the proposal is considered

to be in character with the surrounding

buildings.

The proposed development is located

down-slope of the main access road with

existing landscaping that will partly

obscure the development when viewed

from other residents. Impacts will be

further softened by additional

landscaping proposed across the front

boundary of the site.

The proposed buildings are spaced and

sited so that each clearly has a separate

identity.

(3) The Council shall not consent to

the erection of a building on land to

which this clause applies which is

more than 2 storeys in height from

the natural surface level.

The buildings are one storey in height.

(4) A person shall not, on land to

which this clause applies within Zone

No 1(c), cut down, top or lop any tree

without the consent of the Council.

No trees are proposed to be removed,

for which the applicant is seeking

consent. See “DCP 21 Dulconghi

Heights”

(5) The Council shall not grant

consent to a subdivision of land to

which this clause applies for the

purpose of rural smallholdings after

the expiration of 5 years from the day

Kempsey Local Environmental Plan

1987 (Amendment No 31) took effect,

or after such date as the Minister

may, before the expiration of that

period of 5 years, notify by order in

the Gazette.

No subdivision is proposed as part of this

application.

Clause 56 relates to land mapped as having underlying acid sulphate soils. The

subject land is located on Class 5 acid sulfate soils at depths of at least three (3)

metres. Given the scale of excavation, there is no expected impact on the

water-table and there is considered to be minimal risk of disturbing acid soils.

Draft Kempsey Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Draft KLEP 2012)

The proposal may be defined as “tourist and visitor accommodation” under the

Draft KLEP 2012, which is currently listed as a prohibited development in zone R5

Large Lot Residential which applies to the subject land.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires Council to take

Draft KLEP 2012 into consideration in assessing the development application. In

determining how much weight to give to Draft KLEP 2012 Council must consider

whether the draft Environmental Planning Instrument (EPI) is “certain and

imminent”. Although exhibition of the Draft KLEP 2012 has concluded, Council has


not yet given consideration to the submissions received or any Council report

addressing the submissions and therefore cannot be considered as “imminent”.

NOTE: The proposal has revealed an error in Draft KLEP 2012 as it was not the

intent to prohibit tourist developments or to reduce the range of uses currently

permissible under KLEP 1987, except those mandated under the Standard

Instrument Order 2006. It is intended to report this omission to Council when

considering the results of public exhibition of the plan recommending amendment

to the plan prior to forwarding to the Minister to make the plan such that the Draft

cannot be considered as “certain”. In addition, the development application was

lodged on 13 November 2012 before Draft KLEP 2012 went on exhibition on 27

November 2012. On this basis, little or no weight should be given to Draft KLEP

2012.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection & Council‟s

Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management

The proposed development originally involved the removal of a single tree,

however, proposed “Eco Hut No 1” has since been moved from the application and

no trees are now proposed for removal. The applicant‟s ecologist has assessed the

proposal and certified that it complies with SEPP No. 44 and the Comprehensive

Koala Plan of Management. See “Ecology”.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008

There is no known significant agricultural activity that is likely to affect, or be

affected by, the proposed development, with lands in the area being predominantly

used for rural residential housing and some small scale grazing. As such, the

proposed development will not limit the productive potential of any agricultural land

or create a conflicting land use issue with any agricultural activity.

North Coast Regional Environmental Plan

Clause 2B of the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan (NCREP) requires the

aims and objectives of the NCREP to be considered during the determination of

Development Applications. The proposed development is consistent with all relevant

objectives and controls of the NCREP, as follows:

Agricultural Resources:

There is no known significant agricultural activity that is likely to affect, or be

affected by, the proposed development, with lands in the area being

predominantly used for rural-residential housing, and low-scale cattle grazing.

Catchment Management:

Minor earthworks are proposed as part of this application, with the majority of

changes to the natural surface being minor cutting and filling for the building

sites, and excavation for the dam. It is considered that sufficient measures

can be taken to keep stormwater runoff at predevelopment flows and that

sufficient erosion and sediment controls can be put in place during

construction to prevent sediment water pollution.

In addition, the applicant has supplied sufficient information to satisfy Council,

NSW Department of Primary Industries, and NSW Office of Water, that the

proposal will not have a significant impact on Threatened marine species or

habitat. See “Integrated Development”.

As such the proposed development is not likely to have any significant impact

on water quality, pollution levels, marine habitat, aquatic reserves, marine


vegetation, or commercial and recreational fishing. See “Stormwater” and

“Effluent”.

Geological Resources:

There are no known geological resources (such as extractive material deposits

or mineral deposits) in the area and as such none are expected to be affected

by the proposal.

The Natural Environment:

The proposed development involves no clearing of native vegetation and will

not significantly impact on the ecological values of the site. See “Ecology”.

Sufficient erosion and sediment controls will be implemented to ensure the

proposal will not significantly impact on water quality. See “Water Supply”.

The scale and design of development is appropriate for the location in keeping

with natural scenic quality of the surrounding area. See “Public Domain and

Visual Impact”.

Environmental Hazards:

The proposed development is within a low risk (Class 5) acid sulfate soil area,

and minimal excavation is proposed. See also “Bushfire” and “Flood”.

Transport:

The proposed development is located on a public road of an appropriate

standard. The proposal will not create any traffic issues. See “Traffic”.

Utility Services:

The proposed development has access to water supply, electricity, and

telephone services. The proposal can adequately dispose of effluent and

stormwater onsite. See “Effluent”, “Water Supply” and “Stormwater”.

Development Control Plan No. 21 – Dulconghi Heights (DCP 21)

This subject land is within the Dulconghi Estate and is therefore subject to the

controls of DCP No. 21. The assessment criteria under DCP 21 are as follows:

Clause

Response

5.1 - Amendment No 31

See “Kempsey Local Environmental Plan

1987”.

5.2 - Aboriginal Heritage

This clause applies to subdivisions only.

5.3 - State Environmental Protection

Plan No 14 – Coastal Wetlands

This clause ceased to have effect upon

completion of the subdivision.

5.4 - Potential Acid Sulphate Soils

The proposal is within Class 5 acid soils

only, with the limited excavations not

being a significant hazard. See “DCP

30‖.

5.5 - Flood Affected Land

The subject land is wholly above the

designated 1 in 100 year flood level.

5.6 Erosion and Sediment Control

This clause applies to subdivision only.


Clause

Response

5.7 Flora and Fauna Habitat The proposal does not include any

vegetation mapped in Figure 6, and does

not include any clearing of native

vegetation.

5.8 Bushfire Hazard Reduction

The proposal has demonstrated

compliance Planning for Bushfire

Protection 2006 to the satisfaction of the

NSW Rural Fire Service and a Bushfire

Safety Authority has been issued.

5.9 Reticulated Water and Onsite

Storage

See “Water Supply”.

5.10 Onsite Wastewater Disposal

See “Effluent Disposal”.

5.11 Building Criteria

The proposed colours and building

materials are non-reflective and will not

be visually prominent.

The proposal complies with Council‟s

Height of Buildings Code.

5.12 Management of Residue Land

The site does not include any of the

residual land from the subdivision.

Development Control Plan No. 24 – Access and Mobility

The recommended conditions require the building to comply with the Building Code

of Australia, requiring the buildings to be fully accessible for people with disabilities.

Development Control Plan No. 32 – Onsite Sewerage Management Strategy (DCP

32)

The applicant has demonstrated that effluent can be adequately disposed of onsite

in accordance with Environment and Health Protection Guidelines 1998 – Onsite

Sewage Management for Single Households and ASNZS 1547-2012: On-site

Domestic-Wastewater Management. A secondary treatment system will be

required. The disposal area for the cabins is proposed to be separate from the

existing disposal area for the dwelling. The disposal of effluent onsite is achievable,

subject to the lodgement of a Section 68 application which will specify make, model

and specifications of the system and disposal area.

Traffic

The proposal is expected to generate minimal traffic and is not to have a significant

impact on the external road network. The proposal will not significantly add to the

load on intersections at Penn Road/Neville Morton Drive and Neville Morton

Drive/Crescent Head Road.

Access within the site will be via gravel tracks and will provide suitable access to

the proposed development. Sufficient parking will be provided within the site.

The recommended conditions require contributions to be paid in accordance with

Council‟s Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Contribution Plan 2009 to fund

future upgrade of Council‟s road system.


Water Supply

Council water supply infrastructure is available to the boundary of the site, and the

existing dwelling is currently connected. It is proposed to connect the proposed

cabins to the Council water supply. It is noted that water pressure is low in this

location, so measures will need to be taken to reduce additional strain on the

system, such as an overnight trickle feed to fill onsite water tanks for later use.

Utilising such a method would allow the proposal to connect to Council water supply

without reducing water pressure at other properties on the main and is included in

recommended conditions of consent.

The proposal will also use rainwater harvesting and water saving device techniques.

The recommended conditions require the applicant to prepare a Private Water

Supply Management Plan in accordance with the NSW Health Private Water Supply

Guidelines to ensure the harvested rain water is to a potable standard.

Stormwater Disposal

The applicant has demonstrated that stormwater can be adequately managed and

maintained to pre-development flows. Overland flows will be controlled and directed

into the existing drainage line to the south-west of the property. Roof-water will be

harvested and used to supplement the water supply. The recommended conditions

require a detailed stormwater management plan to be prepared.

Ecology

The proposed development originally involved the removal of a single tree,

however, proposed “Eco Hut No 1” has since been moved, and no trees are now

proposed for removal. An ecological assessment was submitted with the

development application which concludes that the proposal will not have any

significant impact on threatened species, and that a Species Impact Statement is

not required to be prepared.

Bushfire

The land is mapped as bushfire prone land. The application was referred to the

Rural Fire Service (RFS) as an “integrated development”. The RFS have provided

their concurrence and General Terms of Approval. See “Integrated Development”.

Safety, Security and Crime Prevention

Crime risk is not considered to be significant, however, it is noted that:

The proposal complies with the CPTED Guidelines;

The area is open which increases passive surveillance from the street and

surrounding properties, and there are few entrapment opportunities around

the buildings.

Integrated Development

In accordance with the integrated development requirements under Section 71 of

the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, this application was referred

to:

NSW Department of Primary Industries (Office of Water) under the Water

Management Act 2000;


NSW Rural Fire Service under the Rural Fires Act 1997.

General terms of approval (GTA) have been issued by each of these authorities

under their respective legislation, which have been included in the recommended

conditions of consent.

Public Exhibition

The proposal was advertised in accordance with Council‟s Policy from 28 November

2012 to 28 December 2012, and re-advertised from 16 January 2013 to 15

February 2013 following the receipt of amended plans to reduce the number of

cabins.

Thirty-two (32) submissions were received, including thirty-one (31) objections and

one (1) letter of support. Two (2) submissions were marked “confidential” and are

not included in the appendices of this report (Appendix B - Page SE5).

Objection

Planning Comment

1

Creates a false sense of

subdivision.

1

The development will be for

temporary tourist accommodation

only, and will not be for permanent

occupation.

2

Visual impacts.

2

The visual impacts of the proposal

are considered to be acceptable,

being compatible in form with other

development in the locality.

3

Noise impacts.

3

Given the scale of the development

that will accommodate a maximum

of two couples, the potential for

unacceptable noise impacts is

expected to be minimal.

4

Not permissible, inconsistent

with the zone objectives, and

inconsistent with clause 51(2)

of the current KLEP.

4

See “Kempsey Local Environmental

Plan 1987”.

5

Inconsistent with DCP No. 21.

5

See “Development Control Plan No.

21 – Dulconghi Heights, near

Crescent Head”.

6

Inconsistent with Draft KLEP

2012.

6

See “Draft Kempsey Local

Environmental Plan 2012”.

7

Increase traffic flow.

7

See “Traffic”.

8

Not efficient parking.

8

Each cabin includes a carport and

spare car space which is considered

to be more than adequate to serve

the development.

9

Over development of the site.

9

The site will be dominated by open



spaces, effluent is able to be

adequately treated and disposed of

onsite and buildings are of a scale

which is in keeping with the locality,

such that the proposal is not

considered to be an over-

development of the site.

10

Environmental impacts - flora

and fauna.

10

See “Ecology” and “State

Environmental Planning Policy No.

44”

11

Drainage and sewerage

Impact

11

See “Stormwater Disposal” and

“Effluent Disposal”.

12

Loss of land value to

surrounding properties.

12

There is no evidence to support such

a claim which is not a planning

consideration under Section 79C of

the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979.

13

Crime and safety concerns.

13

See “Safety, Security and Crime

Prevention”.

14

Residential properties will be

overlooking tourist facilities.

14

Existing and proposed landscaping

will effectively reduce any visual

impacts.

1211 RBP

SUMMARY

Reporting that Council has received an application to modify conditions of consent

for drag-racing at the Kempsey Airport for which objections have been received.

Applicant: Four Aces Drag Racing Club Incorporated

Subject Property: Lot 1 DP1144474, Airport Road, Aldavilla

Zone: 1(a1) (Rural "A1" Zone)

1 That conditions of consent imposed in respect to Development

Application T6-10-232 be amended as follows:

Condition 4:

The event approved under the terms of this consent is limited to a

single drag racing event, being not more than one (1) day only.

All racing shall be restricted to be between 9:00am and 3:30pm.

1.2 Proposed Modified Consent - Drag Racing at Kempsey Airport

File: T6-10-232 (Rev 01)



The set up period shall be from 7am until commencement of racing at

9am with decommissioning of plant and equipment from 3:30pm until

4:30pm.

All buildings (temporary or otherwise) and/or works associated with

the development are to be removed from the land immediately upon

the expiration of this period, up to a maximum of two (2) days after

the event. The event operator must return the landform of the subject

land to the predevelopment state and suitably re-vegetate and

regrade the land.

Condition 5:

Any vehicle participating in the event shall meet the Australian

National Drag Racing Association (ANDRA) “Super Street” class noise

limit being a maximum of 98dBA at 30 metres.

Condition 9(g)(iii):

The means for ensuring that all competing vehicles have mufflers

which meet the noise specification of each competing vehicle meets

Australian National Drag Racing Association noise limits.

Condition 12:

The proponent shall be responsible for the repair of any damage to

the airport runway, any other airport infrastructure, roads, kerb and

gutters, footpaths, driveway crossovers or other assets caused as a

result of the drag racing event. In this regard, a cash bond of $20,000

must be paid to Council prior to the commencement of the drag racing

event as guarantee against damage to Council land and infrastructure

during the drag racing event.

Condition 16:

No burn-outs shall be permitted, other than associated with racing.

No burn-out competitions or any uncontrolled burn-outs are

permitted.

2 That the objectors be notified of Council‟s decision.


Environmental: The environmental impacts of the proposal (noise, traffic, etc.)

are within all acceptable limits if managed correctly.

Social: The proposal has the potential to provide a positive social benefit to the

community associated with economic stimulus and increased tourism.

Economic (Financial): The drag racing event has the potential to attract tourists

who will spend money at local businesses, particularly food and accommodation

businesses estimated at approximately $288,000. Council will receive $2,000 per

day in airport leasing fees to host the event.

Policy or Statutory: The proposal complies with all relevant legislation and Council

policy.


REPORT DETAILS

At its meeting of 25 September 2012, Council resolved to grant consent for the use

of the Airport to conduct one only drag racing event, subject to 23 conditions.

Proposed Modification

The applicant has lodged an application to modify conditions of consent that may be

summarised as follows (Appendix C - Page SE118):

The proposed modifications are as follows:

Proposed Modification Applicant‟s

Submission/Planning Comment

Condition 2:

The development shall be implemented in

accordance with the plans and supporting

documents set out in the following table

except where modified by any conditions of

this consent.

Plan No./

Supporting

Document

Version Prepared

by

Dated

Layout

Plan

(Project

No.

1855/11)

Sheet No.

S01 in set

[01]

Issue 2

Dennis

Partners

20/04/11

In the event of any inconsistency between

conditions of this development consent and

the plans/supporting documents referred to

above, the conditions of this development

consent prevail.

Applicant‟s Submission

The applicant states they cannot

comply with the condition.

Planning Comment

Other than to state: “No we cannot

meet this condition”, no reasoning

or justification has been provided in

support of the requested

modification.

It should be noted that the condition

simply reflects the plans that were

submitted by the applicant

indicating staging areas, spectator

areas, parking areas and competitor

areas.

By letter of 30 April 2013 the

applicant was requested to clarify

which aspects of the plan they

consider cannot be met, however,

no advice has been provided.

In the absence of any justification or

additional information, the applicant

should be advised that Council does

not agree to removal or modification

of the condition.

Condition 4:

The event approved under the terms of this

consent is limited to a single drag racing

event, being not more than one (1) day

only.

The event is restricted to be between

9:00am and 3:30pm. A noise free period

between 12.00noon to 1.00pm shall be

observed.

All buildings (temporary or otherwise)

and/or works associated with the


The applicant advises that a 1 hour

break is unacceptable and is not

required elsewhere. A half hour

break would be sufficient.

Set up period shall be from 7am

until commencement of racing at

9am with decommissioning of plant

and equipment from 3:30pm until

4:30pm.

Planning Comment



development are to be removed from the

land immediately upon the expiration of this

period, up to a maximum of two (2) days

after the event. The event operator must

return the landform of the subject land to

the predevelopment state and suitably re-

vegetate and regrade the land.

It is noted that this condition

reflects what the applicant originally

proposed in its application.

If the applicant now considers this

to be unacceptable, no objection is

raised to amendment to the

condition by reducing the break to a

half hour as requested.

No objection is raised to inclusion of

pre and post- race setup and

decommissioning start and finishing

times in addition to racing times as

requested.

Condition 5:

Any vehicle participating in any racing event

or accessing the airport runway for any

reason must be a C-Class vehicle road

registered by the NSW Roads & Maritime

Service (RMS).

Vehicles which are not C-Class or do not hold

a current RMS road registration (such as

purpose built dragsters) are permitted on

the site for the purpose of visual display (i.e.

―show and shine‖) events only.


The applicant considers this

condition to be unacceptable as all

ANDRA certified vehicles comply

with current noise restrictions.

Planning Comment

No objection is raised to rewording

of this condition to refer to all cars

having to meet the Australian

National Drag Racing Association

(ANDRA) “Super Street” class noise

limit being a maximum of 98dBA at

30 metres as referred to in the

Noise Report submitted with the

application. On this basis there

would be no increase in noise

relative to the current wording of

the condition.

Condition 9(a)(iii):

Details of spectator management measures,

including provision of adequate portable

toilet facilities (not less than 15), security,

traffic and parking control, seating, first aid,

provision of drinking water, lost children,

etc.);


The applicant will provide 7 portable

toilets which will include 1 disabled

unit.

Planning Comment

The applicant has failed to provide

any justification to offer only 7

toilets. The number contained in the

condition was derived from the

accepted industry standard being

the Safe and Healthy Mass

Gatherings Australian Emergency

Manual.

On this basis, the applicant should

be advised that Council does not

agree to any amendment to the

condition.


Condition 9(e)(iii):

The Traffic Management Plan must have

consideration for the method of restriction

parking on Council‘s road reserves in the

area.


The Club can only be held

responsible for traffic management

of paying spectators, competitors

and officials entering the event.

This requirement will need to be

addressed as increased traffic

congestion on local roads is of

concern of the residents.

This condition should be retained as

it will be addressed in the Event

Management Plan to be submitted

prior to the event.

Planning Comment

In accordance with the terms of

consent for other events, provision

needs to be made to control parking

of patrons who choose not to park

within the Airport grounds. The

required Traffic Management Plan

will be referred to the Local Traffic

Committee which may authorise the

placement of temporary barriers or

signs, if required.

It is the applicant‟s responsibility to

provide the plan to demonstrate

how this issue is to be addressed

and the condition should be

retained.

Condition 9(g)(iii):

The means for ensuring that all competing

vehicles have mufflers which meet the

Confederation of Australian Motor Sport

(CAMS) noise specification and that the

noise levels generated by each competing

vehicle meets Australian National Drag

Racing Association noise limits.


The event is sanctioned by ANDRA

only CAMS is not applicable.

Planning Comment

No objection is raised to removal of

reference to CAMS which will not

affect to nose criteria considered in

the Noise Report.

Condition 12:

The proponent shall be responsible for the

repair of any damage to the airport runway,

any other airport infrastructure, roads, kerb

and gutters, footpaths, driveway crossovers

or other assets caused as a result of the

drag racing event. In this regard, a cash

bond of $250,000 must be paid to Council

prior to the commencement of the drag

racing event as guarantee against damage

to Council land and infrastructure during the

drag racing event.


The amount of the bond is

excessive. No other councils have

imposed such a bond.

Planning Comment

See “Runway Damage Bond”


Condition 13:

Prior to the commencement of the drag

racing event the event manager shall pay

the following fees to Council:

a) Daily rental for the usage of the

aerodrome of $2,000 per event day;

b) $500 towards the cost of staff to

monitor the event; and

c) Any other fees required to cover the

cost of any Council equipment,

including but not limited to, signage,

barricades and rubbish bins.


Other councils charge $1,000 or

less.

Planning Comment

Whilst this may well be the case, no

details or justification for varying

the proposed charge is provided.

The fee of $2,000 represents $1 per

head, not including competitors and

officials.

It should also be noted that Council

charges other users of the facility to

park and operate aircraft which is

used to offset the maintenance

costs of the facility.

By comparison, Council charges

aircraft users an annual usage

charge of $300 per aircraft, aircraft

parking fee of up to $370 per

annum and a $9.50 landing fee.

It is considered that the fee is

reasonable and should not be

reduced.

Condition 14:

Prior to the commencement of the drag

racing event a physical barrier is to be

provided across the full road frontage of the

property to Old Aerodrome Road suitable to

prevent vehicular access at locations other

than the approved driveway. Prior consent

for the required works must be obtained

from Council pursuant to Section 138 of the

Roads Act 1993 where works within the road

reserve are necessary. Any required

application is to be submitted to Council not

less than 3 months prior to the nominated

date of the event.


Not obtainable as the Club are not

certified RTA workers.

Planning Comment

There is no requirement for Club

members to have any form of

certification.

Section 138 of the Roads Act

requires consent to place any

barriers within dedicated road

reserves and Council will assume

liability for any approval it issues.

The need and extent of any required

barriers will be determined by the

required Traffic Management Plan in

areas where uncontrolled parking

may create a hazard to road users.

On this basis, there is no

justification for deletion of the

condition which should stand.

Condition 16:

No burn-outs shall be permitted at any time.


Other airports only restrict burnouts

on painted line marking.


Planning Comment

The intention of this condition was

twofold. Firstly to prevent noise

above background levels, other than

associated with racing in order to

satisfy the assumptions of the Noise

Report. Secondly, to specify that

there will be no burn-out

competitions or any uncontrolled

burn-outs.

No objection is raised to modifying

the wording of the condition to

reflect this intent.

Runway Damage Bond

A revised calculation for the runway damage bond was undertaken with the

following assumptions made:

1 The separation of the “burnout” and “Start” areas is approximately 30m in

line with Drag Racing requirements.

2 It is understood that VHT will not be used on the existing runways wearing

surface so no allowance for clean-up is necessary.

3 The refuelling area will be separated from the existing runway wearing

surface and no refuelling will be permitted at the “start”. Therefore no

significant fuel spills on the runways wearing surface is anticipated.

4 The runoff area will be designated at end of the runway. It would be

anticipated the cars would then drive up the runway and turn at the

terminal entrance as the conditions off the tarmac are likely to be unsuitable

to traverse.

5 The following are estimates of the cost (subject to obtaining quotes) to

effect repairs to the wearing (20mm-40mm) surface only if there is

significant damage to the wearing surface:

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

RATE $

AMOUNT $

1. Burnout Box

600

m2

50

$30,000

2. Start Zone (including 50m

extension)

900

m2

50

$45,000

3. Allowance for runoff

damages

100

m2

50

$5,000

TOTAL

$80,000

The revised calculation was provided to the applicant by email of 30 April 2013 with an

advice that “…Council is prepared to consider any submission the Club may wish to

make, prior to determining the amount to be recommended to Council for inclusion

in a revised condition of consent.”



By email of 3 May 2013, the applicant advised:

• A figure for “The Bond” would be more around the $20,000

• Clauses 10 and 11 are agreed upon by the Four Aces Drag Racing Club Inc

and

• The $20,000 Bond amount would make it easier for the Club to obtain the

relevant insurance underwritten / premium or bank guarantee.

Planning Comment

Conditions 10 and 11 refer to the need to carry out pre and post dilapidation

surveys in order to verify the extent of any damage to the runway.

As there is no justification for the reduced amount, Council would bear the risk in

the event the cost to repair any damage was in excess of the revised amount.

No objection is raised to accepting a reduced amount on the following basis:

• The consent permits one only event, thereby reducing any risk of significant

pavement damage.

• Although less than the calculated bond, $20,000 still represents a significant

incentive to ensure proposed emergency and control measures are adhered

to. In this regard, it is noted that Condition 9(b) which is not objected to,

requires an Emergency Management Plan including measures to control and

respond to:

- Accidents/crashes of vehicles during races;

- Spillage and clean-up procedures for all fuels, oils and any other chemicals

stored on the site;

- Localised fire and explosion (i.e.: car fires, oil and fuel fires, stall fires,

garbage fires, etc., and explosions whether or not resulting from such

fires);

- Storage of fuel including design and installation of any fuel tanks and their

bunding/spill containment in accordance with AS1940, AS4452, and the

requirements of the NSW WorkCover Authority.

- The Emergency Management Plan shall provide for the following

emergency services to be onsite for the duration of the event:

NSW Police Force;

Ambulance Service of NSW;

NSW Rural Fire Service.

• Any additional events would require submission of a fresh DA, whereby

Council could revisit the amount of the bond which would be subject to

negotiation with the applicant.


Public Notification

The modification was advertised in accordance with Council Public Notification Policy

between 18 January 2011 and 31 January 2011. A total of forty-five (45)

submissions were received, of which forty-four (44) were objections, and one (1)

was a letter of support. One (1) submission was marked as Confidential and is not

included in this appendix (Appendix D - Page SE119).

Support

The letter of support raised the following points:

1 Positive economic impact for the area.

2 Will not prevent emergency services from using airport.

3 Will not have a social impact or increase crime.

4 There is already a shotgun club, airplanes at the airport, and a timber mill

running five (5) days a week with no complaints.

Objections

The letters of objection raised the following concerns:

Objection

Planning Comment

1

If the Councillors approve the

proposed modification then let

them be held responsible for any

issues.

1

It is considered that in the event

of an incident, Council would be

able to demonstrate through the

existing and proposed amended

conditions of consent that it has

acted in good faith by ensuring

adequate contingencies are put

in place to manage risk.

2

If the bond amount is reduced,

where would Council get the

money to fix the runway if it is

damaged?

2


3

If the applicant has no money to

submit as a bond, how will they

afford to repair any damages if

they occur?

3


4

Why would the applicant object to

the bond unless they believe they

will not honour the commitment?

4


5

2,000 spectators will need more

than 15 toilets, the amount of

toilets should not be reduced.

5

See “Proposed Modification”.

6

No change should be made to the

vehicle registration restriction.

6




Objection

Planning Comment

7

No change should be made to

lunch break times. Local residents

deserve reasonable break over

lunch.

7


8

They should not be allowed to

start before 9am.

8


9

The conditions originally applied

were the subject of a long Council

investigation and were obviously

considered necessary.

9

The conditions imposed on the

consent are intended to control

potential impacts of using the

Airport for Drag Racing on the

amenity of residents and road

users, as well as protecting

Council‟s asset. No objection is

raised to proposed amendments

that meet these intentions.

10

Other airports cannot be

compared to the Kempsey Airport

as they are each different and

some don‟t have residents as close

as Kempsey. We are not

responsible for other airports or

what they do, this is our airport.

10

Agreed.

11

Offended by the term “minor

changes”, the proposed changes

are not minor.

11

The proposed amendments are

considered to be minor under

the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act provided the

development is substantially the

same as originally approved.

12

The applicant‟s attitude is arrogant

and unprofessional.

12

Noted.

13

Object to airport being used for

the purpose of drag racing.

13

The proposed modifications do

not give rise to Council

reconsidering the application

and Council must restrict its

considerations to the

modifications sought.

14

The condition requiring Council

costs (rent and staff time) should

be kept.

14


15

Object to the use of the airport for

a drag racing event in general,

including such reasons as:

Traffic impacts;

Noise impacts;

Damage to runway;

15

See 13 above.


Objection

Planning Comment

with emergency aircraft, such as

the air ambulance; Scare animals

and livestock;

Encourage unsafe driving;

Be contrary to the Deed of

Transfer (DoT), the Memorandum

of Understanding (MoU), the Air

Navigation Act;

Parking area may be damaged;

Alternative locations;

Health and medical issues;

Reduce property value;

Air pollution (fumes); and

Waste and clean-up.

16

A copy of the DoT should be

provided to all Councillors, and the

applicant should be made to sign a

declaration that they will abide by

the DoT.

16

The Deed of Transfer was

provided to Councillors in the

original report on this

Development Application in

September 2012.

17

Mayor Campbell‟s husband and

Councillor Patterson both have

connections to the Four Aces Drag

Racing Club, and should not be

allowed to vote.

17

This is a matter for the

respective councillors to

consider.

1211 RBP

SUMMARY

Reporting that Council has received a Development Application for a dwelling and

boundary adjustment at South West Rocks which requires Council‟s support for

variations to DCP Old School Site and for which objections have been received.

Applicant: Hadlow Design Services

Subject Property: Lot 233 and Lot 317 DP754396

Gregory Street, South West Rocks

Zone: 2 (c) (Residential “C” Zone); and

7 (d) (Scenic Protection Zone)

A That Council support the required variations to Development Control

Plan (DCP) Old School Site;

B That Development Application T6-12-413 be approved subject to the

following conditions:

1.3 Proposed Dwelling and Boundary Adjustment File: T6-12-413







Plan No./ Supporting Document


Proposed Managers Residence &

Subdivision (Boundary Adjustment) at Schoolhouse Gallery and Café (File Reference 50946MNGR, Sheet ref: A201)

Amendment

No. B

Hadlow Design Services

18/12/2012




















4 This consent permits the removal of the tree numbered T27 as

identified by Council‟s Development Control Plan (DCP) – Old School

Site. No other trees identified by DCP – Old School Site are

authorised by this consent to be removed under this consent. If any

other trees are required to be removed or modification of any reason

(such as bushfire Asset Protection Zones (APZ), excavation,

placement of services, etc.) further consent shall first be obtained

from Council.

5 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, engineer‟s details




engineer‟s details shall be prepared by an appropriately qualified,






6 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, structural details

and a Structural Certificate of Design by a qualified practicing

structural engineer and in accordance with Part 1.2 (a) (iii) of the

Building Code of Australia (applicable to class 1 – 10 building) must

be submitted to the satisfaction of Council (where Council is the

Certifying Authority).

7 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, a detailed

Geotechnical Report shall be submitted to Council for approval. The

Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by an appropriately qualified,

experienced person, and shall certify that all cut and fill will not

result in any geotechnical issues, while having regard to the

recommendations in the geotechnical assessment contained in the

Old School Site Local Environmental Strategy and Council‟s DCP Old

School Site. This Geotechnical Report shall be approved by the

Council prior to release of any Construction Certificate.

8 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, a detailed Tree

Management Plan shall be provided to the Council for approval. The

Tree Management Plan shall be prepared by an appropriately

qualified, experienced person, and shall identify methods of

retaining the trees numbered T16 and T18 as identified by Council‟s

DCP – Old School Site. Consideration shall be given to all

geotechnical conditions, all proposed works, weather conditions

during and post-construction, the growth of the trees (i.e. future

size and root zone), etc. The Tree Management Plan shall be

approved by Council prior to release of any Construction Certificate.

9 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, a Landscape Plan

shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval.

This Landscape Plan shall be prepared by an appropriately

experienced and qualified Landscape Architect, and shall:

a) Incorporate locally indigenous native vegetation as the

dominant palette for new planting;

b) Incorporate new plants that will facilitate year-round

moderation of internal climate;

c) Maximise the reuse on site of rock and topsoil emanating from

excavations and shredded vegetation for mulch;

d) Utilise nectar producing native species;

e) Include replacement plantings at a 5:1 ratio for T27 within the

7(d) zoned area, but not within any bushfire APZ. These

plantings shall be of advanced stock of an appropriate tree

species endemic to the area; and

f) Include a maintenance schedule to ensure landscaping is

regularly maintained and replaced until all species have

reached a mature, generally self-sufficient state.


This Landscape Plan shall be approved by the Principal Certifying


10 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, a Vegetation and

Fuel Management Plan shall be provided to Council for approval. The

Vegetation and Fuel Management Plan shall be prepared by an

appropriately qualified, experienced and practicing professional, and

shall detail methods to balance the management of any APZs with

sensitive environmental management to improve the environmental

performance of the site through improvement in on-site native

vegetation and reduced function as a weed reservoir for the

surrounding area. This Vegetation and Fuel Management Plan shall

be approved by the Council prior to release of any Construction

Certificate.

11 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, a detailed Waste

Minimization Report shall be provided to the Principal Certifying

Authority for approval. This Waste Minimization Report shall be

prepared by an appropriately qualified, experienced and practicing

professional, and shall detail waste minimisation in the design,

construction and occupancy phases, including how the development

shall minimise construction waste going to land fill through a

material tracking system, and provide facilities that assist and foster

minimisation and recycling of waste production by building

occupants through separation and composting systems. This Waste

Minimization Report shall be approved by the Principal Certifying


12 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, certification that

all approved works have been designed so as to be capable of

withstanding flood forces up to and including the 1% Annual

Exceeds Probability (AEP) flood event shall be provided to the

Principal Certifying Authority for approval. This certification shall

account for the impacts of any flotsam (carried by floodwaters).

Velocities to be adopted for the calculation of forces created by flood

waters and debris loading are to be at least three (3) times the

velocities determined in Council‟s current Flood Management Study

for the 1% AEP flood event. For the purpose of this certification the

1% AEP flood level may be assumed to be Reduced Level (RL) 2.87

metres Australian Height Datum (AHD). This certification shall be

prepared by a qualified practising civil or structural engineer. This

certification shall be approved by the Principal Certifying Authority



Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 to carry out water and

sewer work shall be obtained from Council and provided to the

Principal Certifying Authority. This approval shall be approved by the



Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 to carry out

stormwater work shall be obtained from Council and provided to the

Principal Certifying Authority. These stormwater drainage details

shall be prepared by an appropriately experienced, qualified and

practicing Civil Engineer in accordance with Council's Adopted

Engineering Standard, the most recent version of Australian Rainfall

and Runoff (1987), and AS/NZS 3500.3:2003 - Plumbing and


drainage, Part 3: Stormwater drainage, and Council‟s DCP Old School

Site. The stormwater drainage system shall be designed for 1 in 10

year storm event, and shall maintain predevelopment flows. All

piped drainage lines over adjoining land are to be located within

drainage easements. This approval shall be approved by the



Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 shall be obtained from Council

and provided to the Principal Certifying Authority for all necessary

works within the road reserve. Three (3) copies of engineering

construction plans shall accompany the application for consent for

works within the road reserve. Such plans shall be in accordance

with Council's Adopted Engineering Standard. The works within the

road reserve shall include:

a) The driveway shown on the approved plans, unless it is

already completed in full under T6-10-432;

b) A “Give-Way” hold line 1 metre behind the Gregory Street

kerb line in Landsborough Street is to be provided to minimise

the encroachment of turning traffic from Landsborough Street

on the “slipping through” traffic in Gregory Street; and

c) “No-Stopping” parking restriction signage is to be installed on

Gregory Street south of the incoming access point.

This approval shall be approved by the Principal Certifying Authority


16 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, a Sediment and



be prepared by an appropriately experienced and qualified

professional, in accordance with the most recent version of the

Landcom publication "Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and

Construction" and Council‟s DCP Old School Site. The Sediment and

Erosion Control Plan shall include measures to manage weeds in and

around the construction areas. This Sediment and Erosion Control



17 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, a Schedule of

Finishes shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority

demonstrating which details the colour and type of all finished

surfaces for the development. This Schedule of Finishes shall be

prepared by an appropriately experienced and qualified Heritage

Architect. The colours shall match colours found in the surrounding

natural and built environment. All finishes shall be non-reflective.

This Schedule of Finishes shall be approved by the Principal


18 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate plans and

specifications shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority

demonstrating the works required to satisfy the requirements of

BASIX Certificate 461420S, dated Wednesday, 19 December 2012.

All such plans and specifications shall be approved as part of the



19 The particulars of the contributions levied pursuant to Section 94 of

the Act are set out in the following table:

The specific public amenity

or service in respect of which the condition is

imposed

The contributions plan under which the

condition is imposed

Date of contributions

plan

Community Services South West Rocks Section 94 Contribution Plan

Feb 2008

Open Space & Bushland South West Rocks

Section 94 Contribution Plan

Feb 2008

Traffic & Transport Management

South West Rocks Section 94 Contribution Plan

Feb 2008

Public Domain Improvement South West Rocks Section 94 Contribution

Plan

Feb 2008

Stormwater South West Rocks

Section 94 Contribution Plan

Feb 2008

Other Services South West Rocks Section 94 Contribution Plan

Feb 2008

Plan, Studies & Management

South West Rocks Section 94 Contribution Plan

Feb 2008

Project Administration Section 94 Project Administration

10 Aug 2007

The above plans may be viewed during office hours at the Council

Offices located at 22 Tozer Street, West Kempsey.

Contributions set out in the following Schedule are to be paid to

Council prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate. The

following contributions are current at the date of this consent. The

contributions payable will be adjusted in accordance with the



The contribution rates for specific dates are available from Council

offices during office hours. Payments will only be accepted by cash

or bank cheque.

Schedule of Contributions pursuant to Section 94 of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Public amenity

or service

Unit type No. of

Units

Contribution

Rate (Amount per

Unit)

Contribution

Levied

Date until

which Contribution

rate is

applicable

Office Use

Only Receipting

Codes

Community Services – Library

Increase in Occupation Rate

2.4 $326.00 $782.40 30 June 2013

AYC1

Community Services - MBP


2.4 $400.00 $960.00 30 June 2013

AYC2

Open Space Acquisitions


2.4 $389.00 $933.60 30 June 2013

AYC3


Open Space Increased capacity


2.4 $1,257.00 $3,016.80 30 June 2013

AYC4

Bushland Increase in Occupation Rate

2.4 $28.00 $67.20 30 June 2013

AYC5

Traffic and Transport

Management

Increase in Occupation

Rate

2.4 $1,183.00 $2,839.20 30 June 2013

AYC6

Public Domain Improvements


2.4 $168.00 $403.20 30 June 2013

AYC7

Stormwater Management


2.4 $1,136.00 $2,726.40 30 June 2013

AYC8

Support Services – Bushfire


2.4 $32.00 $76.80 30 June 2013

AYC9

Support Services – Surf Life Savings


2.4 $39.00 $93.60 30 June 2013

AYC10

Plan Studies Increase in Occupation Rate

2.4 $67.00 $160.80 30 June 2013

AYC11

Sub total $12,060.00

S94 Administration 6% of total Section 94 charge applicable

$723.60 AY

TOTAL $12,783.60

20 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate a Certificate of


2000 shall be obtained from Council and provided to the Principal

Certifying Authority. This Certificate of Compliance shall be approved


Certificate.

Please refer to the Advice section of consent for additional

information on water supply works and contributions.



paid to the Long Service Payments Corporation. The amount payable

is currently based on 0.35% of the cost of the work. This is a State

Government Levy and is subject to change without notice. The

requirements of the State Government supersede this condition.



22 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate details

demonstrating full compliance with all General Terms of Approval

shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval.

These details shall be approved by the Principal Certifying Authority





commencement.


24 Prior to any works commencing evidence shall be provided to the

Principal Certifying Authority of public liability insurance cover for a

minimum of $20 million.













26 Prior to the commencement of any works all construction areas shall

be clearly delineated to minimise the construction „footprint‟.







28 Prior to the commencement of any works all controls shall be in

place in accordance with the approved Erosion and Sediment Control

Plan.

29 Prior to the commencement of any works any trees within the

vicinity of the work site that has not been approved for removal

shall be protected by a fence so as to prevent damage and minimise

disturbance to existing ground conditions within the drip line of the

trees. The fence shall be constructed:

a) With a minimum height of 1.2 metres;

b) Outside the drip line of the tree/s;

c) To adequately separate the tree/s from the works; and

d) Include no barbed wire.

The fence shall be maintained for the duration of all works.

30 Prior to the commencement of any works the Aboriginal midden

shall be protected by a fence as shown on the approved plan. The

fence shall be constructed:

a) With a minimum height of 1.2 metres;

b) Not less than ten (10) metres from the midden;


c) To adequately separate the midden from the works; and

d) Include no barbed wire.

The fence shall be erected so as to prevent any damage or

modification to any trees. In the event the fence would intersect a

tree, the fence shall be moved further from the midden as necessary

to preserve the tree and prevent any damage to the tree.

The fence shall be maintained for the duration of all works.

31 Prior to the commencement of any works all contractors and

workers shall be advised of their legal obligations with regard to

Aboriginal cultural materials. This advice should be given to the

contractors and workers in writing and a copy forwarded to

Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) Northern

Aboriginal Heritage Unit (Coffs Harbour) and the Kempsey Local

Aboriginal Lands Council (LALC) for their records. Should any

material evidence thought to be of Aboriginal origin be discovered or

exposed during any stage of the development, work must cease in

that locality. Department of Energy and Climate Change and Water

(DECCW), Kempsey LALC and the Figtree Estate Community should

be contacted for management advice and clearance given by these

organisations before work resumes in the subject area.

32 To ensure that Aboriginal burials are not accidentally uncovered,

both the Kempsey Local Aboriginal Lands Council and Figtree

Aboriginal Community representatives shall be engaged to monitor

all earthworks and vegetation clearing works associated with this

development.



maintenance period.

34 Construction works must not unreasonably interfere with the

amenity of the neighbourhood. In particular construction noise,

when audible on adjoining residential premises, can only occur:



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

35 Construction noise is to be limited as follows:

a) For construction periods of four (4) weeks and under, the L10



not exceed the background level by more than 20 dB(A); or

b) For construction periods greater than four (4) weeks and not

exceeding twenty-six (26) weeks, the L10 noise level

measured over a period of not less than fifteen (15) minutes

when the construction site is in operation shall not exceed the

background level by more than 10 dB(A).






items.

37 If any excavation extends below the level of the base of the footings

of any building, the person causing the excavation to be made:

a) Must preserve and protect the adjoining building from

damage;

b) If necessary, must underpin and support the building in an

approved manner; and

c) Must, at least seven (7) days before excavating below the

level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining

allotment of land, give notice of intention to do so to the

owner of the adjoining allotment of land and furnish

particulars of the excavation to the owner of the building

being erected or demolished.

The owner of any adjoining allotment of land, public road or any

other public place is not to be held liable for any part of the cost of

work carried out, whether carried out on the allotment of land being

excavated or on the public road, any other public place or the

adjoining allotment of land.

38 A visual inspection of any tree over 15cm diameter at breast height

(DBH) for fauna (including nesting fauna) shall be made by a

suitably qualified ecological consultant prior to felling. Any fauna

utilising trees required to be felled shall be allowed to voluntarily

move on prior to removal of the tree.

39 All tree removal shall be carried out by a suitably qualified and

experienced person using directional tree-felling techniques so as

not to damage any retained trees. Details of the proposed method

shall be provided to Council, prior to commencement of any works.

All works shall comply with the provisions of Australian Standard

Protection of Trees on Development Sites AS-4970-2009.

40 A survey certificate prepared by a registered surveyor is to be

submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority upon completion of

the floor slab formwork, before concrete is poured, to ensure all

buildings will be constructed with a minimum finished floor level of

RL 3.37 metres AHD in accordance with this development consent.

41 All Plumbing, Water Supply and Sewerage Works are to be installed

and operated in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the

NSW Code of Practice for Plumbing and Drainage and AS/NZS 3500

Parts 0-5, the approved plans (any notations on those plans) and the

approved specifications.

42 Glazing materials used in the building are to be selected in

accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard AS 1288 SAA

Glass Installation Code and must comply with the requirements of

Australian Standard AS 2208 "Safety Glazing Materials for Use in


Buildings (Human Impact Considerations)" as required by the

Building Code of Australia.

Windows must be constructed to comply with Australian Standard

AS 1288 or Australian Standard AS 2047. Written certification must

be submitted to Council prior to occupation inspection to confirm

that glazing selection, manufacture and installation has been

completed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards for

the job specific project.

43 Water efficient devices, with a AAA rating, must be installed

throughout the building, including:

a) Pressure limiting valves;

b) Dual flush toilet systems, and

c) Water efficient shower nozzles.

All new hot water systems are to have a minimum rating of 3.5

stars.



Council shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority

demonstrating that Council is satisfied that any and all required

works within the road reserve have been completed in full. Council

shall not issue such written evidence until it is satisfied that all

required works have been completed in full in accordance with an

approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and all

accompanying approved plans and details.




demonstrating that Council is satisfied that all required water, sewer

and stormwater works (including all works required by relevant

approvals under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993) have

been completed in full. Council shall not issue such written evidence

until it is satisfied that all required water, sewer and stormwater

works have been completed in full, in accordance with relevant

approvals under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 and

all accompanying approved plans and details.


the issue of any Occupation Certificate, all landscaping shown on the

approved plans shall be completed in full.


the issue of any Occupation Certificate, all fences required by this

consent to protect trees in the vicinity of the works shall be

removed. No fences shall be removed until all works (including any

rectification works) have been completed.


the issue of any Occupation Certificate, evidence shall be provided to

the Principal Certifying Authority demonstrating that all relevant

General Terms of Approval have been completed.















under this consent.








51 A fire detection and alarm system must be installed and maintained

within the building. Such system must comply with the Building Code

of Australia (BCA) Part 3.7.2.2 requirements for a Class 1a building.

52 An inspection must be undertaken by the local water authority prior

to the covering of the works specified below:

a) sanitary plumbing and drainage

b) potable water supply plumbing

c) completion of all plumbing and drainage works

d) rainwater supply

e) re-claimed water supply

The local water supply authority requires a minimum of 24 hours

notice to undertake the inspection. You will need to quote your

Development Application number and property description to

arrange your inspection.

53 Prior to the issue of any Subdivision Certificate, all works associated

with rehabilitation of the old school house café building (DA T6-10-

432) shall be completed in full, and a final Occupation Certificate

issued.

54 Prior to the issue of any Subdivision Certificate an application for a

Subdivision Certificate shall made on the approved form. The

Subdivision Certificate application fees, in accordance with Council's

adopted schedule of fees and charges, shall accompany such

application. Seven (7) copies of the plan of subdivision shall be

submitted with the application for a Subdivision Certificate. The

location of all buildings and/or other permanent improvements


including fences and internal access driveways/roads shall be

indicated on one (1) of the copies.

A Section 88B Instrument and one (1) copy are to be submitted with

the application for a Subdivision Certificate. The final plan of

subdivision and accompanying Section 88B Instrument are to

provide for the items listed in the following table:

Item for inclusion in Plan of Subdivision

and/or Section 88B Instrument

Details of Item

Easements and restrictions for bush fire protection

purposes

The creation of any appropriate or necessary

easements or restrictions to ensure compliance with the “General Terms of Approval” issued by the NSW Rural Fire Service, as provided by this consent. The instrument shall burden proposed

allotments as is appropriate, to the satisfaction of Council. The instrument shall identify Council as the sole party to vary the restriction.

An easement shall also be created in favour of proposed Lot 2332 over proposed Lot 2331 to allow for the establishment and maintenance of an APZ in conjunction with the future development of Lot 2332.

Rights of carriageway

The creation of any necessary rights of carriageway to achieve legal and practical access over approved Lot 2332 to approved Lot 2331.

The creation of a right of carriageway to achieve

legal public access over approved Lot 2332 and approved Lot 2331. This right of carriageway shall be directly adjacent and parallel to

approved driveway, and shall be not less than 2 metres wide.

The instruments shall be to the satisfaction of Council, and shall benefit and burden propose

allotments and parties as is appropriate, to the satisfaction of Council.

Creation of a right of way over Lots 2331 and 2332 of sufficient width and configuration so as

to facilitate the construction of a pedestrian access way connecting from Gregory Street to Buchanan Drive.

Easements for services

The creation of any necessary easements for services. The instrument shall benefit and burden

proposed allotments and parties as is appropriate, to the satisfaction of Council.

55 Prior to the issue of any Subdivision Certificate a certificate from a

registered surveyor shall be submitted to Council certifying that all

pipelines, structures, access driveways and/or services are located

wholly within the relevant easements.

56 Prior to the issue of any Subdivision Certificate written evidence

from the electricity supply authority (which is Essential Energy at

the time this consent was issued) stating that satisfactory

arrangements have been made for the provision of underground


electricity supply throughout the subdivision shall be provided to

Council.

57 Prior to the issue of any Subdivision Certificate written evidence

from the telecommunication authority (which is Telstra at the time

this consent was issued) stating that satisfactory arrangements

have been made for the provision of underground telephone supply

throughout the subdivision shall be provided to Council.

58 Prior to the issue of any Subdivision Certificate evidence shall be

provided to Council demonstrating that all relevant General Terms of

Approval have been completed.

59 No part of the approved dwelling shall be used for any form of

tourist or visitor accommodation at any time.

60 All landscaping as shown on the approved plans shall be maintained

in a neat and tidy manner at all times.

61 All car parking areas shown on the approved plans shall be

maintained and reserved for car parking at all times.

62 Any future fencing around or within the site shall include no barbed

wire on the top or bottom strands.

63 The approved Tree Management Plan, Landscape Plan, Vegetation

and Fuel Management Plan, Waste Minimization Report, and

Schedule of Finishes shall be complied with at all times.

64 A 10 metre wide APZ in a forested landscape cannot support both an

inner and an outer protection zone. Therefore, the entire APZ must

be treated as an inner protection zone. Fuel reduction activities

would be required to ensure that:

a) Ground fuels (dead vegetation up to 6mm diameter) are

removed regularly;

b) Grass is kept short and green;

c) Tree canopies are pruned/removed such that crowns are

separated by two to five metres (including from the dwelling

structures); and

d) Shrubs and understorey is removed such that coverage of no

more than 20% of the APZ area is achieved. Retained

vegetation should be clumped into islands to maximize breaks

in the understory layer.


Rural Fire Service as “general terms of approval” under Section 91

of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the

Rural Fires Act 1997, and shall be complied with at all times:

a) The development proposal is to comply with the subdivision

layout identified on the drawing prepared by Hadlow Design

Services numbered Site Plan (Plan No.50946MNGR), dated 18

December 2012.







b) At the commencement of construction and in perpetuity the

property around the proposed manager‟s residence for a

distance of 19 metres or to the property boundary, whichever

is the lesser, shall be maintained as an inner protection area

(IPA) as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of

'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural

Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection

zones'.

Water and Utilities

The intent of measures is to provide adequate services of water for

the protection of buildings during and after the passage of a bush

fire, and to locate gas and electricity so as not to contribute to the

risk of fire to a building. To achieve this, the following conditions

shall apply:

c) Water, electricity and gas are to comply with section 4.1.3 of

'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

d) Where the rear or most distant part of the manager‟s

residence is greater than 70 metres from the nearest hydrant,

a new hydrant is required to be installed as per Australian

Standard AS 2419.1– 2005 'Fire Hydrant Installations'.

Locations of fire hydrants are to be delineated by blue

pavement markers offset 150mm from the centre of the road.

The direction of offset shall indicate on which side of the road

the hydrant is located. Alternatively, an onsite 10,000 litre

water supply shall be provided for fire fighting purposes. The

onsite supply shall be fitted with a 65mm and a 125mm metal

Storz outlet operated by a gate or ball valve.

Access

The intent of measures for property access is to provide safe access

to/from the public road system for fire fighters providing property

protection during a bush fire and for occupants faced with

evacuation. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

e) Where the manager‟s residence is located greater than 70m

from a reticulated water hydrant, the property access road

shall comply with section 4.1.3 (2) of 'Planning for Bush Fire

Protection 2006'.






f) Construction of the manager‟s residence shall comply with

Sections 3 and 5 (BAL 12.5) Australian Standard AS3959-2009

'Construction of buildings in bush fire-prone areas' and

section A3.7 Addendum Appendix 3 of 'Planning for Bush Fire

Protection'.

Landscaping

g) Landscaping to the site is to comply with the principles of

Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

ADVICE

a) Certain additional approvals and action is required by you prior to

and during construction works. The Environmental Planning and


Obtain a Construction Certificate prior to the commencement of

any works. An application may be lodged with Council, or you

may apply to a private accredited certifier for a Construction

Certificate. An accredited certifier must obtain Council‟s approval

to certain conditions of this development consent, where

indicated before issuing the Construction Certificate.


either Council or an accredited certifier and notify Council of that

appointment. You cannot lawfully commence works without

complying with this requirement.



construction works by lodging the „Notice of Commencement of

Building Works and Appointment of the Principal Certifying

Authority‟ form enclosed. You cannot lawfully commence works


Obtain an Occupation Certificate before commencing occupation

or commencing to use the building or on the completion of other

works including the erection of a sign by lodging the „Application

for Occupation Certificate‟ form enclosed. You cannot lawfully

commence occupation or the use of a building without complying

with this requirement.

b) Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate a Certificate of


2000 shall be obtained from Council and submitted to the Principal


A Certificate of Compliance shall be issued by Council when all

contributions are paid in full and all infrastructure necessary to

service the development has been completed in full.

Contributions set out in the following table are to be paid to Council

prior to the issue of any Certificate of Compliance. Contributions are

levied in accordance with Council‟s Kempsey Shire Council Macleay

Water DSP for Water dated July 2006. The Plans may be viewed

during office hours at Council‟s Offices.


The contributions payable will be adjusted in accordance with



Payments will only be accepted by cash or bank cheque.

The Certificate of Compliance under Section 306 of the Water

Management Act 2000, identifying payment of the contributions, is

to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue


Public service

No. of Equivale

nt Teneme

nts

Contribution Rate

(Amount per ET)

Contribution Levied

Date until which

Contribution rate is

applicable

Office Use Only Receipti

ng Codes

Water 1 ET $8,797.00 $8,797.00 30 June

2013 AW

Sewer 1 ET $7,421.00 $7,421.00 30 June

2013

AS

TOTAL $16,218.00

c) All earthmoving contractors and operators should be instructed that,











Act 1974.

d) This consent does not authorise clearing of native vegetation under

the Native Vegetation Act 2003. Application for clearing of native

vegetation under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 may be required to

be made to the NSW Catchment Management Authority prior to the

clearing of any native vegetation.

It is noted that there are exemptions under the Native Vegetation

Act 2003 for removal of vegetation near boundaries, which may

apply to trees identified by DCP – Old School Site as T11, T22, T24,

etc. Please note that any such exemptions apply ONLY to the Native

Vegetation Act 2003, and do NOT apply to the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Further development consent

must be obtained from Council prior to the removal of any trees

other than those explicitly permitted by this development consent.

In addition, if the proposal could affect any Environmental

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 listed threatened

species it may be necessary to gain approval from the Australian

Government‟s Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,

Population and Communities prior to the commencement of any

works (including any clearing of vegetation).

C That the objectors be advised of Council‟s decision.



Environmental, Social, Economic (Financial): It is not likely that there will be

any adverse environmental, social or economic impacts from the proposal.

Policy or Statutory: The proposal complies with all relevant legislation, policies,

and guidelines.

REPORT DETAILS

Background and Proposal

In 2005 a rezoning application was made to change the zone of the site from 5(a)

Special Uses to 2(c) Residential on the higher portion of the site, and 7(d) Scenic

Protection on the lower portion of the site. The rezoning was supported, and Clause

69 was included in the Kempsey Local Environmental Plan (KLEP) 1987, which

necessitated the preparation of a Development Control Plan (DCP) for the site to

reflect the constraints of the site and to facilitate preservation of the old school

building.

In 2010 Development Application T6-10-432 was lodged to relocate the old school

house building to the lower portion of the site, and change of use to a café. T6-10-

432 was approved subject to conditions, and work has commenced with the

building relocated to the bottom section of the site.

Proposed Development

The current proposal includes:

Single storey dwelling on the 7(d) Scenic Protection zoned portion of the site

to operate as a managers residence for the proposed Old School House Café

approved to be relocated on the site under a separate consent (DAT6-10-432);

Boundary adjustment to contain all the 2(c) Residential zoned land on

proposed Lot 2332, and all the 7(d) Scenic Protection zoned land on proposed

Lot 2331; and

The removal of one (1) tree (T27) to facilitate the location of the dwelling.

(Appendix E - Page SE198)


The proposal has been examined having regard to the Heads of Consideration

identified under Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

1979.

Kempsey Local Environment Plan 1987

Clause 9 of the KLEP 1987 provides that “dwelling-houses” are permissible within

the 7(d) Scenic Protection Zone, only with development consent.

Clause 9(3) provides the objective of the 7(d) Scenic Protection Zone, being:



The objective is to conserve the environmental and scenic quality of visually

significant land by controlling development so that it will accord with the

appearance of the landscape.

It is considered that the proposal will not adversely impact on the scenic qualities of

the land (see “Visual Impact”). As such, the proposal complies with Clause 9(3) as

it is not inconsistent with the objectives of the zone.

The proposal does not comply with Clause 16 relating to the minimum lot size for

the 7(d) Scenic Protection zone. The applicant submitted a SEPP No. 1 application

which was referred to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI) that

provided its concurrence to vary the standard (see “SEPP No. 1 Objection”).

Clause 19 requires consent for tree removal with the applicant seeking consent to

remove one (1) tree.

Clause 32 requires Council to take certain matters into consideration when

assessing development applications in the 7(d) zone, including that:

a) The development will not detract from the scenic quality of the land or the

topographic feature of which the land is a part. (see “Visual Impact”);

b) That the building has been designed and sited so as to minimize disturbance to

the natural appearance of the land from urban areas, arterial roads and scenic

viewpoints, and (see “Visual Impact”);

c) that the erection of the building will result in as little clearing or lopping of trees

as possible. (See “Ecology”)

Clause 69 provides site specific planning controls for the site as follows:

This clause applies to Lots 233 and 317, DP

754396, Gregory Street, South West Rocks, as

shown edged heavy black and distinctively

coloured on the map marked “Kempsey Local

Environmental Plan 1987 (Amendment No 100)”.

Development consent must not be granted for

development on the land to which this clause

applies unless a development control plan has

been prepared for the land that provides for all

of the following:

(a) detailed urban design controls to ensure

that the development will not breach the

existing vegetated skyline and to maintain

a compatible scale with surrounding

buildings that minimises bulk and

overshadowing impacts by progressively

increasing setbacks as the building height

increases, including:

(i) a maximum building height of no more

than 12.5 metres above the level of

the pavement on the adjoining part of

Gregory Street, and

(ii) a minimum setback of 5 metres

from Gregory Street,

(See ―Development Control Plan

Old School Site‖.)


(b) the protection of any Aboriginal heritage

relics on the land, including a buffer zone,

having a 10 metre diameter around the

midden located in the north western corner

of the land,



(c) a stormwater management plan that

addresses water quality targets for surface

water and groundwater,



(d) amelioration of natural and

environmental hazards, including

bushfire,



(e) the protection and enhancement of

Riparian areas and vegetation.




development on land to which this clause applies

unless the Council is satisfied that the following

have been prepared for the development:

(a) a Floodplain Risk Management Plan,

See “Flooding”.

(b) a Heritage Interpretation Strategy.

A detailed strategy was

provided in respect to the

previous application to relocate

and restore the Old School

House. The proposed dwelling

will be used as a manager‟s

residence and is consistent with

the strategy.


development on land to which this clause applies

unless the Council is satisfied that arrangements

have been made for the following:

(a) the ongoing management and

protection of land within Zone No 7(d)

(Scenic Protection Zone),

The 7(d) Scenic Protection zone

will be managed and protected

by the recommended conditions

preventing the removal of any

trees other than those that are

approved for removal, and

require those removed to be

replaced at a 5:1 ratio. (See

―Visual Impact‖)

(b) the retention or on site relocation and

conservation of the existing building on the

land, known as the “Old School House”.

In order to comply with this

clause, a condition is required to

be imposed requiring

completion of the restoration of

the Old School House prior to


release of the Linen Plan for the

subdivision. This will ensure that

separate title to the land is not

created for land on which it is

proposed to erect the residential

flat building on the upper

section of the site, prior to

restoration of the building being

completed.

Despite clause 24 (1), nothing in this plan

prevents the Council from consenting to the

carrying out of development on the land to which

this clause applies for the purpose of medium

density residential flat buildings with a height of

no more than 12.5 metres above the level of the

pavement on the adjoining part of Gregory

Street.

Not applicable to the current

application.

Draft Kempsey Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Draft KLEP 2012)

The proposal is defined as a “dwelling” under Draft KLEP 2012. The intention was to

convert all 7(d) zoned land to E3, thereby retaining the permissibility of dwellings,

however, it is noted that the land was inadvertently mapped as E2 which prohibits

dwellings. In this regard, it is intended to recommend correction of this anomaly

and change the proposed zone to E3 Environmental Management.

Notwithstanding, it is noted that Section 79C requires Council to take any draft

environmental planning instrument (EPI) into consideration in assessing a

development application. The Land and Environment Court has consistently held

that when determining how much weight is to be given to a draft EPI, it is

necessary for Council to determine whether the draft plan is ―certain and

imminent‖.

Having regard to the required corrections and the fact that Council has not yet

considered submissions, Draft KLEP 2012 is neither certain nor imminent. As a

result, little weight should be given to the Draft KLEP 2012 in assessment of this

development application.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

The applicant submitted a SEPP No. 1 application with the Development Application

to vary the 40 hectare development standard contained in Clauses 16(1)(a) and

17(3)(a) of the KLEP 1987 to permit the creation of a proposed Lot 2331 of

2893m2 and the erection of a dwelling on the land. The SEPP No. 1 application was

referred to the DoPI who granted concurrence under Clause 8 for the following

reasons:

a) The proposed boundary alteration and the erection of a dwelling to support

the Old School House Gallery and Café on the 7(d) zoned land is likely to

have a positive community benefit;

b) The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the 7(d) zone to conserve

the environmental and scenic quality of visually significant land; and

c) The application does not raise issues of State or regional significance.

Planning Comment


In order to give effect to the terms of the concurrence and to comply with Clause

69(4)(b) of KLEP 1987, it is necessary to impose a condition requiring completion of

the restoration of the Old School House prior to release of the Linen Plan for the

subdivision.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection &

Council‟s Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management

The tree proposed to be removed is not a preferred Koala food tree as identified by

Council‟s Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM).

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection and NSW

Coastal Policy

As the proposal is within the “coastal zone” SEPP No. 71 applies.

The proposal was referred to DoPI for comment as it is “development within 100m

below mean high water mark of the sea, a bay or an estuary”. DoPI raise no

objection to the proposal.

The proposal was not required to include a Master Plan as it is not a development

type listed in Part 5 of SEPP No. 71.

The proposal complies with matters for consideration under Clause 8 of SEPP No.

71 and the associated NSW Coastal Policy 1997 as follows:

Requirement

Comment

The aims of this Policy set out in clause 2.

The proposal is not considered

contrary to the aims and objectives

as set out in clause 2 of the SEPP.

Existing public access to and along the

coastal foreshore for pedestrians or

persons with a disability should be

retained and, public access to and along

the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or

persons with a disability should be

improved where possible.

The proposal will not reduce or

remove any existing public access to

the foreshore.

Opportunities to provide new public

access to and along the coastal foreshore

for pedestrians or persons with a

disability.

DCP Old School Site includes

requirements for access to be

provided throughout the site,

however it is more appropriate to

require the developer to provide

such access when the residential

area is developed in the future (see

“DCP Old School Site”).

The suitability of development given its

type.

The proposed works are suitable for

a coastal location for the reasons

given in this report.

Any detrimental impact that development

may have on the amenity of the coastal

foreshore.

The proposed works will not

overshadow any public foreshore

reserve.


Requirement

Comment

The scenic qualities of the New South

Wales coast.

The development will not detract

from the scenic qualities of the New

South Wales Coast line (see “Visual

Impact”).

Measures to conserve animals (within the

meaning of the Threatened Species

Conservation Act 1995) and plants (within

the meaning of that Act).

The proposal will not result in any

significant impact on any threatened

animals or plants (see “Ecology”).

Measures to conserve fish (within the

meaning of Part 7A of the Fisheries

Management Act 1994) and marine

vegetation (within the meaning of that

Part).

The proposal will not result in any

significant impact on any threatened

fish or marine vegetation (see

“Ecology”).

Existing wildlife corridors and the impact

of development on these corridors.

There will be no significant impact

upon any wildlife corridor.

The likely impact of coastal processes and

coastal hazards on development and any

likely impacts of development on coastal

processes and coastal hazards.


from, or to, coastal processes.

Measures to reduce the potential for

conflict between land-based and water-

based coastal activities.

The proposal will not conflict with

Buchannan Drive‟s boating/wharf,

fishing, and/or swimming activities.

Measures to protect the cultural places.

See “Heritage”.

Likely impacts of development on the

water quality of coastal water bodies.


on the water quality of coastal water

bodies.

The conservation and preservation of

items of heritage, archaeological or

historic significance.

See “Heritage”.

Only in cases in which a council prepares

a draft local environmental plan that

applies to land to which this Policy

applies, the means to encourage compact

towns and cities.

See “Draft KLEP 2012”.

Only in cases in which a development

application in relation to proposed

development is determined:

(i) the cumulative impacts of the

proposed development on the

environment, and

(ii) measures to ensure that water and

energy usage by the proposed

development is efficient.

No cumulative impacts expected.

The necessary compliance with

BASIX will achieve all efficiency

requirements (see “SEPP BASIX”).

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/summarize/inforce/s/1/?xref=RecordType%3DACTTOC%20AND%20Year%3D1995%20AND%20Actno%3D101&nohits=y





Requirement Comment

Clause 16. The consent authority must

not grant consent to a development

application to carry out development on

land to which this Policy applies if the

consent authority is of the opinion that

the development will, or is likely to,

discharge untreated stormwater into the

sea, a beach, or an estuary, a coastal

lake, a coastal creek or other similar body

of water, or onto a rock platform.

There will be no discharge of

untreated stormwater or effluent in

to any coastal water body or similar

from the proposed development.

The development site is within the “coastal zone” and as such the NSW Coastal

Policy 1997 applies. The proposed development complies with the policy as:

The scale and design of development is appropriate for the location and is in

keeping with natural scenic quality of the surrounding area;

The proposal does not hinder the preservation of beach environments or

beach amenity, and does not restrict public access to or along the coastal

foreshore, or hinder any water or land based recreational activity;

The proposal does not hinder the protection or preservation of native coastal

vegetation outside the clearing proposed; and

The proposal does not hinder the protection or management of the natural,

cultural, recreational and economic attributes of the New South Wales coast.

State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index

(BASIX)

The proposed dwelling is a BASIX affected building. The applicant has submitted a

BASIX Certificate which demonstrates that the proposed dwelling complies with

SEPP BASIX.

North Coast Regional Environmental Plan 1988 (NCREP)

Clause 2B of (NCREP) (Deemed SEPP) requires the aims and objectives of the

NCREP to be considered during the determination of Development Applications. The

proposed development is consistent with relevant objectives and controls of the

NCREP, as follows:

Catchment Management:

Minor earthworks are proposed as part of this application, with the majority of

changes to the natural surface being minor cutting and filling for the building

site. It is considered that sufficient measures can be taken to keep

stormwater runoff at predevelopment flows, and that sufficient erosion and

sediment controls can be put in place during construction to prevent sediment

water pollution.

As such the proposed development is not likely to have any significant impact

on water quality, pollution levels, marine habitat, aquatic reserves, marine

vegetation, or commercial and recreational fishing.



The proposed development will not significantly impact on the ecological

values of the site (see “Ecology”).

Sufficient erosion and sediment controls will be implemented to ensure

proposal will not significantly impact on water quality.

The scale and design of development is appropriate for the location is keeping

with natural scenic quality of the surrounding area (see “Visual Impact”).


The proposed development is within a low risk (Class 5) acid sulfate soil area,

and minimal excavation is proposed. The site is bushfire prone and flood

prone (see “Bushfire” and “Flood”).

Utility Services:

The proposed development has access to water supply, sewer, stormwater,

electricity and telephone services (see “Effluent”, “Water Supply” and

“Stormwater”).

Development Control Plan Old School Site

This proposal is required to comply with the following requirements of DCP Old

School Site.

Part 3 Design

Guidelines

Development Standard Performance Objective

Complies Complies

Yes

/No

Yes

/No

3.1 - Vision for Development of the Site

Innovative design

providing

opportunities for

cultural and

recreational facilities.

Yes

3.2 - Urban Design, Character and Form

Proposals must ensure

that a majority of the

existing tree canopy is

retained.

Development of the

site should also

include the restoration

of the existing old

school building.

Development options

should avoid

absorbing the building

into a larger building

envelop.

Yes


Part 3 Design

Guidelines


Complies Complies

Yes

/No

Yes

/No

3.2.1 Detailed design

analysis required

demonstrating

compliance with all

design principals and

guidelines identified

by this DCP.

Yes Development within

the site will respect

the natural,

historical and

archaeological

values of the site.

Yes

3.2.2 As above. No* Development will

positively

contribute to the

Gregory Street

streetscape

amenity through

restraining building

height and bulk to

below the

vegetated canopy

and remaining clear

of the steep,

densely vegetated

scenic protection

zoned land.

Yes

3.2.3 Development shall

incorporate a

minimum 5 m wide

set-back from the

Gregory Street with a

building height to a

maximum height no

greater than 12.5m.

N/A Development must

ensure that

buildings will not

breach the existing

vegetated skyline

across the site

N/A

3.2.4 minimise bulk and

overshadowing

impacts

Yes Development shall

respect the

character and

amenity of the local

street environment.

Yes

ensure that the

building design is not

in strong visual

contrast with the

positive features of

the surrounding built

environment.

Yes Yes

ensure that on-site

car parking is not

visually intrusive and

allows the building to

address the street.

Yes Yes


Part 3 Design

Guidelines


Complies Complies

Yes

/No

Yes

/No

3.2.5 Development shall:

ensure that key

external locations

and spaces within the

development, such

as the front door, are

directly visible from

Gregory Street;

N/A Development shall

incorporate features

that follow safer by

design principles

and practices.

Yes

ensure that new

planting along the

Gregory Street

frontage includes

minimal medium

sized vegetation to

avoid potential hiding

places that may

attract anti-social

behaviour;

N/A N/A

include legible, well

lit and accessible

community spaces;

and

N/A N/A

ensure windows from

the development

overlook community

areas to enhance

passive surveillance.

Yes Yes

3.2.6

Energy Conservation

Development shall:

incorporate passive

solar design

principles to

maximize day-

lighting and passive

heating

opportunities;

Yes Development shall

minimise ecological

impacts by

adopting

environmentally

sustainable

principles in the

design, construction

and occupancy

phases of

development.

Yes

incorporate energy

efficient design

principles to

minimize active

heating and cooling

requirements;

Yes Yes

specify energy

efficient equipment

and lighting systems;

Yes Yes


Part 3 Design

Guidelines


Complies Complies

Yes

/No

Yes

/No

provide efficient

control and effective

maintenance

systems, including

monitoring of energy

consumption;

Yes Yes

optimise

opportunities to use

renewable energy

sources and

incorporate

renewable energy

technologies

wherever possible;

and

Yes Yes

minimise embodied

energy in

construction

materials.

Yes Yes

3.2.6

Water Conservation

Development shall:

facilitate

opportunities for on-

site treatment and

reuse of grey water

and stormwater; and

Yes Yes

minimise water

consumption through

practices such as:

installing rainwater

and stormwater

collection tanks;

providing water

efficient facilities and

equipment;

installing reuse

systems for grey

water; and

providing effective

monitoring

Yes Yes

preserve natural

features of the site

by minimising the

level of intervention

required to establish

development on the

site such as cut and

fill and tree removal.

Yes Yes


Part 3 Design

Guidelines


Complies Complies

Yes

/No

Yes

/No

3.2.6

Building Materials

Conservation

Development shall:

reuse existing site

features or materials;

N/A N/A

minimise use of

materials with high

embodied energy;

Yes Yes

minimise life cycle

costs through using

materials and

equipment requiring

minimal maintenance

and with maximized

expected useful life;

and

Yes Yes

minimise building

materials that have

damaging ecological

effects during

harvesting,

manufacturing and /

or construction.

Yes Yes

3.2.6

Waste Minimisation

Development shall

minimise

construction waste

going to land fill

through a material

tracking system; and

provide facilities that

assist and foster

minimisation and

recycling of waste

production by

building occupants

through separation

and composting

systems.

Yes

* Yes

3.2.6

Appropriate Landscape

Design

Development shall:

incorporate locally

indigenous native

vegetation as the

dominant palette for

new planting;

Yes

*

Yes

incorporate new

plants that will

facilitate year-round

moderation of

internal climate; and

Yes

*

Yes


Part 3 Design

Guidelines


Complies Complies

Yes

/No

Yes

/No

maximise the reuse

on site of rock and

topsoil emanating

from excavations and

shredded vegetation

for mulch.

Yes

*

Yes

3.2.6

Provide Benefit for the

Wider Community

Development shall:

respect, reflect and

integrate the

development with the

surrounding culture

and activities of the

district;

Yes

*

Yes

create facilities that

are accessible and

available for

community use; and

No* No*

purchase local

services and products

where possible.

Yes Yes

3.3 Flora and Fauna

3.3.1 Development on the

site shall provide for

the following:

clear delineation of

all construction areas

to minimise the

construction

„footprint‟;

Yes Development

should focus on the

existing cleared

areas of the site.

Yes

directional felling of

all trees to be

removed into

development area in

order to minimise

potential damage to

retained vegetation;

Yes

*

Yes

future landscaping of

the site should be

undertaken utilising

nectar producing

native species;

Yes

*

Yes


Part 3 Design

Guidelines


Complies Complies

Yes

/No

Yes

/No

a visual inspection of

any tree over 15cm

DBH for fauna

(including nesting

fauna) should be

made prior to felling.

Any fauna utilising

trees required to be

felled should be

allowed to voluntarily

move on prior to

removal of the tree;

Yes

*

Yes

retention, where

practical, of any

hollow-bearing trees;

Yes

*

Yes

if fencing is required,

only wildlife-friendly

fencing should be

installed (i.e. no

barbed wire on the

top or bottom

strands);

Yes

*

Yes

restriction of bushfire

management

obligations to outside

of 7(d) zoned land;

and

No* Yes

a Vegetation and

Fuel Management

Plan to balance the

management of any

Asset Protection

Zones with sensitive

environmental

management and to

improve the

surrounding site

condition which is

highly degraded by

weeds.

Yes

*

Yes

3.3.2 No trees shall be

removed to

accommodate

development other

than identified in

Appendix 1 to this

DCP.

No* Disturbance of trees

in the western

group should be

kept to a minimum

in order to continue

to offer

environmental

landscape and

amenity value to

Yes


Part 3 Design

Guidelines


Complies Complies

Yes

/No

Yes

/No

the site for many

years, including

significant shading

and cooling during

hot summer

afternoons.

3.3.3 Any future

development must

comply with the

provisions of

Australian Standard

Protection of Trees

on Development

Sites AS-4970-2009.

Yes

*

Protection of

significant trees and

vegetation during

construction works.

Yes

3.4 Archaeology

3.4.1

The Recorded Midden

Site

Applications for

development shall

include measures to

protect the Aboriginal

midden located in the

north eastern corner

of the site including:

provision of a ten

(10) metre diameter

buffer zone to ensure

protection of the

midden by ensuring

no disturbance or

vegetative clearing;

Yes

*

Development of the

site shall

acknowledge and

conserve items of

environmental

heritage.

Yes

construction-related

disturbance should

be avoided around

the perimeter of the

midden buffer zone

by temporarily

fencing to exclude

people and vehicles

for the full duration

of developmental

activities and this

fence only be

removed at the end

of the development

activities;

Yes Yes


Part 3 Design

Guidelines


Complies Complies

Yes

/No

Yes

/No

the area (including

the buffer zone)

should be clearly

marked and

annotated on all

relevant maps and

plans to ensure that

the midden is not

inadvertently

disturbed or

destroyed during the

course of future

maintenance or

development works;

and

Yes Yes

no surface or

subsurface

disturbance shall

occur in the site

protection area

unless formally

approved by the

Department of

Environment, Climate

Change and Water

(DECCW).

Yes Yes

3.4.2

Aboriginal Relics

To ensure that

Aboriginal burials are

not accidentally

uncovered, both the

Kempsey LALC and

Figtree Aboriginal

Community

representatives shall

be engaged to

monitor all initial

earthworks

associated with

future development,

including any

necessary vegetation

clearance.

Yes

*

Development of the

site shall

acknowledge and

conserve items of

environmental

heritage.

Yes


Part 3 Design

Guidelines


Complies Complies

Yes

/No

Yes

/No

A scarred tree of

possible Aboriginal

origin has been

recorded

approximately 6.5 m

south of the southern

study boundary, near

Buchanan Drive. In

order to avoid

disturbance of or

damage to this tree,

it is recommended

that no vegetation

clearance or other

development

activities be

undertaken south of

the southern

boundary of Lot 233.

Yes Yes

Every effort shall be

made to retain as

much of the existing

vegetation as

possible including

Aboriginal food and

medicinal plant

species.

Yes Yes

Development

proponents must

liaise directly with

the Figtree Aboriginal

Community with the

objective of

developing an

acceptable

landscaping strategy

that will mitigate any

adverse effects of

site development on

the present lifestyle

and amenity of

Figtree residents.

This strategy may

include the planting

of screening trees

along the northern

boundary of the

Figtree Estate and

shall be submitted

with any application

for development.

Yes Yes


Part 3 Design

Guidelines


Complies Complies

Yes

/No

Yes

/No

3.4.3

Legal Obligations

Relating to Aboriginal

relics

Prior to the

commencement of

any vegetation

clearing or

construction activities

associated with

development of the

site, it is

recommended that

all construction

contractors and their

employees be

advised of their legal

obligations with

regard to Aboriginal

cultural materials.

This advice should be

given in writing and a

copy forwarded to

DECC Northern

Aboriginal Heritage

Unit (Coffs Harbour)

for its records.

Should any material

evidence thought to

be of Aboriginal

origin be discovered

or exposed during

any stage of the

development, work

must cease in that

locality. DECCW,

Kempsey LALC and

the Figtree Estate

Community should

be contacted for

management advice

and clearance given

by these

organisations before

work resumes in the

subject area.

Yes

*

Development of the

site shall

acknowledge and

conserve items of

environmental

heritage.

Yes

3.4.4

The Old School

Building

Applications for

development shall

provide for retention

of the Old School

Building in its current

location unless the

consent authority is

satisfied that the

following criteria

have been met:

N/A Development of the

site shall

acknowledge and

conserve items of

environmental

heritage.

N/A


Part 3 Design

Guidelines


Complies Complies

Yes

/No

Yes

/No

a. a report prepared

by a structural

engineer with

demonstrated

experience in the

conservation of

heritage buildings is

provided which

demonstrates that

relocation of the

building is feasible;

and

submission of a

strategy prepared by

an experienced

heritage architect

providing for

relocation and

reproduction of any

necessary elements

of the old building

using new materials

and any salvageable

materials from the

existing building so

that it remains

N/A N/A

3.5 Bushfire

3.5.1 Development must

comply with the

provisions of

Planning for Bushfire

Protection, 2006.

Yes To provide for the

protection of

human life and to

minimise impacts

on property from

the threat of

bushfire, while

having regard to

development

potential, on-site

amenity, scenic

values and

protection of the

environment.

Yes

3.5.2 A 10 metre wide APZ

in a forested

landscape cannot

support both an inner

and an outer

protection zone.

Therefore, the entire

APZ must be treated

as an inner

Yes

*

To provide for the

protection of

human life and to

minimise impacts

on property from

the threat of

bushfire, while

having regard to

development

Yes


Part 3 Design

Guidelines


Complies Complies

Yes

/No

Yes

/No

protection zone. Fuel

reduction activities

would be required to

ensure that:

ground fuels (dead

vegetation up to

6mm diameter) are

removed regularly;

potential, on-site

amenity, scenic

values and

protection of the

environment.

grass is kept short

and green;

Yes Yes

tree canopies are

pruned/removed

such that crowns are

separated by two to

five metres (including

from the dwelling

structures); and

Yes Yes

shrubs and

understorey is

removed such that

coverage of no more

than 20% of the APZ

area is achieved.

Retained vegetation

should be clumped

into islands to

maximize breaks in

the understory layer.

Yes Yes

3.5.3 APZs must not be

planned within areas

zoned 7(d) (Scenic

Protection Zone) due

to the amount of

vegetation removal

required. Similarly,

fire fighter access,

provision of water,

defendable space and

other aspects of

planning for bushfire

protection must not

be planned within

areas retained for

native vegetation due

to the level of

disturbance required

to manage such

facilities and

infrastructure. The

provisions of the

No* APZs must be

consistent with the

zone objectives.

Yes


Part 3 Design

Guidelines


Complies Complies

Yes

/No

Yes

/No

Planning for Bushfire

Protection 2006 must

be incorporated

within the 2(c)

Residential Zone.

3.6 Hydrology

3.6.1 Stormwater flow rate

criteria specified in

Section 3.6 are to be

met

Yes

*

Stormwater to be

designed to result

in a net

improvement in

runoff water quality

Yes

3.6.2 Council‟s

Development

Specification D5

must be met

Yes

*

Water Sensitive

Urban design

principles are to be

applied.

Yes

3.6.3 A Stormwater

Management Plan is

required

Yes

*

Stormwater

treatment must

meet the flow rate

and detention

volume calculations

of the DCP

Yes

3.6.4 Development to be

designed to cater for

the ARI 1% flood

having regard to an

expected 2100 Sea

Level Rise of 0.91

metres.

Yes

*

Impacts of flooding

to be minimised

Yes

3.6.5 Geotechnical report

to be provided with

the DA

No* Development to be

restricted to

Terrains “A” & “C”

No*

3.7 Traffic and Access

3.7.1 Provide a “Give Way”

hold line 1 meter

behind the Gregory

Street kerb line

Yes

*

Ensure that the

development does

not impact on

traffic safety

Yes

“No stopping” signs

to be placed on

Gregory Street south

of access point

Yes

*

Yes

3.7.2 Provide pedestrian

link from Gregory

street to Back Creek

No* Improve pedestrian

linkages within and

adjacent to the site

No*

Provide a formalised

roadway and parking

area adjacent to

Back Creek.

No* No*


*DCP Old School Site provides:

Where it is proposed to vary any prescribed development standard, the

Statement of Environmental Effects required to support the development

application shall include a written justification as to why the development

standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances. Without

limiting the matters the applicant may wish to raise in support of variations

to development standards, the consent authority must be satisfied that the

underlying relevant performance objective will be met.

Several aspects of the proposal are at variance to the development standards and,

therefore requires consideration of the performance objectives of the DCP. In order

to satisfy other aspects of the DCP, conditions are required to be imposed.

3.2.2 - Remaining clear of the steep, densely vegetated scenic protection zoned

land

This control relates to the large residential flat building proposed for the site. The

proposed boundary adjustment along the zone boundary with the residential flat

building to be contained on the upper part of the site wholly within the residential

zone is consistent with the intent of the control.

3.2.6 – Waste Minimisation

In order to meet this requirement, a condition is recommended to be imposed

requiring submission of a Waste Management Plan with the required Construction

Certificate to maximise recycling.

3.2.6 - Appropriate Landscape Design

A condition is recommended to be imposed requiring submission of a landscaping

plan with the required Construction Certificate incorporating the requirements of

the DCP.

3.2.6 – Provide Benefit for the Wider Community

It is considered that aspects of the DCP including upgrading of the Back Creek area

and provision of a pedestrian link should not apply to the dwelling and should be

considered in conjunction with the application for the residential flat building (see

3.7.2)

3.3.1(b) – Directional Tree Felling

In accordance with the DCP, a condition is recommended to be imposed requiring

tree removal to be carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced person using

directional tree felling methods in order to minimise damage to other trees.

3.3.1(c) – Landscaping to include Nectar Producing Species

See ―3.2.6 - Appropriate Landscape Design‖

3.3.1(d) – Inspection of Tree Hollows

A condition is recommended requiring an inspection of all hollows by a suitably

qualified ecological consultant prior to felling of any trees.

3.3.1(e) – Retention of Trees


See 3.3.2 below.

3.3.1(f) – Wildlife Friendly Fencing

It is proposed to address this requirement in the recommended conditions of

consent.

3.3.1(g) - Restriction of Bushfire Management Obligations to Outside of 7(d) Zoned

Land

The proposed dwelling requires the maintenance of an Asset Protection Zone (APZ)

within the 7(d) zone which is contrary to the DCP. No objection is raised on the

basis that no canopy trees are required to be removed to establish the APZ.

3.3.1(h) – Vegetation Fuel Management Plan

In accordance with the requirements of the DCP, a condition is recommended

requiring submission of a Vegetation Fuel Management Plan indicating the number

and species proposed to be established within the APZ. The area should also include

the area outside the APZ which is indicated on the application plans as being suited

to rehabilitation.

3.3.2 - No trees Shall be Removed to Accommodate Development Other Than

Identified in Appendix 1 to this DCP.

The plans submitted with the application include the removal of Tree No. 27 which

was not included in the approval for relocation of the Old School House and

driveway. In addition, Tree No. 16 and Tree No. 18 are located within four (4)

metres of the proposed dwelling, thereby requiring careful management to prevent

both damage to the trees due to excavation and damage to the dwelling due to

falling limbs leading to their ultimate removal.

Whilst Tree 27 will need to be removed, being less than one (1) metre from the

dwelling, it is recommended that Tree 16 and Tree 18 be retained by placing the

onus on the applicant to prepare a Tree Management Plan indicating the means to

protect the root zone of the trees, including any required lopping to remove

potentially dangerous limbs. Such plan is to be prepared by a suitably qualified

Arborist in strict compliance with Australian Standard Protection of Trees on

Development Sites AS-4970-2009 and submitted for approval of Council prior to

release of the required Construction Certificate.

The impacts of removing a single tree (Tree No. 27) are not considered to be of

such significance as to justify refusal of the application.

3.3.3 – Protection of Trees

See 3.3.2 above.

3.4.1 - The Recorded Midden Site

Although addressed in conjunction with the Old School House application, the

requirement to protect the middens should also apply to the dwelling construction

to prevent potential damage in the event the owners seek to act on the dwelling

approval before completing restoration of the Old School House.

3.4.2 – Liaison with Aboriginal Community


In order to comply with the DCP a condition is recommended that the Kempsey

LALC and Figtree Aboriginal Community representatives be engaged to monitor all

initial earthworks associated with future development, including any necessary

vegetation clearance.

3.4.3 – Legal Obligations Relating to Aboriginal Relics

A condition is recommended to reflect the requirement to inform all persons

associated with the development of their legal obligations in the event any relic is

unearthed during construction.

3.5.2 – Bushfire

A condition is recommended that incorporates the requirements of this clause.

3.5.3 - APZs Must Not be Planned Within Areas Zoned 7(d) (Scenic Protection Zone)

The proposed dwelling requires the maintenance of an Asset Protection Zone (APZ)

within the 7(d) zone which is contrary to the DCP. No objection is raised on the

basis that no canopy trees are required to be removed to establish the APZ.

3.6.5 - Geotechnical Report to be Provided with the DA

A geotechnical report has not been provided as required. Restricting development

within Terrain “B” is more critical in respect to the large residential flat building

planned for the site. Having regard to the light construction of the dwelling,

submission of a geotechnical report certifying the footings should be required at

Construction Certificate stage.

3.7.1 – Traffic Management Measures

As the dwelling will gain access via the approved access road linking to Gregory

Street, the required intersection treatment and signage should be required as part

of the conditions of consent.

3.7.2- Provide Pedestrian Link from Gregory Street to Back Creek and a Formalised

Roadway and Parking Area Adjacent to Back Creek

Having regard to the scale of the development, it is not considered reasonable to

require any contributions or works adjacent to Back Creek or to construct a

pedestrian accessway, which should be considered in conjunction with the proposed

residential flat building.

However, in order to facilitate the future provision of a pedestrian link as required

by the DCP, a condition should be imposed requiring the creation of a Right of Way

over the proposed driveway and of sufficient width to facilitate the future

construction of a Pedestrian Link from Gregory Street to Back Creek.

Visual Impact

The proposal is for a single storey dwelling at the lower portion of the site adjoining

Buchannan Drive. There is an existing approval to relocate the Old School House to

this lower portion of the site, and the proposed dwelling will be located next to it.

The proposal is in keeping with the character of the area by utilising materials,

colours and building design that is in keeping with the old school house building.

The character, design and external appearance of the proposal is in keeping with

the old school house building, and will utilise like materials and colours.


The proposal will not result in the removal of visually important vegetation or

obscure any important views. The proposal is compatible in the visual and physical

environment, and is not offensive, jarring or unsympathetic to the surrounding built

and natural environment.

Heritage

The site includes Aboriginal and European heritage values, including the Old School

House, an Aboriginal midden site, and an Aboriginal scar tree on the neighbouring

property to the south (Lot 310 DP754396).

The old school house is not a listed heritage item, however the rezoning identified

that local people attach heritage significance to the building. The proposed dwelling

has been designed to complement the Old School House building, with regard to

design, scale, siting, materials, colours, etc. The proposal will not conflict with

heritage values of the Old School House.

The Local Environmental Study conducted during the rezoning of the site identified

an Aboriginal midden site in the north-western corner of the property. The midden

was accurately located by archaeologists during the process, and a fence was

erected to protect the site from trespass and damage. No works are proposed

within the fenced area, so no further impact is likely to the midden.

While there has been some debate over the existence of an Aboriginal scar tree

nearby, there are no proposed works on Lot 310 DP754396, so the tree will not be

affected.

Ecology

The proposed development requires the removal of one (1) tree. Given the limited

clearing involved, the proposal is unlikely to have any significant impact on

threatened species, and a Species Impact Statement is not required to be prepared.

Bushfire

The land is mapped as bushfire prone land. Due to the boundary adjustment

component of the proposal, this application was referred to the Rural Fire Service

(RFS) as integrated development. The RFS has provided its concurrence and

General Terms of Approval (see “Integrated Development”).

Flooding

The site is affected by the 1% AEP flood. The finished floor level of the dwelling will

be constructed not less than 500mm above the 1% AEP flood level including a

contingency of 91cm to accommodate the anticipated 2100 sea level. In larger

floods there is a direct evacuation route to Gregory Street and the adjoining

commercial area. The proposal is acceptable with regard to flooding, subject to the

recommended condition requiring an engineer to certify that the structure is

capable of withstanding the forces of floodwater.

Traffic and Parking

The proposal is expected to generate minimal traffic and is not expected to have a

significant impact on traffic movements along the external road network.

Access within the site will be via the driveway which was approved for the Old

School House Café, and will provide suitable access to the proposed development. A


single covered carparking space has been provided, which is sufficient for a single

dwelling.

The recommended conditions require contributions to be paid in accordance with

Council‟s Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Contribution Plan 2009 to fund

future upgrade of Council‟s road system.

Stormwater

The applicant has demonstrated that stormwater can be adequately managed and

maintained to pre-development flows. Roof-water will be harvested and used to

supplement the proposal‟s water supply. The recommended conditions require a

detailed stormwater management plan to be prepared.

Integrated Development

In accordance with the integrated development requirements under Section 71 of

the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, this application was referred

to the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) under the Rural Fires Act 1997. General terms

of approval (GTA) have been issued by the RFS, which have been included in the

recommended conditions of consent.

Public Exhibition

The proposal was advertised in accordance with Council‟s Policy from 27 February

2013 to 29 March 2013.

Fifty-six (56) objections were received, being one (1) individual letter, and one (1)

petition in the form of fifty-five (55) pro-forma letters. One (1) letter of support

was received from the Figtree Estate Aboriginal Community, which contained a

petition with thirty-seven (37) signatures (Appendix F - Page SE199).

Objection

Planning Comment

1

Development is contrary to the

Mid North Coast Regional

Strategy (MNCRS).

1

The MNCRS is a guiding document

for the preparation of LEPs, policies

and strategies, not the assessment

of individual Development

Applications. However, the issues

raised have been addressed in

“North Coast Regional Environmental

Plan”, “SEPP No. 71”, and “DCP –

Old School Site”.

2

Changing the boundary of the

lots will change the zone of

the land from 7(d) to 2(c).

2

The zoning of the land is not

affected by changing lot boundaries.

3

Visual impacts on the scenic

qualities of the area.

3

See “Visual Impact”.

4

The manager‟s residence is

unnecessary as there is

nothing to manage.

4

Whether or not used as a manager‟s

residence the proposed development

is for a “dwelling” which is

permissible with consent and will be

located immediately adjacent to the

approved café.



5

It is not a residential area.

5

Dwellings are permitted with

consent in the 7(d) Scenic Protection

zone (see “Kempsey LEP 1987”).

6

Development must protect

unique character of towns and

villages to encourage tourism.

6

There is no reason to believe the

proposal will drive tourism away

from the South West Rocks area.

7

The developer is only

concerned with short term

profit.

7

Not a planning concern under

Section 79C of the EPA Act 1979.

1211 RBP

SUMMARY

Reporting that Council has received a Development Application for the construction

of a 42 metre telecommunications tower at Dondingalong for which objections has

been received.

Applicant: Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd

Subject Property: Lot 31 DP771054 1 Bottle Tree Lane, Dondingalong

Zone: 1(a1) (Rural “A1” Zone)

A That consent be granted subject to the following conditions:





Plan No./

Supporting

Document


SITE SPECIFIC

NOTES AND

ANTENNA TABLE

(DWG 2KMS-51-05-

EUR-H-C1)

03 AURECON

AUSTRALIA

PTY LTD

06-08-12

OVERALL SITE PLAN

(DWG 2KMS-51-05-

EUR-H-C2)

02 AURECON

AUSTRALIA

PTY LTD

19-06-12

SITE SET-OUT PLAN

(DWG 2KMS-51-05-

EUR-H-C3)

02 AURECON

AUSTRALIA

PTY LTD

19-06-12

SITE ELEVATION

AND DETAILS (DWG

2KMS-51-05-EUR-H-

03 AURECON

AUSTRALIA

PTY LTD

07-09-12

1.4 Proposed Telecommunication Tower Dondingalong File: T6-12-296



Plan No./

Supporting

Document


C4)




















THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO THE

ISSUE OF ANY CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

CONSTRUCTION

4 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate engineer‟s details




engineer‟s details must be prepared by an appropriately qualified,





SOILS

5 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate an Acid Sulfate Soil

Management Plan shall be provided to the Principal Certifying

Authority for approval. This Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan shall

demonstrate the measures to be employed to manage disturbance of

acid sulfate soils on the site in accordance with Acid Sulfate Soil

Manual (NSW ASSMAC 1998). This Acid Sulfate Soil Management




6 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate a Sediment and



be prepared shall be prepared by an appropriately experienced and

qualified professional, in accordance with the most recent version of

the Landcom publication "Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and

Construction." This Sediment and Erosion Control Plan shall include

measures to manage weeds in and around the construction areas.

This Sediment and Erosion Control Plan shall be approved by the


WASTE WATER

7 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate stormwater

drainage engineer‟s details for the provision of a stormwater

drainage system to convey all existing and proposed stormwater

flows through this development shall be submitted to Principal

Certifying Authority for approval. These stormwater drainage

engineer‟s details shall be prepared by an appropriately

experienced, qualified and practicing Civil Engineer in accordance

with Council's Adopted Engineering Standard, the most recent

version of Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987), and AS/NZS

3500.3:2003 - Plumbing and drainage, Part 3: Stormwater drainage.

The stormwater drainage system shall be designed for 1 in 10 year

storm event. All piped drainage lines over adjoining land are to be

located within drainage easements. All such stormwater drainage

engineer‟s details shall be approved by the Principal Certifying


LEVIES



paid to the Long Service Payments Corporation. The amount

payable is currently based on 0.35% of the cost of the work. This is

a State Government Levy and is subject to change without notice.

The requirements of the State Government supersede this condition.



THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO ANY

WORKS COMMENCING

NOTIFICATION




commencement.

INSURANCE

10 Prior to the commencement of any works evidence shall be provided

to the Principal Certifying Authority of public liability insurance

cover for a minimum of $20 million.

SITE PREPARATION




















13 All controls shall be in place in accordance with the approved

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

14 All controls shall be in place in accordance with the approved Acid

Sulfate Soil Management Plan.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH DURING ANY

WORKS

INSURANCE



maintenance period.

EXECUTION

16 Construction and demolition works must not unreasonably interfere

with the amenity of the neighbourhood. In particular construction

and demolition noise, when audible on adjoining residential

premises, can only occur:



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

17 Construction and demolition noise is to be limited as follows:

a) For construction and demolition periods of four (4) weeks and

under, the L10 noise level measured over a period of not less

than fifteen (15) minutes when the construction site is in


operation shall not exceed the background level by more than

20 dB(A); or

b) For construction and demolition periods greater than four (4)

weeks and not exceeding twenty-six (26) weeks, the L10



not exceed the background level by more than 10 dB(A).

18 All erosion and sediment controls shall be maintained at all times in

accordance with the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

until the site has been stabilised by permanent vegetation or hard

surface.

19 The approved Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan shall be

implemented during, and for any required period after, any works

approved by this consent.





items.

21 Any tree that qualifies as a koala habitat tree in accordance with

Council‟s Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management shall not be

removed without separate consent first being obtained from Council.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO

THE OCCUPATION/USE OF ANY PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT

HAZARD REDUCTION

22 The tower shall be obstacle marked. For obstacle markings

requirements refer to the Manual of Standards (MOS) Part 139

Section 8.10 Paragraph 9.10.2.6.

The tower shall be obstacle lit with a low intensity steady red light.

For detailed obstacle lighting requirements refer to MOS Section

9.4.2 and 9.4.6.

The construction of the structure shall be reported to CASA in

accordance with the CASA Advisory Circular AC 139-08(0) 'Reporting

Of Tall Structures' and the requirement to report the construction of

structures which are within 30km of an aerodrome and 30m or more

above ground level (AGL).

WASTE WATER


the issue of any Occupation Certificate, stormwater shall be

adequately collected and disposed of in a controlled manner in

accordance with the approved stormwater drainage engineer‟s

details.

COMPLETION















under this consent.








THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH AT ALL TIMES

HAZARD REDUCTION

26 All obstacle marking and lighting is to be maintained in serviceable

condition and any outage immediately reported by the aerodrome

operator. Remote monitoring of lighting should be considered.

BUSHFIRE


Rural Fire Service as under Section 79BA(1A) of the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and shall be complied with at all

times:

a) The recommendations are based on the plans prepared by

Aurecon, titled „Overall Site Plan‟, numbered 2KMS-51-04-

DON-B-C2 and dated 13.09.12(REV).






b) At the commencement of building works and in perpetuity the

property around the development, to a distance of 10 metres

or the property boundary, shall be maintained as an inner

protection area (IPA) as outlined within section 4.1.3 and

appendix 5 of „Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006‟ and the

NSW Rural Fire Service‟s document „Standards for asset

protection zones‟.






c) The proposed development shall be designed to withstand

40kW/m² of radiant heat. Structures and associated

infrastructure should be able to resist ember penetration.

ADVICE

a) Certain additional approvals and action required by the by you prior

to and during construction works. The Environmental Planning and


Obtain a Construction Certificate prior to the commencement

of any works. An application may be lodged with Council, or

you may apply to a private accredited certifier for a

Construction Certificate. An accredited certifier must obtain

Council‟s approval to certain conditions of this development

consent, where indicated before issuing the Construction

Certificate.


either Council or an accredited certifier and notify Council of

that appointment. You cannot lawfully commence works




construction works by lodging the „Notice of Commencement

of Building Works and Appointment of the Principal Certifying

Authority‟ form enclosed. You cannot lawfully commence

works without complying with this requirement.

Obtain an Occupation Certificate before commencing

occupation or commencing to use the building or on the

completion of other works including the erection of a sign by

lodging the „Application for Occupation Certificate‟ form

enclosed. You cannot lawfully commence occupation or the

use of a building without complying with this requirement.

b) All earthmoving contractors and operators should be instructed that,











Act 1974.

B That the objectors be notified of Council‟s decision.



Environmental: No significant environmental issues.

Social: The proposal would provide the public with greater access to wireless

telecommunications technology (mobile phone, internet, social media, etc.).

Economic (Financial): Nil

Policy or Statutory: The proposal complies with the KLEP 1987 or Section 79C of

the EPA Act 1979.

REPORT DETAILS

The proposal is to erect a 42 metre mobile phone tower at the corner of Bottle Tree

Road and Pipers Creek Road Dondingalong (Appendix G - Page SE260). The

tower is part of the NBN high speed broadband network to advance broadband

service across Australia.

The total height of the new tower, including all panels and antenna, will be 42

metres consisting of a 40 metre high monopole on a concrete slab in a compound

with associated infrastructure including outdoor cabinets, cable ladder, power

distribution board, antennae and be surrounded by a chain wire security fence

approximately 60 m2 in size.

The site is a privately owned parcel of land. The nearest adjoining residence is the

owners dwelling which is approximately 80 metres from the proposed facility, and

the nearest residence not associated with the development is approximately 275

metres from the proposed facility. There is also a large vegetation buffer between

the proposed facility and surrounding dwellings.

Site Selection

Generally, this site was chosen because of its link in the Fixed Wireless Network

which is determined by operational, geographical factors as well as the above.

Co-location opportunities in this instance were not available in this location. The site

offers:

Sufficient setback from adjoining property dwellings and public view as to

not cause an unreasonable visual or amenity impact;

Elevated position in the locality to provide the required coverage to the

surrounding area;

Location provides a level of visual screening from existing vegetation nearby

without requiring any major vegetation removal;

An existing high-voltage power easement provides a buffer between

residences and the proposed location; and

Limited requirement to clear existing vegetation to comply with Bushfire

Asset Protection Zone (APZ).




The matter has been assessed in accordance with the Heads of Consideration as

identified by Section 79C (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

1979, with the following matters of particular relevance.

Kempsey Local Environmental Plan 1987 (KLEP)

The subject land is zoned 1(a1) Rural under KLEP 1987. The proposal is not a

defined use, and is therefore permissible with the consent.

In accordance with Clause 41 of the KLEP 1987 the proposal was referred to the

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for comment as the applicant identified that

the proposed tower penetrates the Kempsey Airports Obstacle Limitation Surface

(OLS). CASA has identified measures required to reduce any hazard to aircraft

using the Kempsey Airport (see “Potential Aviation Hazard”).

Draft Kempsey Local Environmental Plan 2012

The land is proposed to be rezoned to RU2 Rural under Draft KLEP 2012. The

proposal is not a defined use within the Land Use Matrix of the Draft KLEP 2012,

and is therefore permissible with consent.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection

See “Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management.‖

State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008

The Mid-North Coast Farmland Mapping Project identifies the site as being “other

rural land”. There is no known significant agricultural activity that is likely to affect,

or be affected by, the proposed development, with lands in the area being

predominantly bush land or used for low-scale cattle grazing. As such, the proposed

development will not limit the productive potential of any agricultural land or create

a conflicting land use issue with any agricultural activity.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Telecommunication and other communication facilities‟ have been categorised as a

class of infrastructure, where a telecommunications facility has been defined as:

―(a) any part of the infrastructure of a telecommunications network, or

(b) any line, optical fibre, equipment, apparatus, tower, mast antenna, dish,

tunnel, duct, hole, pit, pole or other structure in connection with a

telecommunication network.‖

Clause 115 Development permitted with consent allows for:

―(1) Development for the purposes of telecommunications facilities, other than

development in Clause 114, may be carried out by any person with consent on any

land.‖

Therefore the proposed telecommunication facility at Dondingalong is consistent

with the SEPP definition and is permitted with consent.

North Coast Regional Environmental Plan (deemed SEPP)

Clause 2B of the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan (NCREP) requires the

aims and objectives of the NCREP to be considered during the determination of


development applications. The proposed development is generally consistent with

all relevant objectives and controls of the NCREP, as follows:

Geological Resources:

The proposal is not near any extractive industry and no significant resources

are known to exist on the site or in the vicinity. The proposal will not result in

the sterilisation of any known geological resources.


The proposal does not involve any substantial clearing of native vegetation.


The site is bushfire prone land, however the Rural Fire Service (RFS) have

provided its concurrence and recommended conditions of approval.

Utility Services:

The proposal will provide the public with greater access to wireless

telecommunications technology (mobile phone, internet, social media, etc.).

Potential Aviation Hazard

The Kempsey Airport has an Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) that establishes the

limit of the airspace so that aircraft operations at the aerodrome may be conducted

safely.

The proposed tower is 42m in height and penetrates the currently mapped OLS for

the Kempsey Airport. As such, the application was referred to CASA for comment on

aviation safety. CASA‟s reply indicated that they do not support the proposed

penetration of the OLS, but provided conditions which may aid in alleviating the

hazard (Appendix H - Page SE261).

The application was also referred to Airservices Australia (ASA) for comment on

instrument approach procedures. ASA indicated that the proposal would not impact

on the instrument approach procedures (Appendix I - Page SE263).

Technological Hazard (Electromagnetic Radiation)

In Australia mobile phone tower EMR is controlled by Commonwealth legislation,

including the Radio Communications (Electromagnetic Radiation – Human

Exposure) Standard 2003 and Australian Radiation Protection Standard “Maximum

Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields 3kHz to 300 GHz: Radiation Protection

Series No. 3” (RPS3). The Commonwealth legislation is drafted and administered by

the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) and the Australian

Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Authority (ARPANSA).

Council is required to accept the Commonwealth legislation as the acceptable

benchmark for EMR exposure. In Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire

Council [2006] NSWLEC 133 the Council refused an application for a mobile phone

tower, one of the main reasons for refusal being that the applicant had not

adequately demonstrated that the development will not cause a level of

electromagnetic radiation that will impact on the health of persons in the locality.

The Court upheld the appeal and held that the Council must accept the

Commonwealth legislation as the acceptable EMR benchmark.




Visual Impact

The site is set in a rural setting and will be surrounded by vegetation, however it is

noted that the pole may be visible over the vegetation from several areas. The

applicant has chosen a slim line monopole to reduce the overall bulk of the facility

and the majority of the equipment will be close to the ground and screened by the

existing vegetation.

CASA requirements are that the tower be marked and lit in accordance with CASA‟s

manual of standards. This involves painting the pole red and white with a steady

red light on top of the pole.

Whilst the markings will increase the visibility of the pole, it is considered that the

impacts are not significant so as to justify refusal on such grounds.

(Appendix J - Page SE264)

Noise

There may be some noise and vibration emissions associated with the construction

phase. The applicant has advised that this will be of short duration and will be

subject to the relevant NSW guidelines.

Ecology

An ecological assessment has been provided; the key findings of the report are as

follows:

The subject site did not support an area critical habitat as defined under the

Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995;

The minor removal of vegetation as part of the proposed activity is unlikely

to impact any threatened/migratory species as such no further assessments

are required; and

Desktop and onsite investigations have identified that the proposal does not

constitute vegetation clearing as defined in the Native Vegetation Act 2003

and accordingly consent is not required from the Catchment Management

Authority.

Based on these findings the proposed development has minimal ecological impact

and there are no recommendations that are required.

Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM)

The area on the property is mapped as secondary class „B‟ habitat in accordance

with the CKPoM and therefore requires an assessment in accordance with the

document. The report indicates that minimal tree removal as part of the

development, although some trees will be trimmed.

Bushfire

The site is mapped as bushfire prone land. A Bushfire Risk Assessment certified by

a Bushfire Planning and Design (BPAD) certified consultant has been submitted to

Council. The Bushfire Risk Assessment certifies that the proposal will comply with

Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 and the Rural Fire Service‟s Practice Note

1/11: Telecommunication Towers in Bush Fire Prone Areas.



Public Notification

The Development Application was advertised and publicly notified to adjoining

properties in accordance with Council‟s Public Notification Policy. The public

notification period was from 2 October to 15 October 2012. Five (5) objections were

received within the notification period, one (1) of which was marked as confidential

and one objection received after the notification period (Appendix K - Page

SE268).

Objection

Planning Comment

1

Health impacts (cancer)

1

See “Technological Hazard

(Electromagnetic Radiation)”

2

Decrease in property value

2

There is no evidence to support such

a claim which is not a planning

concern that can be assessed under

Section 79C

3

Flora and fauna

3

See “Flora and Fauna”

4

Visual Impact

4

See “Visual Impact”

5

Reduce the ability of the

residence to enjoy their

property

5

There is no evidence to suggest that

there will be this impact on existing

dwellings or residents in the area.

6

Better locations for the tower

6

See “Site Selection”

1211 RBP

SUMMARY

Reporting that A New Planning System for NSW - White Paper has been released

seeking submissions.

That the submission to A New Planning System for NSW - White Paper

referred to in the following report be endorsed.

RECOMMENDATION IMPLICATIONS:

Environmental, Social, Economic (Financial), Policy or Statutory: Nil

REPORT DETAILS:

Background

1.5 Planning System Review – White Paper File: F12/155-02

RECOMMENDATION




On 14 July 2012, the NSW Government released A New Planning System for NSW –

Green Paper (Green Paper).

At its meeting of 21 August 2012, Council resolved to make a submission to the

Green Paper which, although raising a few concerns, supported most aspects of the

proposed reforms, subject to being provided with much greater detail in the White

Paper.

On 16 April 2013, the White Paper – A New Planning System for NSW (White Paper)

was released in response to submissions raised in respect to the Green Paper.

The following report relates to how the White Paper has responded to the issues

raised in Council‟s submission, which is recommended to form the basis of Council‟s

submission to the White Paper.

Proposed reforms Council‟s Green

Paper

Submission

White Paper Response/Comment

Proposed Submission

Community Participation Four changes were proposed in the Green Paper to engage the community in the decision making process:

Change 1 - A Community Participation Charter - to require appropriate community

participation to occur in plan making and development assessment.

The intent is supported, subject to greater detail as to the actual mechanisms for increasing public

participation.

Seven principles will comprise the Community Participation Charter being:-

1. Partnership 2. Accessibility 3. Early involvement 4. Right to be informed 5. Proportionate 6. Inclusiveness

7. Transparency

Council supports the concept of a Community Charter. A more standardised approach through

development of guidelines would be beneficial and it is a matter for the Government to ensure that

resources are

allocated to develop the guidelines.

Towards achieving this Charter, the

requirement for the preparation of Community Participation Plans will be included in the legislation detailing the processes involved in

plan making, how the community will be informed, how the community can make

submissions and how the community can

access information. To assist councils it is intended to prepare Community Participation Guidelines.

Rather than simply dictate statutory

obligations which is a failing of the current system, it is suggested that the Charter should set participation targets which

demonstrate that community engagement has been effective,

Change 2 - Strategic community

No details of the intended method of

The White Paper remains vague on

It is not intended to make any


Proposed reforms Council‟s Green Paper

Submission


Proposed Submission

participation – in the early strategic planning stages in the setting of the overall planning outcomes for an

area.

engagement is provided, which is critical and needs to be included in the White Paper.

achieving early community involvement describing it as a “challenge”. The paper includes references to generic

methods of engagement, none of which represent anything new by way of any required reforms, other than by reference to the

preparation of sub-regional plans.

submission in respect to this change.

Any proposals relating to public participation in the

making of Environmental Planning Instruments (currently SEPPs and LEPs) should

apply equally to any NSW Planning Policies, which currently is not the case.

The paper includes information suggesting that community

consultation will be required for all levels on plan making.

Council supports the requirement that all levels of

plan making be subject to the requirement for public exhibition.

Change 3 - Transparency in

decision making - through: Evidence based

decision making A clear strategic

Context for decisions Readily

accessible planning

information Public tracking

of the decision making processes Streaming

planning decisions to

appropriate independent and expert panels

Council supports the principle noting

that it does not represent any significant change to the existing system and is

contradicted by some elements of the proposed development assessment system.

The order in which reforms are presented

has altered from that presented in the Green Paper.

“See Development Assessment”

Change 4 - Use of information technology and electronic planning - The community will

be able to access

The increased use of online services and access to information is not new and builds on

e-planning

The paper elaborates and refers to a NSW Planning portal that provides zoning, development consent

and development

Whilst Council supports the increased use of technology in the planning system,

further details of



Submission


Proposed Submission

planning information and decision making through use of electronic planning, notification and engagement tools.

initiatives already being introduced and also reflects the general increase in access to the internet via

mobile devices. The resource implications for Councils needs to be considered.

controls related to a property. The paper does not provide any details of the expectations from individual councils in

relation to the supply or format of required information in order to determine any resource implications.

the expectations of councils in relation to supplying information for the NSW Planning portal is required.

Strategic Planning Framework Five changes were proposed to the strategic planning system:

Change 5 – NSW Planning Policies -

All SEPPs and Section 117 Directions will be repealed and replaced with 10 – 12 NSW Planning

Policies

Council supports this change

provided Regional and Subregional Plans are not used to impose statutory controls which would defeat the

purpose of the reform.

The Paper indicates that development

controls within existing SEPPs will be located with Local Plans that cannot be over-ridden by councils.

Rather than incorporating

development standards from existing SEPPs in NSW Planning Policies, State Policies should set

performance outcomes which can then be refined through Regional Growth Plans, Sub-regional Delivery Plans and Local

Plans to achieve State, Regional and

Sub-regional benchmarks.

Change 6 – Regional Growth Plans - Regional level strategic planning will be strengthened with an improved evidence base,

strong links to infrastructure delivery, increased community and stakeholder engagement, and performance based

implementation of

Regional Growth Plans.

Part of the “culture of change” within the Department needs to address the practice of using non-statutory plans such as

growth strategies as de facto statutory instruments by refusing to consider proposals that depart from

strategies.

The paper states that Regional Growth Plans will not directly zone land or contain development controls, but will inform the preparation of Sub-

regional Delivery Plans, Local Plans and Growth Infrastructure Plans.

Council supports the proposal that Regional Growth Plans will not directly zone land or contain development

controls.

As suggested by their name,

Regional Growth Strategies should apply the NSW Planning Policies in a regional context

Regional Growth Plans will describe the vision

for a region and include policies and actions related to the structure and shape of urban areas; housing targets;

Council supports the format of

Regional Growth Plans which is appropriate to their intended purpose.



Submission


Proposed Submission

and not be prescriptive in nature or in respect to localised issues, or adhered to rigidly when

innovative solutions can be demonstrated.

employment and economic targets; environment and natural resource actions; identify required regional

infrastructure needs and is consistent with the approach advocated by Council.

Certification of plans by Councils against relevant dominant plans and policies is supported.

Change 7 –

Subregional Delivery Plans – It is proposed to fundamentally

transform the role and function of subregional planning

to ensure the effective and timely implementation of strategic planning at the local level.

The need for total

transparency is paramount in order to avoid potential for corruption in

cases where developers seek to circumvent the

Local Land Use plan making process through rezoning using Subregional Plans.

Subregional Delivery

Plans will be prepared by Sub-regional Planning Boards comprising: Independent

Chair (appointed

by Minister) Reps from

councils State agency reps

(4) appointed by Minister)

The formation of

Sub-regional Planning Boards should be deferred pending the

outcome of Local Government reforms, as the

formation of sub-regional governance models may render such models as an unnecessary

additional level of bureaucracy. Depending on the outcome of the Local Government reforms, the option

of the Minister

appointing task-specific Sub-regional committees that make recommendations

to the Minister is preferable to setting up formally constituted Boards.

Where a council makes a submission, the plan should not proceed unless all matters have been specifically

addressed in the same manner that councils are required to consider matters raised by Government

agencies when preparing LEPs.

Whilst the Paper does not provide sufficient detail in respect to how potentially conflicting Sub-regional and Local priorities will be addressed, Council will

be able to determine how it is represented on the Board and will at least have a voice. It is, however, likely that local priorities will

be overridden by regional rationalisation of infrastructure and services and that

Further detail as to the constitution and decision making procedures of the Boards is required. Council is opposed

to any arrangements that provide voting powers to non-elected representatives or that do not provide

councils within a Subregion with equal representation on



Submission


Proposed Submission

Council will have reduced control under the proposed changes. Council may also need to increase resources

currently allocated to strategic planning so as not to be disadvantaged when making submissions to Sub-regional Delivery Plans which will cover

the Port Macquarie Hastings and Kempsey Shire LGAs.

the Board (Committee).

Where any matter raised by a council

is to be set aside or where a council submission is by way of an objection, the Planning

Assessment Commission (PAC) should be required to hold a public hearing, with any subsequent report to the Minister to

be available to the

public.

The potential remains for Council‟s strategic

priorities in respect to land releases and associated infrastructure provision to be overridden by a Government dominated

Sub-regional Board which may result in greater emphasis on larger regional centres.

The constitution of Sub-regional

Boards (Committees) should require the Minister to have regard for any dissenting

submissions from individual councils.

Although no growth areas have yet been identified, the

concern is that Subregional plans will be used to justify investment in regional growth areas such as Port

Macquarie and Coffs Harbour at the expense of smaller LGAs such as Kempsey. Councils should retain the right to

veto a Subregional Plan which can only be overridden by the Minister following a public hearing by the PAC with all reports and

reasons to be available to the public.

It is intended to reiterate Council‟s previous submission

which remains a valid concern under the proposed Board structure.

Councils should retain the right to veto a Subregional

Plan which can only be overridden by the Minister following a public hearing by the PAC with all reports and

reasons to be available to the public.



Submission


Proposed Submission

Change 8 – Simplifying Local Land Use Plans (LLUPs) - Reform local planning by

moving away from rigid development controls to local plans that provide strategic context and deliver fast, merit–based

planning decisions with strategically based development

standards and guidelines.

Supported, however, it is suggested that this is best achieved by setting

development standards, with each standard to be accompanied by an objective or purpose. Strict compliance with

these standards should ensure that proposals can be

considered as Code Complying Development. Where strict

compliance with numerical standards is not achieved, proposals should be the subject of a merit-

based assessment with the onus placed on the proponent to demonstrate that the underlying objective or

purpose of the relevant standards will be met.

Local Plans (LPs) effectively fulfil the role of Local Environmental Plans and provide the legal basis for

implementing NSW Planning Policies, Regional Growth Plans and Sub-regional Delivery Plans. LPs will be divided into 4 parts being: Strategic context Planning controls

(fewer broader

zones) Development

guides Contributions

LPs will need to be consistent with Council‟s Community Strategic Plan.

Councils will prepare LPs that will then be referred to Sub-regional Boards who will in turn make recommendations to the Minister.

Council opposes the intended role of the Sub-regional Boards in the Local Plan making

process which introduces an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Councils should be able to prepare and

certify that plans are consistent with relevant provisions

of NSW Planning Policies, Regional Growth Plans and Sub-regional

Delivery Plans and forward them directly to the Minister to make the plan.

Quarterly reporting on how the LP is achieving

planning, development and infrastructure outcomes against KPIs will be required.

This proposal is supported and the

same requirements should also be applied to Sub-regional Delivery

Plans and Regional Growth Plans.

It is proposed to have fewer zones with a

broad range of permissible uses, the compatibility of which will be determined based on strategic objectives.

The debate over prescriptive versus

performance-based controls has always been at the centre of the planning system. Whilst prescriptive

controls can stifle innovation and unnecessarily prohibit reasonable development, a greater degree of certainty is

Whilst the use of fewer zones with a

broad range of permissible uses is supported, Local Plans need to be structured so as to achieve a balance between the

certainty afforded by prescriptive

controls and the flexibility of a merit-based approach.

To achieve this balance, Local Plans should be used to set prescribed standards which are accompanied by



Submission


Proposed Submission

the basis for the majority of commercial and residential investment decisions. Whilst a merit-based

approach opens up the range of permissible uses, the corresponding uncertainty and lack of controls also gives rise to conflict leading to

increased litigation. The approach taken by

this Council is to seek a balance by setting prescribed standards accompanied by

performance objectives, against which any variations to standards can be assessed.

performance objectives, against which any variations to numerical standards can be

assessed.

It is proposed to control the form of development through building envelops rather than using standards such as floor

space ratios

Although presented in a new 3 dimensional format, controlling development by means of building envelops is

not new and is currently described by setback formulas which can be varied depending on the degree of

overshadowing, loss of privacy, etc.

It is not intended to make any submission in respect to this change.



Submission


Proposed Submission

It is proposed to incorporate contributions plans in the Local Plans including specifying the

amount of any applicable contributions. A potential concern is that it may be necessary to amend

the Local Plan to adjust contribution rates which would be

cumbersome.

Whilst no objection is raised to listing applicable contributions plans in the Local Plan,

the actual amounts should not be included in order to avoid the need to have to amend the Local Plan when rates are adjusted

for CPI or new charges introduced.

Change 9 – New Zones and Greater

Flexibility Within Zones - The Green Paper proposes to introduce three new zones: • Enterprise Zone

• Future Urban Release Zone

• Suburban Character Zone

The intent of the new Enterprise

Zone is supported and will complement the work being undertaken in the Highway corridor from South

Kempsey to Frederickton.

It is intended that Enterprise Zones would

be identified in Regional Growth Plans, Sub-regional Delivery Plans and Local Plans that would include minimal development controls.

South Kempsey is an area that is less constrained in respect to potential land use conflicts, however, the

infrastructure required to support development is lacking. The proposed strategic planning framework would allow Council to

press for South Kempsey to be included at the Regional and Sub-regional scale to ensure that funding for infrastructure is locked

in through inclusion in the accompanying Growth Infrastructure

Plans.

Council supports the concept of

Enterprise Zones as a basis for securing funding for infrastructure on a competitive basis through the strategic planning

framework by inclusion in the accompanying Growth Infrastructure Plans.

The Future Urban Release Zone is also supported.

The Paper indicates that it is no longer intended to pursue the use of Future Urban Release Zones as a means of preventing sterilisation of areas

identified for future release by allowing

Council reiterates its support for the use of Future Urban Release Zones to prevent sterilisation of future land releases by

allowing potentially conflicting land



Submission


Proposed Submission

potentially conflicting land uses. Instead, it is intended to identify these areas in the strategic plans.

Council may recall that it was previously unsuccessful in an appeal against an attempt by Council to seek relocation of a

proposed dwelling away from a future industrial area at South

Kempsey on the grounds that non-statutory strategic plans are not a valid

consideration under Section 79C of the EP&A Act. If it is proposed not to proceed with Future

Urban Release Zones, Section 79C (or its equivalent under the new Act) should specify that land identified by any Regional Growth Plan, Sub-regional

Delivery Plan or Local Plan for future urban release, must be taken into consideration when determining DAs within affected areas.

uses. However, if it is proposed not to proceed with Future Urban Release

Zones, Section 79C (or its equivalent under the new Act) should specify that land identified by any Regional Growth Plan, Sub-

regional Delivery Plan or Local Plan, must be taken into

consideration when determining DA within affected areas.

In respect to Suburban Character Zone any proposal also needs to consider the

impact of restrictions on affordability and existing infrastructure financing models

which rely on a

certain level of development being achieved.

This proposal is potentially divisive as it may lead to existing residents seeking to prevent additional

development of unconstrained land for more affordable higher density development, particularly in the Shire‟s coastal towns

and villages.

To prevent this from occurring it is proposed to include controls in Part 3 Development Guides of Local Plans.

The intention to include controls over the use of Suburban Character Areas in Part 3

Development Guides is supported, provided the controls include consideration of the impact of

restrictions on

affordability and existing infrastructure financing models which rely on a certain level of development being

achieved.

Development Assessment



Submission


Proposed Submission

Six changes were proposed for streamlining the development assessment process:

Change 10 – Depoliticising decision making The

Green Paper seemed to be focussed on a fundamental shift in the planning system that will see decision making on development

applications streamed to appropriate, independent, and

expert decision makers.

The intention of the Green Paper in respect to the

elected council‟s powers to determine DAs is unclear and needs to be clarified. If the intention is to remove all decision

making powers from councillors, such a reform is likely to attract

opposition from some elected councillors as it

would transfer their decision making role to a Local Expert Panel, with staff continuing to determine most

DAs under delegated authority.

Whilst there is no direct reference to making independent

assessment panels mandatory, the language used suggests that this will ultimately be the case. Depending on the

outcome of the LG review, Council may wish to consider jointly resourcing an

assessment panel to service 2 or more adjoining councils with

the ability for Council to “call in” a DA by a majority vote of the Council. This would likely only occur on very few occasions for

DAs that are seen as critical to the local community.

Council is prepared to consider resource sharing

with other Councils in the MIDROC to set up a joint assessment panel, subject to Council retaining the right to “call in” any DA

by a majority vote of the Council for DAs that Council considers are

critical to the community.

Whilst there is reference to the

possible establishment of a

Local Expert Panel, there is a lack of information as to the possible make-up of the panel. In

order to consider potential conflicts between the elected council and the panel, additional details

should be provided in the White Paper.

It is intended that local panels would be made

up of senior Council staff with relevant

qualifications and experience which would not include councillors.

It is intended to set benchmarks against which councils performance will be monitored, failing which the Minister

would replace councils with panels. Council may recall that the lack of delegation to staff is the only area under the NSW DA

Performance Monitor that Council is lagging behind other comparable councils. Rather than have a panel appointed by the

Minister thrust upon Council, it would be preferable for Council to take the initiative

Council supports the introduction of

a local assessment panel in principle

and will look at resource sharing options in conjunction with other MIDROC

councils.



Submission


Proposed Submission

through the MIDROC and jointly resource a local assessment panel.

Change 11 – Strategic Compliance - The Green Paper proposed that a

development that is consistent with a strategic plan that has been prepared with community involvement may proceed in a

streamlined way.

The intent of using Regional and Subregional Plans to streamline DA assessment will

only be achieved if the Government is prepared to invest considerable resources into the preparation of the plans.

In response to similar concerns raised by Council, it is proposed that Strategic Compatibility

Certificates will only be used as an interim measure until Sub-regional Delivery Plans and Local Plans are implemented.

The use of Strategic Compatibility Certificates as an interim measure only, pending Sub-

regional Delivery Plans and Local Plans being implemented is supported. Council would

oppose any extension which should be reflected in legislation.

Without an increase in resources, Council may find itself disadvantaged in securing Subregional

development quotas and Government investment in local public

infrastructure.

The removal of concurrences is supported provided Government agencies are

unequivocal in their sign off of strategic plans, by making any conditions of endorsement clear and unambiguous. Without such

conditions, consent authorities will be left to interpret requirements on a

DA-by-DA basis, thereby reducing

the effectiveness of the reform.



Submission


Proposed Submission

The use of Strategic Compatibility Certificates is supported provided

any objection a council may raise over a decision to issue a Strategic Compatibility Certificate to allow a development that

is contrary to a LLUP, is the subject of a formal public

hearing by a JRPP.

Council‟s concerns have been adequately addressed as Council‟s views will be sought and considered by the

JRPP and will include a high level of community engagement, which is likely to minimise opportunities for abuses of process.

Council is satisfied that the proposed process for issuing Strategic Compatibility

Certificates will minimise opportunities for abuses of process.

It should be

mandatory that Strategic Compatibility Certificates cannot be issued in circumstances

where LLUPs have been signed off as consistent with a Subregional Plan and where there has been no amendment to the

Subregional Plan

since endorsement of a LLUP.

This issue has been

addressed by only allowing Strategic Compatibility Certificates to be issued as an interim measure, pending Sub-

regional Delivery Plans and Local Plans being implemented.

Limiting the use of

Strategic Compatibility Certificates an interim measure, pending Sub-regional Delivery

Plans and Local Plans is supported

Any move towards Code Assessment

against standards set in a Subregional Plan needs to include a requirement that where a variation

to a standard is sought, the onus is on the proponent to demonstrate that the proposal meets the underlying

intention of the standard, which should be explicit in the Subregional Plan.

There seems to be a shift in emphasis with

all Code Assessment applications to be controlled under the Local Plan.

Council supports having all

development controls included in the Local Plans. The introduction of model guidelines should be

accompanied by benchmarks required to be achieved under the Local Plans which allow for local variations to meet

benchmarks tailored to local conditions.



Submission


Proposed Submission

Change 12 – Reforming State Significant Development - The Green Paper

proposes a suite of reforms to streamline assessment of state significant development

Accreditation of consultants to prepare EISs is strongly supported and should be

extended to consultants having to be accredited to submit DAs.

The paper does not propose any change and this reform has been deferred to examine different

accreditation models in consultation with stakeholders.

Rather than allow this reform to drift off the agenda, a firm formal commitment is

required as the current system is resulting in applications and assessments of wildly varying quality.

Matching assessment to the

stage of development needs to be considered in

the context of the whole development, not just impacts associated with individual stages.

Whilst concept approvals can be used to address this, concept approvals should not be used as a means of merely

identifying and

deferring assessments to subsequent staged approvals.

Little detail is provided in the White Paper

other than reference to “first stage” approvals to identify assessment

requirements for subsequent stages through different assessment tracks. There is also specific reference to changes

related to mining proposals. In the absence of any detail, Council should reiterate its previous submission.

In respect to reforming State

Significant Development, staged

development assessment tracks need to be considered in the context of the whole

development, not just impacts associated with individual stages.

Change 13 – Smarter and timely merit assessment - The Green Paper proposed to speed up and improve

development assessment by setting assessment timeframes, involving decision making panels early, and providing

applicants the opportunity to redesign their proposal prior to a refusal.

This reform is supported, however, reform of the current Part 4A (Building Certification) will

also be required to provide greater separation between building code certification and matters needed to be satisfied, prior

to the issue of development consent.

See “Building Regulation and Certification”

Council supports mandating the “amber light” approach which reflects Council‟s current practice.

No objection is raised to sanctions against councils that fail to consistently meet fair benchmarks,

It is intended that the Minister will replace councillors in the decision making process with an independent panel

Council reiterates its support for monitoring performance against fair and objective



Submission


Proposed Submission

provided other consent authorities (DoPI, PAC and JRPP) are subject to the same system, albeit with

different benchmarks.

where councils consistently fail to meet benchmarks. As referred to above, it is recommended that

Council take a lead role in setting up a joint independent panel based on resource sharing amongst the MIDROC councils.

benchmarks. Mechanisms need to put in place whereby warnings are issued and

opportunities given to address areas of concern within reasonable timeframes.

No objection is raised to involving the JRPP in the

assessment process, provided any costs

associated with meetings or dedicated staff are met by the JRPP or by developers, where meetings

are at their instigation.

It is proposed to reduce the size of JRPPs (to be renamed

Regional Planning Panels from 5 to 3 members comprising: One Council

representative (currently 2) One expert

appointed

by the Minister (currently 2) Chair appointed

by the Minister with agreement of LGNSW

Council is currently represented on the

JRPP for Kempsey Shire by the Mayor and Planning Director of Nambucca Council

under a reciprocal arrangement, with Kempsey Shire Council‟s Mayor and Director representing Nambucca Council.

No objection is raised to the proposed changes

to the membership of the Regional Planning Panels.

Whilst no objection is raised to the timeframes recommended by the Co-chairs, any

system of monitoring should

report separately on each category of development.

The paper recommends the following timeframes after which applications would be deemed to be refused:-

Complying

Development (10 Days) Complying with

variation (25

days) Code Assessable

that meets acceptable solutions (25 days) Code Assessable

No objection is raised to the recommended timeframes for determining

applications.



Submission


Proposed Submission

that requires an alternative solution (25 days not consulted for submissions) (50 days if consulted

for submissions) Merit Assessment

Local and Regional (50 days) Merit assessment

Designated and

State Significant (90 days)

NOTE: A deemed refusal means that after the expiry of the specified period, an applicant may lodge an appeal with the Land

and Environment Court which is the same as the existing system.

It is also proposed that where an applicant fails

to respond to a request for additional

information within 120 days, the application will be taken to have lapsed.

Whilst the intention of lapsing applications is supported, there are often acceptable reasons for delays (illness, financial, time

required to collect data, etc.). In these circumstances, scope should exist for extensions to be granted.

Whilst the intention of lapsing

applications where applicants fail to

respond to requests for additional information within a reasonable period is supported, a

provision should be included allowing the consent authority to extend the period upon written request

from the applicant justifying an extension.

Change 14 – Increasing the use of code complying assessment - The Green Paper proposed to

maximise the proportion of complying developments by introducing a new

No objection is raised to increasing the use of code complying assessment for dwellings,

however, the Government should set benchmarks and leave it to individual councils

As indicated above, there appears to be scope for local variations to model guidelines which is supported and it is

intended to reiterate Council‟s previous submission.

No objection is raised to increasing the use of code complying assessment, however, the

Government should set benchmarks and leave it to individual councils to determine the



Submission


Proposed Submission

mechanism for considering variations from the standards for an otherwise compliant house.

to determine the means by which the benchmark should best be achieved.

means by which the benchmark should best be achieved.

Rather than set complying development standards in Regional and Subregional plans,

these strategic plans should be used to set targets that councils need

to meet. This is consistent with the Government‟s

intention of providing policy direction to facilitate local innovations to achieve targets

based on local conditions.

It appears that this is the intention of the reforms which should be reinforced in Council‟s submission.

Regional and Subregional plans should be used to set targets for different types of development and

environmental parameters that councils need to meet with the

ability for councils to facilitate local innovations to

achieve targets based on local conditions.

Any review of the building certification system

needs to separate development

assessment, as far as possible from building certification. In this regard,

development consents should be used to set parameters for environmental or design outcomes

that need to be satisfied at building certification stage.

See “Building Regulation and Certification”

The paper includes a brief statement that Crown Development will continue to benefit from special

streamlined provisions. As was evident under the streamlining that occurred during the Stimulus Package, this resulted in poorly

planned public housing with attempts to avoid the payment of contributions or

provide footpaths etc. Whether approved by

an external consent authority or certified by a public agency, Crown Developments should not be exempted from the provisions of Local Plans.

Council strongly objects to any streamlined approval process for Crown

Development which should be required to comply with the provisions of Local Plans, including payment of

contributions, whether or not proposals are internally certified

within the relevant agency.

Government agencies will be consulted during the preparation of Regional Growth Plans, Sub-regional Delivery Plans and

Local Plans and



Submission


Proposed Submission

given ample opportunity for their respective programs to be accommodated in the planning

process, from which they should be given no exemptions.

Change 15 – Right

of review for rezoning and merit appeals

A mechanism to

review the level of information requested by a council to assess a

DA is supported and should be strengthened by a

requirement for the DoPI to collate decisions and prepare regularly updated circulars relating to “Best-

Practice” as determined by the JRPPs and PAC.

A third tier “very fast”

appeal track is proposed for single dwellings and dual occupancy

development, whereby a commissioner reviews the

assessment and makes a determination. Without strict procedural rules, the potential exists for

developers to seek to bypass the assessment process, including neighbour notification, through submission of amended plans to the Court.

No objection is

raised to the “very fast” appeal track provided appellants are not able to

substitute plans from those considered by the

Council without adequate assessment and neighbour notification occurring prior to

hearing the appeal.

Although there is reference to “strict eligibility requirements” to allow for a review

of a council‟s decision to refuse a rezoning application, no details are provided. In this

regard, there should be no provision to review a decision which relates to a use which is contrary to the LLUP,

Subregional and Regional plans, except spot rezonings for specific uses.

This reform was pre-empted in October 2012 in relation to the gateway process with the introduction of two

new review mechanisms: Pre-Gateway reviews: which may be requested by a

proponent if a council has not supported, or not made a decision within 90 days, on a planning proposal. These reviews are informed by advice

from JRPPS or the PAC. Gateway reviews: which may be requested by a council or proponent following a gateway determination by the

department, but before community consultation on the proposal has

Whilst no objection is raised to the review process, this should not be extended to appeal

rights to the Land and Environment Court. In addition, once the new strategic

planning framework is in place, there should be no right of review where a proposal is contrary to a Regional Growth Plan or

Sub-regional Delivery Plan.



Submission


Proposed Submission

commenced. These reviews are informed by advice from the PAC.

Reviews of gateway determinations should not be undertaken by the DG, rather by JRPPs or the PAC (consistent with

82A reviews) and should be subject to a meeting open to the public. Such

a provision would maximise transparency and

make the DG accountable in the same manner as councils.

This concern has been addressed and incorporated in the new procedures.


The right to request a review of decisions of the DG to either issue or refuse to issue a Strategic Compatibility or a

Site Compatibility Certificate should

be open to councils as well as proponents.

See “Change 11 – Strategic Compliance”

No objection is raised to the JRPP reviewing decisions to refuse applications for spot rezonings,

again, subject to the JRPP holding a meeting open to the public.

This concern has been addressed and incorporated in the new procedures.


Elected councils

should have the right to review

decisions of senior staff, with a further review by staff of an adjoining

council only available if the proponent is dissatisfied with the review of the elected council.

There is no specific

reference in the paper to this issue other than

a statement that the review system will be continued and expanded to allow

Regional Panels and the PAC to review decisions. If Council supports the concept of a joint

It is not intended to

make any submission in

respect to this change.



Submission


Proposed Submission

independent panel, this issue should not present any concerns.

Provision of Infrastructure Four changes are proposed in the new planning system to align the funding and delivery of infrastructure with strategic planning to support growth across NSW.

Change 16 - Contestable infrastructure - provision to enable greater private

sector participation in the delivery of

infrastructure that supports growth

Whilst contestability for design, construction and operation of major

stand-alone infrastructure

projects such as tollways, communication facilities and even water and waste

water plants is understood, it is difficult to envisage a situation where such proposals would be feasible in regional areas,

including larger regional centres, given the dispersed pattern and smaller scale of

development.

Growth Infrastructure Plans will assess where and under what circumstances the design, construction

and operation of infrastructure for

greenfield and urban renewal projects will occur. Whilst there is no

objection to the principle of contestability for infrastructure, as previously submitted, it is difficult to envisage the private operation of

infrastructure being feasible at the scale of likely development in this region.


VPAs currently provide a vehicle for in-kind contributions and Council‟s current

Section 94 plans also allow for in-kind contributions, including a transparent methodology for how they are

assessed and accounted for. VPAs should be retained as an

option to allow broader off-sets

provided there are clear guidelines for determining the material public benefit.

It is proposed to retain VPAs, albeit under a restricted format which must be consistent with Local and Regional

Infrastructure Plans in a standardised format. This is unnecessarily restrictive and prevents councils and developers negotiating mutually beneficial

outcomes for the community without having to amend local and regional

contributions plans.

Proposed restrictions on VPAs is unnecessarily restrictive and prevents councils

and developers negotiating mutually beneficial outcomes for the community without having to amend local and regional

contributions plans.

Change 17 - Growth Infrastructure Plans

The failure to link infrastructure

It is intended that the Minister will have the

Council strongly supports the



Submission


Proposed Submission

to link strategic planning with infrastructure planning and provision, hence strengthening

certainty and accountability for delivery

provision to strategic planning remains a key criticism of the Mid North Coast Regional Planning

Strategy. This issue is key to successful strategic planning and the Government‟s sign off on any Regional and Subregional

strategies needs to include a detailed list of infrastructure

projects required to support the strategy, including the amount and

intended funding source, not merely an “early Government commitment” as proposed.

power to make Growth Infrastructure Plans (GIPS) for any region or sub-region of the State.

It is intended to legislate that infrastructure is integrated with strategic land use planning which is consistent with

submissions made by Council, both to the Green Paper and the

Mid North Coast Regional Strategy. A practical example of

the disjoint caused by the current system is the South Kempsey Employment Lands precinct. Although identified by the Mid

North Coast Regional Strategy as an Agreed Growth Area, there is no commitment or reference in the Strategy as to how water and sewerage

infrastructure is to be provided. Council should strongly support this reform as a means of hopefully overcoming the highly

politicised ad hoc approach of the past.

proposal to legislate that infrastructure is integrated with strategic land use planning.

In support of this reform, it is expected that relevant agencies will allocate sufficient resources

to effectively participate in the strategic planning

process, in particular in the preparation of Sub-regional Delivery

Plans.

The paper indicates that Government

initiatives including $181 million under the Housing Acceleration Fund; $300 million from sale of assets; $30 million in interest

subsidies under the

Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme and $50 million under the Urban Activation Precincts Program are all intended to provide funding in support of

GIPs. Whilst this type of

Council strongly supports the

commitment of the Government of funding to support Growth Infrastructure Plans, which should

extend to

identifying a detailed list of infrastructure with the amounts intended to fund each specific project to support

Regional Growth Plans and Sub-regional Delivery



Submission


Proposed Submission

commitment supports the thrust of Council‟s previous submissions, it is important that GIPs, at both the Regional Growth Plan

and Sub-regional Delivery Plan levels, include a detailed list of infrastructure with the amounts intended to fund each specific project.

Plans.

Regional and Subregional

Strategies need to also include the social and

economic impacts of infrastructure investment on smaller regional towns and not concentrate

investment and growth in the larger regional centres.

See “Change 7 – Subregional Delivery

Plans”

Change 18 - Fairer,

simpler system of infrastructure

contributions - to support the rapid supply of housing and improve affordability.

Most of the key

principles are already contained

in the existing system related to cost recovery, user pays, cross-subsidisation and

transparency. Unless a developer levy-based system is replaced with a broader taxation-based revenue

collection system, there will inevitably be some cost impost affecting affordability. Whilst the impact of developer

contributions needs to be considered, the Government also needs to undertake a concurrent review of the State

taxation system, including Rate Pegging, as alternative sources

The paper refers to

submissions that call for funding growth

infrastructure from the existing tax and rate bases that is not supported by the Government as new

development contributes to demand for new and expanded services. Whilst this position is

concurred with, Council should reiterate that any overhaul cannot be carried out effectively if it is independent of a review of the entire taxation and rating

systems, not simply through funding from existing systems.

Council wishes to

reiterate its position that any overhaul

cannot be carried out effectively if it is undertaken independently of a review of the entire

taxation and rating systems, not simply through funding from existing systems.



Submission


Proposed Submission

of funding will be required if the full cost of providing infrastructure for new development is not recouped

from developers.

It is unclear as to whether it is intended to benchmark contributions

against “comparable jurisdictions” which

is inherently difficult, both within the State (metropolitan

versus regional versus coastal regional) and against other states where different systems apply.

It is proposed to benchmark contributions based on standardised costs for different types of

infrastructure, with adjustments for different areas, and

scope for councils to seek variations where its costs may be justifiably higher.

Council is satisfied that the proposed method of benchmarking of infrastructure costs,

with provisions for local variations, is reasonable,

provided the rates are reviewed and published by March annually to enable

councils to update their fees and charges schedules.

Whilst no objection was raised in principle, regional contributions (to be

held by the

government) should not be included in any cap on local infrastructure contributions.

The paper indicates that Local Contribution Plans will be uncapped which would allow

councils to justify

contributions required to meet growth. It would therefore follow that any Regional Infrastructure Plans would not be used to

cap funds. It is intended that the proposed Sub-regional boards will be relied upon to inform the Minister on regional

growth priorities. Again, Council may need to increase

resourcing of strategic planning to be able to

effectively engage in this process.

Council supports the introduction of Regional Contribution Plans

on the basis that it

is not proposed to cap Local Contribution Plans.

Kempsey Shire Council has a system by which

contributions for subdivisions can be deferred until

It is noted that the paper recommends deferred payment

provisions for subdivision closer to the point of sale as

Council supports a system for deferring payment

of contributions on the basis that it is for subdivisions



Submission


Proposed Submission

transfer of individual allotments via a Deed of Agreement which is registered as a Caveat on the

englobo allotment and carries onto each allotment created by subdivision. The Caveat acts as a bar to transfer of

title, removable by satisfying the terms of the Deed.

The practice is not widespread, however, other councils in the

MIDGOC have been provided with details of the system to consider implementing. Deferral of

contributions for other types of development is problematic due to the administrative and legal cost burden of

enforcement proceedings once a building is occupied or a development has commenced.

suggested in Council‟s submission.

only.

It is intended to mandate how

contributions are to be calculated, payment mechanisms, collection, management and disbursement of funds

in the Regulation. It is important that councils are consulted

in respect to the Regulation to ensure that the system does

not become overly prescriptive and resource demanding.

It is important that councils are

consulted in respect to the Regulation for the contributions system to ensure that the system

does not become overly prescriptive and resource demanding.

Any requirement for Local Infrastructure Plans to agree to by the DG is opposed and is contrary to the

thrust of the reforms to plan strategically. The role of the Department should to provide policy

direction and

publish Best Practice guidelines for local councils to adapt to their local conditions.

It is proposed that IPART will play a greater role in reviewing contributions plans that will apply at the regional and local

levels which is supported. It is also proposed that councils will be able to certify compliance with

the contributions

framework when making Local Plans which is also supported.

Council supports the increased role of IPART and the ability for councils to certify compliance with the

contributions framework when making Local Plans.

Change 19 - Public Priority Infrastructure - to streamline

Early Government commitment to fund priority infrastructure

It is proposed to incorporate Public Priority Infrastructure projects in Regional

In order to ensure that assessment of important environmental



Submission


Proposed Submission

assessment for major infrastructure delivery and provide upfront certainty accounting.

projects without explicit endorsement of a detailed list of infrastructure projects and

funding sources in Regional and Subregional plans is insufficient. Regional and Subregional plans should not be

introduced unless they are accompanied by a

Growth Infrastructure Plan which identifies and commits the source

of funding for required infrastructure.

Growth Plans and Sub-Regional Delivery Plans. This intention will be given force by

legislating that strategic plans and infrastructure plans are integrated. An area of potential concern for the

community is that the project prioritisation and definition phases

after which projects may proceed, will occur before detailed environmental

assessments have been carried out. To ensure that assessment of important

environmental impacts are not relegated as secondary considerations, the project definition and project delivery phases should be undertaken

concurrently with adjustments made accordingly.

impacts are not relegated as secondary considerations, the project definition and project delivery

phases should be undertaken concurrently with adjustments made to projects in response to identified issues.

Agreement from all councils in a

Subregion to which priority infrastructure relates, including any contributory or incidental funding

required from councils should be obtained prior to commitment to the project and approval of

Subregional plans.

By integrating the planning of Public

Priority Infrastructure projects in Regional Growth Plans and Sub-Regional Delivery Plans, councils will have an opportunity to

participate and raise any issues of concerns.

It is not intended to make any

submission in respect to this change.

Delivery Culture To improve the delivery of the planning system, four governance changes are proposed:



Submission


Proposed Submission

Change 20 - A Chief Executive Officer‟s Group - The NSW Government will establish a formal

NSW CEO Group with clear accountability for the delivery of approved strategic plans, including infrastructure

coordination and provision across the State.

This reform is strongly supported and is critical to the success of the reforms.

The paper reiterates the intention to set up a formal NSW CEO Group.

Council reiterates its strong support for the establishment of a formal NSW CEO

Group which is critical to the success of the reforms.

Change 21 - Regional Planning

Boards

This reform is supported as

current models for regional coordination are lacking, however, greater detail relating to criteria

for local government representation is required.

There appears to be a change of emphasis

with the intention now focussing on the establishment of Sub-regional boards which should be opposed, pending completion of

the reforms to Local Government. See “Change 7 – Subregional Delivery Plans‖

Change 22 -

Mandatory Performance Monitoring - The Green Paper proposed the

introduction of regular and mandatory performance measurement for strategic planning at

all levels, with requirements to be embodied in the new Act.

Whilst this reform

is supported, input from councils should be sought in the preparation of the proposed

guidelines and in setting KPIs.

See “Change 15 –

Right of review for rezoning and merit appeals‖

Change 23 –

Planning Culture -

The Green Paper proposes organisational reform to resource strategic planning

and to improve the culture of the planning profession at all levels.

Noted, however,

the culture that the

Green Paper is critical of stems from the prescriptive, repetitive and

bureaucratic legacy of the existing planning system perpetuated by successive State governments.

It is proposed to

establish a Cultural

Change Action Group comprised of planning professionals, Local and State government, academia,

development industry, peak industry groups and community representatives. It should be noted that

Council supports

the thrust of the

reforms having borne the brunt of criticisms arising out of the existing adversarial system

with often conflicting developer and community aspirations.



Submission


Proposed Submission

the majority of Local Government planners support the thrust of the reforms having borne the brunt of criticisms arising out of

the existing adversarial system with often conflicting developer and community aspirations.

Inclusion of developer and other peak industry groups is critical in order to breakdown this adversarial

approach.

Building Regulation and Certification

The issue of building

regulation and certification was not

dealt with in any detail in the Green Paper, however, Council made several submissions in this regard.

Any review of the

building certification system

needs to separate development assessment, as far as possible from building certification. In this

regard, development consents should be used to set parameters for environmental or design outcomes

that need to be satisfied at building

certification stage.

Whilst there appears to

be recognition of the issue raised by Council,

there is a lack of detail as to how it is proposed to separate building related issues from the planning assessment process.

It is suggested that

legislative changes are required to

allow greater flexibility at Construction Certificate stage to allow conditions to be attached to

certificates to ensure compliance with the BCA. A prescribed set of heads of consideration should be legislated

to limit the scope of any changes so as

to maintain consistency with the development consent.

The White Paper includes recommendations from a separate review by the NSW

Building Regulation Working Party which are also discussed below.

It is proposed to combine the roles of the building certifier and principle certifying authority (PCA) so that

building work is certified by one certifier. This will overcome the current problems where developers

obtain a Construction

Certificate from a private certifier and appoint councils to be the PCA for a certificate that may be flawed.

Currently councils are unable to decline to be the PCA for any reason.

Council supports combining the roles of the building certifier and principle certifying

authority (PCA) so that building work is certified by one certifier.

It is proposed to

Council opposes



Submission


Proposed Submission

expand the ability of accredited certifiers to certify subdivision works and to issue subdivision certificates.

Private certification of subdivision works is different to building works as the community, and not private owners, will inherit the

responsibility to maintain the assets (roads, drainage

systems, water and sewerage, etc.). Certifiers are appointed by developers to

minimise their costs which should not be used to transfer unacceptable maintenance costs on to councils.

Such a provision should only be available where works are strictly in accordance with development consents

by reference to relevant Australian Standards or other local standards. Certifiers should be independent of the

interests of the developer by not having acted for the developer in the DA or design of the subdivision.

In addition, certifiers should be restricted to registered engineers and surveyors who

must be held accountable to both the

BPB and their respective institutes.

any moves to allow private certification of subdivision works, unless:- Certification of

works is confined to works that are strictly in accordance with development consents by reference to

relevant Australian Standards or other local standards.

Certifiers are restricted to registered

engineers and surveyors who must be held accountable to both the BPB and their respective

institutes. Certifiers have not acted for the proponent at either the DA stage or been involved in

the design. Certifiers should be restricted to registered engineers and surveyors who

must be held accountable to both the BPB and their respective institutes.

It is proposed to require building plans to be prepared by

accredited persons for what is termed “complex” buildings.

Council supports the proposal to require building

plans to be prepared by accredited persons,



Submission


Proposed Submission

Whilst this is supported, the system should apply to all buildings with different levels of accreditation

to apply, depending on complexity.

however, the system should apply to all buildings with different levels of accreditation to

apply, depending on complexity.

Introduction of a specialist peer review panel for fire safety

related alternative solutions, including acting as a referee in technical disputes is

recommended. Whilst this is a positive

step, the referee role should not be available to third parties who may be opposed to a development.

The use of the proposed specialist peer review panel

for fire safety related alternative solutions, including acting as a referee

in technical disputes is supported.

However, the dispute referee role of the panel should not be available to third parties who

may be opposed to a particular development.

1211 RBP

SUMMARY

Reporting on the Public Exhibition of the Draft Kempsey LEP 2012.

1 That the changes to the Draft Kempsey Local Environmental Plan

2012 as detailed in the following report be endorsed.

2 That the revised Draft Kempsey Local Environmental Plan 2012 be

forwarded to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure

requesting that the Minister make the plan.


Environmental: It is considered that the Draft Kempsey LEP 2012 does not result

in a negative environmental impact within the Shire. The document is a conversion

of Council‘s existing LEP, with additional changes as required by the DoPI. The

1.6 Draft Comprehensive Kempsey Standard Local Environmental Plan

(Draft K LEP 2012) File: T5-06-03



recommended changes are not considered to have a negative environmental

impact.

Social: The Draft KLEP 2012 is not considered to have a negative social impact.

The creation of suitable zones in suitable locations with appropriate zone objectives

is intended to have a positive social impact. The recommended changes are not

considered to have a negative social impact

Economic (Financial): The Draft KLEP 2012 includes more flexible provisions and

an increase in zoned employment lands within the Shire to accommodate growth on

demand, rather than having to rezone land to accommodate specific uses. This will

result in positive economic implications for the Shire. The recommended changes

are not considered to have a negative economic impact

Policy or Statutory: The progression of the Draft KLEP 2012 will comply with the

Department of Planning directions for Councils to prepare a comprehensive LEP in

accordance with the Standard Instrument Order 2006. The recommended changes

are considered to be consistent with policy and statutory considerations.

REPORT DETAILS

Public Exhibition of the Draft Kempsey Local Environmental Plan 2012

On 16 October 2012, Council resolved:

1 That Schedule 2 conditions of the s65 Certificate, issued by the Department

of Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI) dated 5 September 2012 be accepted.

2 That the Draft Kempsey Local Environmental Plan be publicly exhibited in

accordance with the conditions of Schedule 2 of the s65 Certificate.

3 That a workshop be held for Councillors.

4 That Council apply to the Department of Planning for an extension of time.

Public Exhibition and Community Consultation

Notification

The Public Exhibition of the DKLEP 2012 was notified in the Argus including dates of

Public Information Sessions.

As part of the conditions of the s65 Certificate issued by the Department of

Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI), Council was required to draw attention to

landowners whose land was proposed to be changed from a rural zone to an

environmental zone, including:

Rural zoned land identified as SEPP 14 Wetlands or SEPP 26 Littoral

Rainforest

Land which was 1(e) Floodway to be converted E2 Environmental

Conservation

This resulted in approximately 400 letters being sent landowners.

The DKLEP 2012 was also provided to all relevant Government Agencies for

comment.


Public Exhibition Period

The DKLEP 2012 was on public exhibition from 27 November 2012 to 19 February

2013. The exhibition period was extended to include time before and after the

Christmas holiday and the school holiday period.

Facts Sheets

A set of 12 fact sheets was prepared to extensively summarise the DKLEP 2012, to

assist the community to understand the document and to enable consideration of

how the DKLEP 2012 may affect them.

Public Information Sessions

Eight Public Information Sessions were held between 4 December 2012 and 17

January 2013, with 90 attendees recorded in total.

In addition, Council held a special industry information session for local planning

and building consultants on 17 January 2013 at Kempsey, with 12 attendees.

Submissions

A total of 54 submissions were received with copies of all submissions received

appended to the report (Appendix L – Page SE274).

The issues raised in submissions and the recommended actions in response are

summarised in the tables below.

Common Issues Raised

Objections to Proposed Zonings

Many objections relate to the proposed zoning of land from opposing environmental

and development viewpoints.

Council should be aware that when originally resolving to prepare the new Standard

LEP, Council determined that it was unable to fund the extensive assessment

reports required to use the Standard LEP to rezone land for either environmental

protection or urban development purposes. In seeking a waiver from the need to

prepare a full Local Environmental Study, Council resolved to simply convert the

current KLEP 1987 across to the new Standard LEP Template on a “like for like”

basis. This has occurred wherever possible, however, the existing zones do not

always reflect the current zone and some land uses are mandated under the

Standard Instrument Order 2006 as either being permissible without consent;

permissible only with consent and prohibited.

This has proven to be a complicated process and a number of amendments are

recommended to correct anomalies, with the overriding objectives being to

preserve existing entitlements, wherever possible, subject to complying with the

Standard Instrument Order.

Objections Raised to E2 Zoning for Land Currently Zoned 1(e) Floodway

Several submissions object to the application of the E2 (Environmental

Conservation) zone on land which is currently identified as 1(e) Rural Floodway

under the KLEP 1987. Most object on the basis that the land should not be

considered floodway. The issue as to whether the land is floodway is unable to be

addressed within the scope of the DKLEP 2012 process and requires the preparation



of a Flood Study and Flood Risk Management Plan, consistent with the NSW Flood

Plain Development Manual.

Council is currently in the process of preparing a revised Floodplain Risk

Management Study which covers the areas of Kempsey where the 1(e) Rural

Floodway zones are located. This study and the resulting revised Risk Management

Strategy may lead to a recommendation to change the flood classification of land,

which may lead to the rezoning of land. Until that study has been completed, the

zones, and identified flood ways and floodprone land need to remain.

Existing use rights apply to any uses currently being undertaken on the land which

may be prohibited in the E2 (Environmental Conservation Zone).

It should be noted, that the current 1(e) zone is the most restrictive under KLEP

1987 and reflects the extreme flood hazard applying to the land. In respect to lots

containing existing dwellings, existing use rights would permit their replacement, as

is currently the case. However, new dwellings are not permissible on vacant

allotments with many dwellings either having been washed away in the 1949-50

floods or removed under a previous voluntary purchase scheme.

Objections Raised to E2 Zoning for Land Identified as SEPP 14 Wetlands.

In some cases, mapping errors were identified, where land was zoned E2 in error.

Those errors have been corrected and noted in response to submissions. In other

instances objections were received as to whether land mapped as SEPP 14

Wetlands is correctly identified. The SEPP 14 mapping data has been developed and

provided by the State Government. Council cannot review these layers and is not in

the position to change the boundaries. It should also be noted that SEPP 14

Wetlands have been in place since 1985. Any review of the SEPP 14 mapped areas,

is not within the scope of the DKLEP 2012 process.

Existing use rights apply to any uses currently being undertaken on the land which

may be prohibited in the E2 Environmental Conservation Zone.

It is noted that it is recommended that Council request that the landuse table be

altered for the E2 Environmental Conservation Zone to make extensive agriculture

permissible without consent, which reflects the current provisions of the KLEP 1987.

Government Agency Submissions

It is apparent from the submissions received that NSW Government agencies are

unaware of the provisions of the Standard Instrument Order. In respect to normal

LEP preparation, councils are unable to proceed with LEPs where any unresolved

objection from Government agencies exists.

Council has previously been advised that relevant agencies have been consulted

and provided agreement to the Standard Instrument Order. Where submissions

from agencies have not been resolved, this will be noted and referred to the

Department of Planning and Infrastructure to resolve.

Community Submissions

Summary

Planning Comment

Action

E2 Environmental Conservation Zone

Submitter objects to the prohibition of car parks in the E2 Environmental Conservation

Council was required to zone those areas currently zoned as 1(e) Rural

No change recommended


Summary

Planning Comment

Action

zone. This is of a concern as

many parts of the Kempsey CBD are part of the flood way and are zoned E2.

Floodway under the KLEP

1987 as E2 Environmental Conservation zone under the DKLEP 2012 as there was no other comparable zone to use.

Under SEPP (Infrastructure) road infrastructure facilities (which includes car parking) undertaken on behalf of a public authority is permitted without

consent on any land. This SEPP would override the LEP. Therefore only private

car parks would be prohibited within these zones which are unlikely, except in relation to

existing uses which would be permissible under existing use rights.

The submitter objects to a

proportion of Lot 1 DP 576249, 1576 Maria River Rd, Crescent Head being zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. The site is currently used for Black Angus breeding and olive oil production. The area which is

proposed to be zoned to E2 is on

the banks of Maria River. The remainder of the lot is proposed to be zoned RU1. The submitter states that the zoning will restrict the use of the land agriculturally.

See “Objections Raised to

E2 zoning for Land Identified as SEPP 14 Wetlands‖

Yes – seek extensive

agriculture to be permissible without consent in the E2 zone.

The submitter objects to the lot zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. The site is adjacent to the Kempsey Macleay Sports and Bowling Club and the

zoning of the subject lot to RE2 Private Recreation would have the potential to provide possible expansion to the club. The submitter states that the site is only marginally lower than those in central Kempsey and not

subject to any greater degree to inundation by flood waters.

See “Objections Raised to E2 Zoning for Land Currently Zoned 1(e) Floodway‖


An objection is made for the proposed rezoning of 59 Belgrave St Kempsey - Lot 1 DP 986623 from 1(e) Rural Floodway Zone

to E2 Environmental Conservation. The submitter states that the land should no

See ―Objections Raised to E2 zoning for Land Currently Zoned 1(e) Floodway‖



Summary

Planning Comment

Action

longer be considered a floodway

as the construction of levee banks have significantly reduced the frequency and severity of inundation ever since. The site has accommodated the operations of Macleay Treated

Timbers since the DA was approved in 1995. The submission raises concern over the increased restrictions of future development of the site.

The submitter is requesting to know if a house is permissible with consent on the subject site (Lot 2 DP 207301 Vernon St,

Kempsey).



A proportion of the subject site Lot 10 DP 754369 Gilbert Cory Street, South West Rocks is proposed to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation due to the presence of SEPP 14

Wetlands on the site. The site currently has a planning proposal submitted in relation to the subject land. As part of the environment investigations, the extent of Wetland No 483 was determined through the

identification of the relevant indicative plant species and

associations. To further protect the wetland, a buffer of 50 metres was identified and included in the proposed environmental protection zone.

The proposed zoning pattern under draft Kempsey LEP 2012 was provided by the submitter including a review of the SEPP 14 map. The submitter requests the wetland boundary is consistent

with the planning proposal submitted.

If the Planning Proposal for this site completes the Gateway Process and a more accurate boundary is available then the E2 zone can be amended at a later

date. See also ―Objections to

Proposed Zonings‖


Request for confirmation of information concerning proposed LEP including: Did the proposed

changes originated from the

DOPI? Is it true that SEPP 14 regulations remain unchanged? Is KSC aware of any proposed changes that would be detrimental to our business of

beef cattle grazing?

See “Objections Raised to E2 zoning for Land Identified as SEPP 14

Wetlands‖

Seek Extensive Agriculture to be permissible without consent in the E2 zone.

E3 Environmental Management Zone

The submitter objects to the

Eco tourist facilities are



Summary

Planning Comment

Action

subject site (Lot 4 DP 1022342,

New Entrance Road) being zoned for both E3 Environmental Management and E2 Environmental Conservation. The site has an approval (not yet constructed) for tourist cabins

(MP09-0019) within the proposed E3 zone. The site is currently zoned 7(d) Scenic Protection. The submitter is concerned if the facility is not an Eco Tourist Facility then it will not remain a permitted use with consent.

permitted with consent in

the E3 Environmental Management zone. It would appear that the approved cabins would meet the above definition.

Submitter states that the current approved, constructed and

operating tavern will become a prohibited use under the new E3 zone, located at Lot 4 DP

1022342, New Entrance Road. Whilst the pub will enjoy existing use rights, there could be serious implications for future renovations or expansion. The submitter requests Council to

consider including a clause under Schedule 1- Additional permitted uses in the new LEP.

See ―Objections to

Proposed Zonings‖ As stated by the submitter

the tavern is an existing use which has been previously approved. It would not be beneficial for Council to allow pubs to be permissible in E3 Zone as

this may impact on other areas. Therefore as it is a previously approved use the most appropriate recommendation would be to include the pub as an additional permitted use.

Amend Schedule 1 to include Lot 4 DP 1022342,

New Entrance Road with pubs as an additional permitted use.

Submitter objects to the use of

the split lot zoning of R1 General Residential and E3 Environmental Management zoning existing at south end of Salmon Circuit and

Grandview Place, South West Rocks

The subject site is a

straight conversation from the Kempsey LEP 1987. The site currently has a combination of 7(d) Scenic

Protection and 2(c) Residential Zone. 7(d) Scenic Protection Zone has been converted to E3 Environmental Management and 2(c)

Residential Zone has been converted to R1 General Residential. See ―Objections to

Proposed Zonings‖


Environment General

The submitter raises concern over zoning part of Goolawah

National Park (formerly known as Goolawah Estate Pts 3-5) as residential.

This was a mapping error. The area should not have

been zoned residential.

The National Parks layers will be updated in

accordance with the OEH submission and mapping errors

Submitter enquires to how the

SEPP 14 wetlands layer was sourced and why have new


Proposed Zonings‖ and “Objections Raised to E2



Summary

Planning Comment

Action

environmental zones. zoning for Land Identified

as SEPP 14 Wetlands‖

Submitter states the word tree does not appear very often. The submitter objects that the

environment including Biodiversity management and fisheries and Fish Nurseries are not protected within the LEP. More professional input to the LEP needed

See ―Objections to Proposed Zonings‖


Concern expressed over the failure of Zoning map LZN_013B to identify a wildlife corridor depicted on NSW National Parks

& Wildlife mapping between the Macleay River and Arakoon. The

submission is based on the commitments of Section 2.8 and Section 3.7 of the Mid North Coast Regional Conservation Plan 2011. Submission requests that a tract of land known as Keith

Andrews Avenue and Meehan Close be rezoned as E2 to form a wildlife corridor between an E3 zoned area in the west and the RE1 zoned golf course in the east.



Enterprise Corridor

The submitter objects to the use of the Enterprise Corridor. States

that no other neighbouring Council uses this or other LGAs outside Sydney. Given the uniqueness of the zone (and landuse table), there is the question as to what strategic land-use planning was

undertaken to determine the range of uses listed in that land-use table.

Many councils outside Sydney have utilised this

zone such as Albury, Ballina, Bland, Gilgandra, Dubbo, Coffs Harbour, Gosford and Lismore to name just a few. The site at south Kempsey is currently zoned 3(c)

Business Special zone under the LEP 1987. Under the Standard Instrument there was no corresponding zone for 3(c) Business Special zone. A B6 Business Enterprise

Zone would better support and complement the hub of

retail commercial activity spread along a major road. This area has highway exposure land along the

Pacific Highway as an area where high visibility highway development may be considered. Only uses that do not compromise the CBD will be considered.



Summary

Planning Comment

Action

A precinct DCP will be

developed for this area, and adjoining areas in South Kempsey.

Extractive Industries

Submitter objects to the zoning of the land (Lot 322 DP855616 Tea Tree Lane, and Lot 161 and 162 DP 754423) as they are owned by Virell and are Sand

Quarries. Submitter does not give a reason for the objection.

The majority of the subject site is zoned RU1 Primary Production. Extractive industries are permissible with consent under this

zone. DOPI has consistently advised that the RU1 zone is its preferred zone for extractive industries.


Flooding

Submitter objects to the use of the E2 zone as a conversion from the 1(e) floodway zone. States

the Standard Instrument is inadequate for zoning provision for a floodway. States that the SP1 special activity zone should be used for the floodway zone as it is more appropriate. The E2 primary objectives do not suit

the flood way area by definition.

See ―Objections Raised to E2 Zoning for Land Currently Zoned 1(e)

Floodway‖


There are no maps of flood affected lands in the LEP set.

Concerns that there are no Flood

Hazard maps made public (as required by NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2005).

See ―Objections Raised to E2 zoning for Land

Currently Zoned 1(e)

Floodway‖


The submitter objects to the zoning of the site to E2

Environmental Conversation. The submitter states that the area is a business CBD which consists of land use such as service stations, parks and a caravan park. Objects to the zoning which

prevents any development. Requests Council change this to a general business zone.


Currently Zoned 1(e) Floodway‖


Submitter objects to the proposed zoning of the property (27

Rudder St East Kempsey) to E2 Environmental Conservation under the Draft Plan. Submitter has provided evidence that the subject site is not in a flood way. States that the property is never been flooded and previously

spoke to Council officers and they had agreed with the


Currently Zoned 1(e) Floodway‖



Summary

Planning Comment

Action

submitter. Council officers stated

it will be reviewed in the flood study. Submitted requests that the floodway boundary be at the laneway side of the property.

General

Submitter states that none of the „growth areas‟ identified in the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy (Draft) 2006-2031 and

other REPs have been included to changes to zonings in new LEP.



Submitter states that Council should be trying to encourage

the favourable redesign of current development areas including a pedestrian mall

Design measures which are explained by the submitter

are utilised within the comprehensive development control plan. The measure listed by the submitter may be considered within the draft DCP.


Some anomalies from the Pacific Highway have not been resolved particularly around Bruce Lane and Inches Road.

At the time of developing the Draft LEP, the maps provided by RMS were those shown in the draft document. Since this time

the proposed Pacific Highway maps have been amended and therefore the Draft LEP will need to be

updated with the new maps.

Obtain amended New Pacific Highway maps from RMS and update Draft LEP.

Submitter objects to the proposed zoning of urban roads such as Gordon Young Dr, Quarry St and Gilbert Cory Drive. These roads have been given a range of

zones such as RU2, E3 and RE1. Submitter states that this makes no planning sense.

Under the Standard technical requirements for LEP maps all unclassified road must be zoned with the surroundings zone.

This is a requirement from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under the Standard Instrument and is mandatory for all LEPs.


The B2 Local Business Zone allows a height limit of 8.5 m with and floor space ratio of 1:1

this would inhibit an achievement of a second storey.

It is noted this was an error in the Floor space ration maps. The floor

space ratio for the B2 Local Business Zone should have

been mapped as 2:1.

Amend FSR ratio maps for all B2 Local Business Zone land in Crescent head to

2:1

Submitter states that the Draft Plan does not have a timeframe for how long it lasts.

A Local Environmental Plan does not have an expiry date or maximum time frame. However, LEPs are

continuously amended throughout their life and



Summary

Planning Comment

Action

then periodically they are

totally replaced.

Submitter refers to KLEP 1987 Clause 16A(3) (a) relating to subdivision of land containing

existing dwelling with no lot size limit

Clause 16A(3) of the Kempsey LEP 1987 has been translated into Clause

4.1A - development applications for more than one development. Clause 4.1A(3)(b) however, does limit the lot size minimum to 300m2 .


Koala Habitat

Submitter refers to Clause 7.4 -

Koala Habitat and associated mapping. Submitter has concerns over the implications the mapping of areas on the KMP will cause to the capacity of such pieces of land to be complying development. Recommendation

is to be considered to either deleting the KMP as they are not compulsory requirements of the standard template LEP or Review the mapping of the KMP & the section of the draft LEP to confirm that the land that is

mapped is not environmentally sensitive land and therefore may be available for complying

development.

The objective of this clause

is to minimising the potential for adverse impact within current and future areas of core koala habitat. Draft Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPOM)

has been prepared for the Eastern portion of the Shire. Clause 7.4 Koala Habitat has been included as a local provision within the Draft LEP and adopts the maps developed in the

CKPOM. In addition the clause states that any development application

need to be consistent with SEPP 44 and any adopted POM. The clause will flag

the need for further assessment of developments in potential Koala Habitat areas which may or may not have been picked up by individual assessments required

under Section 5A of the EP&A Act and allow the assessment to be undertaken in a broader context. This clause within Kempsey Shire is therefore seen as necessary.


Submitter refers to Clause 7.4- Koala Habitat. Submitter objects to the mapping which cover the entire area and does not provide

any additional provision to that which is in SEPP 44 The submitter would prefer if the maps are removed.

See above


Land Use Table


Summary

Planning Comment

Action

Submitter objects to the change in land use for E2 Environmental conservation zone which used to be the flood way zone under the Kempsey LEP 1987. Car parks are now prohibited from the

Kempsey CBD.



Council has left out uses such as 'additional to dwellings, forestry' and this will devalue property in the E2 zone.

Definitions in the Standard Instrument are mandatory and cannot be changed. Additions to dwellings are

now covered under the SEPP (Exempt and Complying) which overrides any definition in

the LEP.


Submitter refers to the conversion of the 3(v) zone to B2 Local Centre Zone in South West Rocks. Permitted uses include boarding houses and shop top houses and any other

development not specified in item 2 or 4, in the current 3(v) zone at South West Rocks which is proposed as B2 Local Centre in the new LEP. Within item 4 residential accommodation is prohibited and the definition of

residential accommodation includes boarding houses and

shop top housing. This could pose problems.

The land use tables constructed based on DoPI drafting instructions. Council has engaged the DoPI extensively on this matter. Directions in

relation to certain zones also require specified uses to be permitted either without consent under Item 2 or with consent under Item 3. In addition the land use table and

matrix has what is termed as parent definitions such

as residential accommodation. Therefore, while residential accommodation as the parent definition may be

prohibited, shop top housing and boarding houses are still permitted with consent. The land use matrix and the land use tables are

therefore consistent.


Submitter objects to residential land uses which are prohibited in the RU5 village zone. Submitter states that attached dwellings,

semi-detached dwellings,

residential flat buildings and serviced apartments are prohibited in this zone. The village zone should have flexibility in planning.

There are many other forms of housing permissible in the village zone including group

homes, dwellings, dual

occupancies, multi dwellings, boarding houses, tourist and visitor accommodation and hostels. Multi dwellings

developments which means 3 or more dwellings on one lot of land are permissible in the village areas and do allow a flexibility in higher density development within



Summary

Planning Comment

Action

this zone.

Lot Size

The subject site is former

Aboriginal Reserve Land and is currently zoned 1(c) rural small holdings with a minimum lot size of 1ha. The draft Plan zones the site to R5 Large Lot Residential with a minimum lot size of 1 Ha. The site has an approved DA

(1994/53) on the site for the construction of 14 dwellings. The 8 dwellings have been issued with a construction/occupation certificates and therefore the DA

has been physically commenced. The remaining six dwellings are

yet to be erected. Submitter requests Council to amend the minimum lot size to 500m2 or no less than 800m2 in order to achieve an orderly subdivision outcome.

As the Development

Application (1994/53) for the subject site has been substantially commenced the approved remaining lots would have existing use rights under the EP &A Act. Therefore the

proponent could develop the remaining approved lots under existing use rights.

See also ―Objections to

Proposed Zonings‖


Submitter states the subject site (Lots 811, 812 and 813 DP 1061151 Riverview Place South West Rocks) is proposed to be zoned R1 - General Residential.

However, the minimum lot size maps show a lot size of 40ha. This must be a mapping error

and requests Council amend the maps to reflect a 500m2 minimum lot size which is the

same as all the other residential areas in the LGA.

Lots 811, 812 and 813 DP 1061151 should have a minimum lot size of 500m2 similar to other residential areas in the LGA. This was

a mapping error and will be corrected.

Amend lot size map to ensure Lots 811 , 812 and 813 DP 1061151 have a minimum lot size of 500 m2

Submitter states that the Draft LEP has not transferred the gazetted lot size from LEP

amendment No 29 of the Kempsey LEP 1987 for Lot 707 DP1032859 and Lot 704 DP749885 Crescent Head. The minimum lot size for the have not correctly been converted.

LEP Amendment 29 allows for a minimum lot size of 1 ha and an average of

0.4ha. There are additional controls within this clause which includes development principles for the subdivision including visual amenity, colours etc. This sub clause may be

converted into a site specific DCP.

Amend Additional Permitted Uses to incorporate the provisions

of Claus 44 of the KLEP 1987. Amend Additional Permitted Uses map to include land on there.

Mapping

Submitter stated that some mapping errors have occurred including a strip of flood prone land on the west side of Macleay River bank from Pacific Highway traffic bridge to First Lane has

been zoned B3.

This is a mapping error and will be amended.

Flood prone land on the west side of Macleay River bank from the traffic bridge to First Lane will be zoned to E2 as it is a floodway.


Summary

Planning Comment

Action

Model Clause

Submitter refers to Clause 5.4- Miscellaneous Permissible Uses and objects to the varying

standards with neighbouring Councils. Understood the Standard Instrument was to be standard throughout NSW.

While Clause 5.4 is a mandatory clause the quantum of the

development standards relating to each use is at the discretion of Council. While the Standard Instrument applies across the State there are some provisions within the LEP

which allow the controls to be localised. Council received no specific numerical requests for

consideration.


Submitter refers to Clause 5.13- Eco tourist facilities. Submitter notes that this clause is unique to Kempsey LGA. Submitter objects to the use of development provisions such as a

management strategy and the clauses ambiguity.

Clause 5.13 is a mandatory standard clause provided by DoPI and is not unique to Kempsey.


Submitter refers to Clause 7.5- Sensitive Karst Areas. The submitter states that this clause

is unique to Kempsey and questions the ability of the mapping to be applied to

development assessment tasks without requiring extensive reporting and documentation.

Karst areas are a unique environment to Kempsey Shire in the Region which

is why this clause is not in neighbouring LEPs. An area of Karst

Environments is identified and known to contain limestone resources. The

former Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) Geodiversity Unit (now refer to as Office of the Environment and Heritage), advised

Kempsey Council on the protection of the Karst area and provided Council with the appropriate maps to include in the Draft LEP. The Draft Kempsey LEP 2012 makes provision for

consideration of

developments within these environmentally sensitive areas. The associated local map indicates the areas where this applies. The

wording of the clause was supplied by the DECC. This clause does not seek to prohibit or restrict the types of development that are otherwise permissible



Summary

Planning Comment

Action

in areas underlain by Karst

systems. The clause only applies to development likely to impact on the Karst systems by requiring consideration of impacts in determining Development

Applications. This clause within Kempsey Shire is therefore seen as necessary.

Submission supports the

inclusion of Clause 7.4 Koala Habitat and Clause 7.5 Sensitive Karst Areas.

Support for the inclusion of

Clause 7.4 and 7.5 in the Draft LEP are noted.


Property Specific Request

The submission refers to a previous approval for a community subdivision which was never commenced. The submitter requests transfer of

building entitlements to a parcel of land that is not impacted by natural hazards, without the need of purchasing an additional lot at a 40ha lot size. Submitter also states that restrictions should also be reduced for

boundary adjustments in rural areas to enable farmers to increase their landholdings

without having to purchase needless assets (e.g. dwellings).

The submission is referring to Clause 46 in the Kempsey LEP 1987. This Clause has now been

transferred into the Schedule 1 - Additional Permitted Uses – Clause 8. The Additional Permitted Uses transfers all the community subdivision principles which were

stated in Clause 46 Kempsey LEP 1987.


Submitter refers to Lot 1 DP196559 on which in 2010, eleven lots where approved. The submitter requests that: 1)the zoning of the eastern corner of the lot for the proposed

building zone be E3- Environmental Management which better meets the objectives of the LEP 2)The remainder lot to be considered as E2 Environmental Conservation (maps included).


Proposed Zonings‖


Submitter states that Clause 55

in the 1987 LEP - Development of land at Smith Street, Kempsey allows for additional uses to be

permitted that have not been transferred over to the Draft LEP. States if this does not happen the property will be greatly devalued.

Clause 55 of Kempsey LEP

1987 was excluded from the Draft LEP in error. Therefore this clause will

be included in Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses.

Convert Clause 55 of the

Kempsey LEP 1987 into Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses in the draft

LEP.


Summary

Planning Comment

Action

The submission requests

consideration of rezoning the subject site from RU1 Primary Production to either RU2 Rural Landscape or RU4 Primary Production Small Lots. Believes RU1, RU2 and RU4 zones are

almost identical in terms of proposed land uses. Would like to subdivide that land to a small land package. Submitter states the same should be considered for neighbouring Lots 1833 and 1834 as all lots are of a similar

quality to other RU2 and RU4 lots in the area.


Proposed Zonings‖


Submitter requests 10 separate rezoning requests for different owners. No justification for the

rezoning was given in the request just a list of the zoned requested for each lot.


Proposed Zonings‖


The submitter objects to the

rezoning of her land from rural uses as she uses the property at Lot 3 DP 1124599 North Street Kempsey, for stock flood refuge for the Smith Street property.

See ―Objections Raised to

E2 zoning for Land Currently Zoned 1(e) Floodway‖


Submission refers to Lot 2 DP 1091323, Philip Drive South West Rock which has a development

application approved and substantially commence for a tourist/residential/commercial

resort complex. Development Application T4-91-195 comprised concept drawings of the „Trial Bay Apartment Hotel Resort‟ and consent for a „tourist facility containing residential and commercial elements on Lot 504

DP 774359 Phillip Drive, South West Rocks. Crown Reserve #82364 and an adjacent area of the Arakoon State Recreation Area'. Submission objects to a minor error in the numbering of the additional Permitted Uses

Map (Sheet APU_013B) where

the map reference is „10‟. The submitter also objects to the limitations of additional permitted land uses listed in Item 9 of Schedule 1 Additional

Permitted Uses. The land use definitions for tourist and visitor accommodation and residential accommodation are not sufficiently flexible to facilitate all of the approved land uses. The

Tourist and visitor accommodation is permissible in the proposed

R3 zone, however, „food and drink premises‟ and „shops‟ are prohibited. In

order to preserve to intent of the existing 2(d) zone, it is recommended that, „food and drink premises‟ and „shops‟ be included as additional permitted uses.

Amend Schedule 1 Additional Permitted uses No 9 Clause 2 to include

„shop‟ and „food and drink premises‟ and the Additional Permitted Uses

map amended to show the correct numbers.


Summary

Planning Comment

Action

consent was conditional upon,

among other things, the construction of „no more than ten retail outlets‟ and „25% of dwelling stock is to remain in the ownership of the resort prior to the release of the building

application‟. Other approved elements of the development proposal, including commercial land uses (ten retail shops), bar areas, conference auditoriums, restaurant/dining areas and administrative areas. The

addition of shops and food and drink premises to Item 9 of Schedule 1 will preserve the

intent of the approved development and will enable an alternative Development Application to be lodged at a

future date seeking to achieve a similar mixed use (tourist/residential) development.

Submission refers to site which received development consent (T4-89-60) for holiday accommodation. Three of the four holiday accommodation buildings have been built. The land is to be zoned Primary

Production and its land use is not

compatible with the zone. Request that the property be zoned as RU5 Rural Village. Under Kempsey Local Environment Plan 1987, the subject land is zoned 1(a3)

Agricultural Protection. Although this zoning has a minimum allotment size of 40ha, in 2005 the previous owners were permitted to subdivide the original block of 2.365 ha into

two new blocks of 1.735 and 0.630ha. The land is under Torrens Title. This submission suggests RU5 is more appropriate zoning for this land as per KLEP 1987.


Proposed Zonings‖


The site is a Catholic Church which under the current LEP 1987 lot is zoned 5(a) Special Uses. The draft LEP proposes to zone the land to R1 General

Residential. Requests that as the land to the north and east is proposed to be zoned medium density residential that this


Proposed Zonings‖



Summary

Planning Comment

Action

isolated lot be zoned to medium

density.

The subject site is former Aboriginal Reserve Land and is known as Fig Tree Reserve.

There is a current Council approval for the erection of 10 dwellings on the site (DA 1992/42). A building certificate for each dwelling was issued in 1992 and 1994. The current zoning of the land under LEP

1987 is 7(d) Scenic Protection zone with a minimum lot size of 40ha). The Draft LEP zones the subject site both E2 and E3

zones. The submitter explains that the proposed E2 zone creates an issue with the

permissibility of approved development. The submitter requests that Council change the minimum lot size from 40ha minimum lot size control of 500m² in order to subdivide the

development approved under the development application. The submitter requests to include the site with the above amendments in additional permitted uses.


Proposed Zonings‖


Submitter objects to the zoning of the site (Lot 233 DP 754396

Gregory Street) which is currently zoned 7(d) Scenic Protection. The site has an approved development (T6-10-432) for the tourist facility

(gallery and café). The construction certificate has been applied for and will commence as soon as it has been issued. The approved uses under the new zoning will be prohibited.

Suggests included the site in additional permitted uses.


Proposed Zonings‖

Amend the E2 zoning on the subject land to E3

Environmental Protection

Submitter refers to the Draft LEP 115 for land at Riverview Place South West Rocks. The

amendment is currently with

DoPI and near completion. The submitter seeks to clarify if the LEP amendment will be incorporated into the new draft LEP.

At the time the draft LEP was on exhibition Draft LEP 115 has now been

Gazetted. This will now be

converted into the Draft Kempsey LEP 2013.

Amend the Draft LEP to include Kempsey LEP 1987 Amendment 115

Reclassification

Objects to Lot 24 DP748740, being reclassified from

The draft LEP does not reclassify any properties as



Summary

Planning Comment

Action

community land to operational

land. It is a prime spot for a lookout

per schedule 4

Classification and reclassification of public land.

Recreation Zone

Submission is referring the Crescent Head Country Club which is zoned RE1 Public Recreation under the draft LEP.

The submitter is concerned with the permissible uses under the RE1 Public Recreational Zone. To widen land use provisions in zone (RE1) Public Recreation in the

draft LEP 2012, to allow tourist accommodation in conjunction

with a permissible use. The Club maintains a golf course, bowling green, tennis court, village library and club house. The Draft LEP does not allow any accommodation. This will be

difficult for visitors to stay on site during tournaments, events and other activities.


Proposed Zonings‖

Rural

Submitter raises concern over the nomination of forestry as a permissible use in a rural zoning.

Submission argues that the definition of forestry is not

qualified and, in particular circumstances would be against the objectives of the Kempsey Shire Council Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management.

Forestry activities within New South Wales are regulated by the provisions

of the Forestry Act 2012 and Forestry Regulation

2012. Section 38 of the Forestry Act states that a person must not undertake forestry activities without the prior consent of the Forestry Corporation through way of licensing,

small quantity authorisation or in accordance with the provisions of another Act. Therefore any application would take into account any environmental, social

and economic issues include potential Koala

Habitat.


Submitters are requesting

Council to rezone the subject sites (Lot 1834 DP 634660 Lot 1833 DP 634660 Lot 1832 DP 634660, Collombatti Road) to enable a 8 ha min lot size. The submitters state that the land is not suitable for agricultural


Proposed Zonings‖



Summary

Planning Comment

Action

purposes and the site is suitable

for rural residential purposes.

The submitted objects to the zoning of the subject site (256 Queen Street Greenhill - Lot 256

DP 752439) to RU2 Rural Landscape. The zone under LEP 1987 for the subject site is 1(d) Rural Investigation. The current zoning was to provide for future expansion for the village and provide housing in an orderly

manner. Submitter requests Council to zone the site RU5.

The 1(d) Rural Investigation zone under the Kempsey LEP 1987 has

no direct conversion zone under the SI. For this reason the 1(d) is zoned RU2 Rural Landscape. See also ―Objections to

Proposed Zonings‖


Submitter states that the Rural

Investigation 1(d) zone has been transferred into the RU2. States

that many owners were under the impression that Council was investigating these sites for development and now no investigations have taken place.


Proposed Zonings‖


The submitter states that the subject land (Lots 146, 147, 148 DP752417 at Sandy Creek Rd) is currently zoned 1(a1) Rural and states they have previously sent Council letter requesting a

change of zone. However, it is not clear in the letter if the submitter is requesting a

rezoning for rural residential development or for RU2 as both zones are mentioned.


Proposed Zonings‖


Rural Residential

The submitter refers to a property that is adjacent to the

subject site which has been zoned R5 large lot residential. The submitter requests Council zone the subject site R5 as both lots have the same accessible utilities and as his property is smaller it will have less impact.


Proposed Zonings‖


Submitter Supports the use of the R5 large lot residential from

the 1c zone

Support is noted


SEPP 14 Wetland

The submitter states that the SEPP 14 area has been converted to E2. SEPP 14 does not include

their house but the E2 zone does. This is not correct.

SEPP 14 mapping which was received from the DoPI contained errors

within certain polygons. This includes the subject site as well as seven other

Mapping error for certain polygons for the SEPP 14 wetlands will be corrected.


Summary

Planning Comment

Action

sites.

Submitter stated that the subject site (Lot 462 DP 735143) under the draft LEP has two zones on the single lot including RU2 Rural

Landscape and E2 Environmental Conservation. The E2 has been increased to an area greater than that when the lot was first purchased. Please consider a request to reduce the E2 area to accurately reflect its true size

and location.

“Objections Raised to E2 zoning for Land Identified as SEPP 14 Wetlands‖

Submitter objects to the distribution of E2 zoned land in

„Land Zoning MAP - Sheet LZN_013B‟. The submitter states

that there are sections which are not SEPP 14 wetlands which have been zoned as E2. Requests Council to review this land.


Proposed Zonings‖

See also “Objections Raised to E2 zoning for Land Identified as SEPP 14 Wetlands‖


Government Submissions NSW Finance and Services – Housing and Property Group

Summary

Planning Comment

Action

Department of Housing

Submission provided Council with a Housing Market Analysis for

Kempsey Shire.

Housing supports the wide use of R1 General Residential- as it will provide a diverse range of housing opportunities.

Noted.


NSW Office of Environment and Heritage – NSW Heritage Council

Clause 1.9A: OEH supports these exclusions however they recommend the subclause 1.9(A)

to include the following 1.9A (2) (h) to any heritage agreements within the meaning of Part 3B of

the Heritage Act 1977.

This clause is a standard clause provided by DoPI. If it is legally inaccurate it will

be modified by DoPI prior to finalisation of the LEP. No change is recommended.


Clause 7.2 Earthworks , the heritage branch recommends the insertion of the following clause 7.2(3)(h) The proximity to and potential for adverse impacts on any heritage item, archaeological site, or heritage conservation

area

This clause is a standard local clause provided by DOPI. If it is legally inaccurate it will be modified by DoPI prior to finalisation of the LEP.



Summary

Planning Comment

Action

The Heritage Council believes

that the provision of signage under the exempt schedule 2 has the potential to result in adverse physical and visual impacts on heritage items. Accordingly the heritage branch recommends

that heritage items be exempt from this provision

The exempt signs in

Schedule 2 are small (less than 0.75m2) or temporary e.g. real estate signage. It is reasonable that in making productive re-use of heritage items there will be

a need for low key signage and this provision ensures that this is not an onerous imposition on heritage land owners. This approach is consistent with other North Coast Councils.


The Heritage Council has identified 3 additional State

listed items which are not listed within the heritage Schedule

The heritage items listed in the submission were

included in Schedule 5 Environmental Heritage prior to exhibition.


In general the maps are supported

Noted


NSW Trade and Investment – Resources and Energy

Mineral Resources considers that mining, petroleum production and extractive industries should be dealt with in SEPP (Mining,

Petroleum and Extractive Industries) 2007, as the SEPP over rides the LEP. Under the provision of the SEPP

underground mining may be undertaken with development

consent where the land is subject to pre-existing mining lease or where development for the purposes of agriculture may be carried out. . The SEPP will prevail to the extent any inconsistency with an LEP

Mining is no longer an LEP land use and is covered by the SEPP (Mining, Petroleum and Extractive Industries)

2007. Even though open-cut mining has been shown as a designated land use within

the LEP. Open cut mining has to be permitted in zones

where agriculture or industry is permitted, other than that Council can choose whether they wish to permit open cut mining.

No change is recommended

Mineral Resources considers the use of transition zones on land surrounding extractive resources to avoid possible land use conflicts. Transitions buffer zones

are based on EPA guidelines- 500m around non blasting operations and 1000m from

operations where blasting occurs

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure has previously advised the use of a transition zone is only to be used in special

circumstances such as a transition between rural land uses.

Arbitrary buffers around resources that are not adequately defined or

available would unnecessarily sterilise development without compensation.


Mineral Resources notes and

provides maps of resource sites

In reviewing the maps

provided by Mineral

Consider including precinct

specific development


Summary

Planning Comment

Action

in close proximity to existing

urban land uses. Council will need to consider possible environmental impacts such as dust, noise and vibration when determining appropriate land use zones. For example the Kempsey

Brickworks is in close proximity to the B6 Enterprise corridor as well as a caravan park.

Resources many land use

conflicts may occur given the proposed zoning and potential land uses within the proximity to the quarries. However, many land uses within the buffer

areas already existing. This will not be able to be dealt with within the LEP. Council should consider precinct specific issues within the comprehensive DCP in order to reduce any land use

conflicts.

control within the

comprehensive DCP in order to reduce any land use conflict with existing resources.

NSW Trade and Investment- Crown Lands

Uses permitted with consent

include “Roads”. Crown Lands queries whether road infrastructure includes car parking to service other permitted facilities. If not, it is recommended that “Car Park” be

included as a permitted use. Crown Lands require uses permitted with consent “Environmental Protection Works”, “Community Facilities” and “Caravan Parks”. This is consistent with other LGA LEPs

based on the template.

Car Parks are a separately

defined land use to Roads under the Standard LEP. However, under the SEPP (Infrastructure) road infrastructure facilities (which includes car parking)

undertaken on behalf of a public authority is permitted without consent on any land. This SEPP would over-ride the LEP. Environmental Protection Works‟ are mandated as

permitted with or without consent under the Standard

Instrument. „Environmental Protection works‟ are defined as works associated with the rehabilitation of land towards its natural

state. Within the E2 and E3 zones this type of land use is aligned with the objectives of both zones and is encouraged and therefore preferable as permitted

without consent. See ―Objections to Proposed

Zonings‖

Change community

facilities to permit with consent in the E3 zone.

Zone RE1. Crown Lands require

additional uses permitted with consent on Crown Lands

including “Registered Clubs”, “Cafes” and “Restaurants”. This is consistent with other LGA LEP templates adopted. “Tourism Facilities” should also be

permitted.

See ―Objections to Proposed

Zonings‖


Crown Lands require uses permitted with consent of

Extractive industries are permitted with consent in

Amend land use table to reflect the matrix in which


Summary

Planning Comment

Action

“Extractive Industries” to allow

for dredging e.g. navigational dredging. Also consideration should be given to permitting with consent the use of “Charter and Tourism Boating Facilities” and “Restaurants or Cafes”

the matrix however; this

has not been translated in the draft LEP land use tables. It should be included. Charter and tourism boating facilities are permitted with

consent in W2 Recreational Waterway zone. Restaurants or Cafes” are mandated prohibited in the W1 zone.

Extractive industries are

permitted with consent

Golf Courses, Caravan Parks and Registered Clubs located on Crown land zoned RE2 Private Recreation is not supported.

RE1 Public Recreation is recommended as these lands remain public land that is

available to the public. This includes “West Kempsey – Warwick Park Racecourse Lot 155 DP 752439 Crown Reserve 610020 (Dedicated Reserve) to Warwick Park Racecourse Trust”.



Fisherman‟s Reach - Lot 225 DP 45905 is a Crown Reserve and is incorrectly mapped as E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves. This Crown Land lot

should be mapped as E3 Environmental Management (or

E2 Environmental Conservation if within mapped SEPP 14 Coastal Wetland).

Council acknowledges the mapping anomaly and recommends the site be zoned to E2 given its location next to mangroves.

Amend LEP maps to zone Fisherman‟s Reach - Lot 225 DP 45905 to E2 Environmental Conservation.

Hat Head – foreshore Crown Reserves along either side of Korogoro Creek was zoned 6(a) and has been rezoned to E2. This land is commonly used for recreational purposes. Consider

RE1 as this is a straight conversion of the zoning and reflects use of the land.

The zoning of the Korogoro Creek reserve to E2 environmental conservation is an action under the Korogoro Creek Estuary Management Plan and is in

Council‟s delivery plan. All agencies were consulted in the development of the Korogoro Creek Estuary Management Plan.


Crescent Head – Lot 7303 DP 1151611 Reserve 63725 for

public recreation, resting place and communication facilities. The area of the water tanks has been rezoned from 7(d) to SP2 Water

supply system to allow for the tanks. Communications facilities also exist at the site, which are actually in accordance with the reserve purpose. Recommend SP2 to include communication

The site is covered under the SEPP (Infrastructure).

Communication facilities are covered in Division 21 Telecommunications and other communication

facilities. The SEPP overrides any provision within the LEP.



Summary

Planning Comment

Action

facilities. SP2 zone needs to be

expanded to include these facilities or communication facilities be a permitted activity within any zone where they exist.

Crescent Head – Lot 1 Section 4 DP 758302 (Crescent Head Rural Fire Brigade Station) Baker Drive was rezoned from 5(a) to RU2, consider R1 to be consistent with adjacent zonings on that side of

Baker Drive.

Council has investigated the appropriate zoning for the site. The proposed zone of RU2 is considered appropriate given its proximity to agricultural

land adjacent to the site which is also zoned RU2 and the adjoining electricity works. Any new residential

land would need a suitability assessment completed.


Oyster industry related zoning Zonings need to allow for oyster industry related infrastructure (e.g. land based sheds) and Aquaculture with consent within

RE1, E2, E3, W1 and W2. Crown land provides significant detail in terms of the problems with existing use rights under the draft LEP within these zones.

Under the Standard Instrument, oyster farming would be defined as „Aquaculture‟. Aquaculture is a type of agriculture under

the Standard Instrument. Under the Draft Kempsey LEP is permissible with consent in all rural zones including RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural landscape.

The primary purpose of the RE1 zone is for public open

space and therefore sustainable agriculture is not suitable in these zones. One of the objectives of the E2 zone is „To protect,

manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values‖. Developing oyster farms in proximity to areas of high ecological value may

damage or destroy these areas and therefore not encouraged.


Tree preservation order - Crown Lands recommends exemption

from Council consent for removal

of dangerous trees on Crown managed lands. This may be achieved in clause 5.9 part 8 of the Draft LEP. Note – this would be consistent with other Councils

with TPO within Crown Lands MNC District that recognise Crown Lands‟ in-house natural resource management expertise.

The TPO clause 5.9 is a compulsory mandated

clause which cannot be

amended.



Summary

Planning Comment

Action

NSW Rural Fire Service

All future planning proposals on land mapped bush fire prone will need to demonstrate compliance with Planning for Bush Fire

Protection 2006 (PfBFP 2006), and any additional RFS requirements. Council should also note the minimum specifications for asset protection zones for residential and rural residential subdivisions

in bushfire prone land.

Clause 5.11 covers bushfire hazard reduction work pursuant to the Rural Fires Act 1997. This clause is a

standard local clause provided by DoPI. Council is unable to modify this clause.


Kempsey Shire Council – Property

Council at its meeting of 25 September 2012 (Item 3.5) considered a report on reclassifying various parcels of Council owned land. This includes classifying the following lands as operational:

Lot 34 DP1033470 (extension to Frederickton cemetery) Lot 11 DP816589 (Euroka Cemetery)

Lot 36 DP1011989 (proposed Yarravel cemetery)

Lot 8 DP9232 (Landsborough Street, South West Rocks)

Lot 24 DP748740 (land at 'New Entrance')

The reclassification of these lands was not included in the draft LEP as they have not been exhibited and no public hearing has been held as yet. Therefore, a separate

planning proposal will be required.


Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd (ARTC)

ARTC supports the zoning of its land to the adjacent land use zones and not necessarily the SP2 zone.

The North Coast Railway line is a linear corridor that passes through a range of residential, rural, commercial and industrial zones such that it is not desirable to agree to this

request and a SP2 zone is proposed.


ARTC supports the listing in Schedule 5 of State heritage

listed items on its land.

ARTC support is noted.


NSW Transport – Roads and Maritime Services

RMS supports the zoning of the upgraded Pacific Highway as SP2 and roads permitted without

The Infrastructure SEPP provides that a road or road infrastructure can be carried



Summary

Planning Comment

Action

consent. And roads should be

permitted with consent in all other zones.

out by a public authority on

any land (regardless of zone) without consent. Roads are permitted with consent in most zones in the LEP.

Developments such as educational facilities, road side stalls, rural supplies, veterinary hospitals and bulky goods developments tend to create major issues of traffic generation

and access to classified roads. Requests Council prohibit these in areas with direct frontage to classified roads.

The Pacific Highway traverses several urban areas within Kempsey including the CBD. By prohibiting urban lands uses within an urban area such

as the Kempsey CBD which is located adjacent to a classified road will stifle economic development

within Kempsey. All development applications along a classified road will

be referred to the RMS for further comment and consideration on a site by site basis.


RMS does not support the development of a bulky good retail premises on land zone IN1 along the eastern frontage of the South Kempsey interchange.

The land is proposed to be zoned IN1 industrial under the Draft LEP. Bulky good premises and retail premises are prohibited in this zone.


Forests NSW

Identifies two areas which should

be zoned RU3 as they are State Forest areas.

As these areas are State

Forest and the mistake was a mapping error it is

recommended to amend the zoning of these areas including - part Nulla Five Day State forest adjacent New England National Park and part Maria River State forest adjacent Maria

National Park.

Amend maps to include

part Nulla Five Day State forest adjacent New

England National Park and part Maria River State forest adjacent Maria National Park to RU3 zone.

Ongoing problems with land use conflicts with State Forest areas and rural dwellings including increase to bushfire risk, road

use pressure and safety hazards.

The potential land use conflicts with rural dwellings and state forests cannot be dealt with in a LEP.

Consider including precinct specific development controls within the comprehensive DCP in

order to reduce any land use conflict with existing State Forests.

Recommends that State forest

on private land should be zoned E3 as many of these areas retain their environmental values. Recommends that timber harvesting should be permitted with consent within the E3 zone and private land State Forests be

rezoned to reflect the

The E3 zone has been

converted from the 7(f1) coastal lands protection zone and 7(d) scenic protection zone under the current LEP The objectives of these zones are not only to preserve scenic qualities

but also to conserve



Summary

Planning Comment

Action

environmental values of these

lands.

foreshore land. Allowing

timber harvest permissible with consents in these areas would contradict the objective of the zone.

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

Proposes inclusion of local objectives for all zones which considers the protection of Biodiversity and acknowledge

coastal processes and flood storage functions. OEH gave an example from Greater Taree Council LEP.

The standard objectives provided in the SI include “maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base”.

This is sufficient, given that the LEP also includes a local provision within Part 7 which includes flood planning, Koala Habitat and natural

resources.


Clause 1.2 and Clause 1.9A is supported by OEH

OEH support is noted.


Forestry within the RU1 and RU2

zone without development content is not supported by OEH

Forestry operations and

approvals are managed under the Forestry Act 2012. Clause 69W(4) of the Forestry Act states that Forestry operations the subject of an approval are excluded from

environmental assessment and approval under Part 4 or 5 of the Act.


Recommends prohibiting

extractive industry in the RU2 zone as it is not consistent with the objectives of the zone which aim at maintaining the rural landscape of the land.

RU2 zone has essentially

been used as a primary production zone. Extractive industries are most suited within a rural zone where there is reduced land use conflicts compared to other zones.


OEH support the prohibition of forestry in the RU5 zone.



Recommends prohibiting environmental facilities, extensive agriculture, roads and water recycling facilities in the E2 zone.

Council agrees with OEH to prohibit water recycling facilities in the E2 zone. However, it is not recommended to is prohibit

agriculture or roads in this zone.

Amend matrix and Land use tables to prohibit water recycling facilities in the E2 zone

Consider that environmental protection works be permitted with consent rather than without consent in the E2 zone.

Council agrees with this approach in order to control works in environmentally sensitive areas.

Amend the landuse table and matrix to make such works permissible only with consent.

Recommends prohibited bio solid treatment facilities, electricity generating works, extractive

Council agrees with OEH to prohibit bio solid treatment facilities in the E3 zone.

Amend matrix and Land use tables to prohibit bio solid treatment facilities in


Summary

Planning Comment

Action

agriculture and group homes in

the E3 zone.

However, other land use.

Should remain as permitted with consent.

the E3 zone.

OEH recommends development controls for certain uses within

the Kempsey Shire DCP to limit the size and location of permissible uses within the E3 zone to ensure that objectives of the zone are not compromised.

Council supports this point and recommends

development controls within Councils comprehensive DCP

Consider including controls for certain uses certain

uses within the Kempsey Shire DCP to limit the size and location of permissible uses within the E3 zone to ensure that objectives of the zone are not compromised

Recommends prohibiting charter and tourism boating facilities, electricity generating works,

emergency services facilities environmental facilities,

extensive agriculture, group homes, jetties, moorings and wharf or boating facilities in the E4 zone.

The E4 Environmental Living will only apply to land subject to KLEP 1987

Amendment No 89 – Point Plomer Road. Much of the

land which is the subject of this current clause 64, is zoned 1(a1) Rural in the KLEP 1987, with the reliance of detailed assessment criteria and prohibitions on

land uses contained within the clauses. The E4 Environmental Living translates as the best possible zone for this specialised area and reflects the current prohibition for

Point Plomer Road. Therefore these uses are

considered complementary to the zone and land it is intended for.


Recommends prohibiting aquaculture within the W1 zone

The W1 zone is a new one for all regional NSW Councils and it has been constructed and used in differing ways. Council currently has a significant

Oyster Farming industry and by prohibiting this use within this zone may have significant economic impacts on this industry.


OEH support the limited uses within the W2 zone



Include an additional objective in Subclause 4.1(1)(b) „to ensure

that lot sizes are compatible with environmental values and constraints.‟

4.1(1)(b) is a standard clause provided by DoPI.

OEH comments are noted , but these should be referred to DOPI for its consideration


OEH supports the inclusion of Clause 4.1AA and 4.1C




Summary

Planning Comment

Action

Recommends and additional

subclause to protect the long term maintenance of E2, E3 and E4 zones. For example from the CH LEP states “Before granting consent to development to which this clause applies the consent

authority must be satisfied that the subdivision will result in the continued protection and long term maintenance of any land zoned E2 Environmental Conservation‘

It is not recommended to

this clause into the LEP. This clause suggested by OEH does not provide any planning merit to the aims of Clause 4.1B. Environmental Conservation

is included in other clauses in Part 7 which will be considered with any relevant site.


Recommends an amendments to subclause 5.5(3)(d)

Clause 5.5(3)(d) is a standard and mandatory clause.


OEH supports Clause 5.9 Tree

Preservation



Recommends removal of Subclause 7.1(7) and 7.1(8) as OEH think it is no longer

relevant.

Clause 7.1 is a standard clause provided by DoPI. OEH comments are noted,

but these should be referred to DOPI for its consideration.


OEH has recommended cross referencing Clause 7.2 with 7.1

This is a standard clause provided by DoPI.

No change recommended.

OEH recommended amending Clause 7.2 Flood planning

4.1(1)(b) is a standard clause provided by DoPI.


OEH supports Clause 7.4 Koala Habitat and recommends zoning all Primary Habitat as E2 zone

It is not supported to zone all primary habitats to E2 zoning as believe Clause 7.4 is adequate to address the conservation of Koala habitat in Kempsey.


OEH supports Clause 7.9 Scenic Character



OEH recommends an additional clause with regards to Coastal Hazards such as the one in the gazetted Port Macquarie Hastings LEP.

Council has zoned its existing 7(f1) coastal lands protection zone to E3 Environmental Management. Council believes this is sufficient in the protection of

foreshore areas.


Some National Parks have not been included in the LEP and OEH recommends amending the LEP to reflect the gazetted

zones.

This was a mapping mistake and the additional area will be included in the maps.

Amend maps to include those areas listed in the submission for E1 National Parks and Nature

Reserves.

OEH indicated there are extensive areas of High Conservation Value (HCU) land in




Summary

Planning Comment

Action

Kempsey Shire. OEH

recommends that the biodiversity data be zoned for environmental conversation or protected by local controls within the draft LEP. OEH listed lots and DP that have HCV which are not

protected under the Local Environmental Pan. OEH recommends an additional standard clause for terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity as they do not believe HCV is adequately protecting within the existing

clauses.

The W1 and W2 zones only

reflect major water ways and therefore OEH recommend Council to consider a Riparian

Land Clause with a watercourse map associated with the clause in order to protect the conservation values of such areas.

It is recommended that the

protection of waterway though the zoning with W1 and W2 is sufficient for

Kempsey Shire.


OEH supports the Karst System maps


No change recommended.

Changes required to the DKLEP 2012 since Public Exhibition

Changes are recommended to the DKLEP 2012 either to correct errors in the

document or maps or as a response to matters raised in submissions from the

community or Government agencies.

Summary of All Changes

Instrument Changes

1 Landuse Table SP1 – removed all reference to SP1 in LUT

2 Removed 4.2A (4) – existing holding

3 Boundary Adjustment Clause included – 4.1C. To permit

subdivision/boundary adjustment of lots under the minimum lot size where

no new dwelling entitlements created.

4 Cl 4.1B – Include R5 in clause 4.1B(3)(ii)

5 Cl 4.2B – include all zones that rural workers dwellings are permitted

6 Karst Definition included in 7.5 (5)

7 Clause 4.1A amended to incorporate a minimum lot size of 300sqm where

subdivision of land and dual occupancy or similar are being considered in

the one DA.

Matrix/Landuse Table Changes

1 E2 extensive agriculture - changed to permitted without consent, instead

of permitted with consent.


2 Change community facilities to permitted with consent in the E3 zone. Due

to Crown Lands Submission.

3 Zones W1 and W2- Amend land use table to reflect the matrix in which

Extractive industries are permitted with consent

4 Amend matrix and Land use tables to prohibit water recycling facilities in

the E2 zone

5 Amend matrix and Land use tables to prohibit bio solid treatment facilities

in the E3 zone.

6 Amend matrix and land use tables for RU1, RU2, RU4 and R5 landuse table

to allow Tourist and Visitor Accommodation as permissible with consent,

and specifically prohibit landuses of serviced apartments, hotels motels

and backpackers accommodation.

7 Amend matrix and Land use tables for E2 zone to make Environmental

protection works permissible with consent, instead of permissible without

consent.

Amendments due to Submissions

1 Additional Permitted Use – 12 – include Lot 4 DP 1022342, New Entrance

Road with pubs as an additional permitted use

2 Amended lot size map to ensure Lots 811 , 812 and 813 DP 1061151 have

a minimum lot size of 500 m2

3 Existing Clause 44 for Lot 707 DP1032859 and Lot 704 DP749885 Crescent

Head to be added to APU incorporating all relevant provisions include the

minimum lot size.

4 Additional Permitted Use – 13 - adopted from Clause 55- Smith Street the

following clause is added:

13. Use of certain land at Smith Street, Kempsey

(1) This clause applies to land being Lots 16 and 17, DP 32035 and

part Lot 182, DP 527164, Smith Street, Kempsey.

(2) Development for the purpose of vehicle sales or hire premises is

permitted with consent.

5 Additional Permitted Use map has been amended with correct numbers on

items in South Kempsey

6 Additional Permitted Use – No 9 include „shop‟ and „food and drink

premises‟ as additional uses. This for the land that was zoned 2(d) in SWR

that has an existing approval for a range of development.

7 Lot 233 DP 754396 Gregory Street (Old School House Site) – change E2 to

E3. Correcting an error in the conversion mapping, (7d) area was

incorrectly mapped as E2 instead of E3.

8 Include Amendment 115 of KLEP 2013 into LEP this includes: rezone lot

82 DP 263591 to E3 and R1.

9 Mistake in 12B floor space ratio map – change all floor space ratio at

Crescent head to 2:1 –

10 Amend LEP maps to zone Fisherman‟s Reach - Lot 225 DP 45905 to E2

Environmental Conservation.

11 Maria River State Forrest mapped as RU3 Rural Forestry, corrected from


RU2 Rural Landscape.

12 Error in Mapping in B3 zone, north of the CBD, on eastern side of Macleay

Valley Way. Areas along the Macleay river zoned 1(e) Rural not converted

to E2. This has been corrected and will now be mapped E2.

Other specific Mapping Changes due to Error

Summary of Mapping Changes not undertaken from submissions

1 Amended mapping of some of the E2 areas at SWR. There were mapped

as E2 but it was unclear why, as they were not SEPP 14 or SEPP 26 areas.

These were altered as there was no justification to include them as E2

2 Some 7(d) zoned land was not correctly zoned as E3, predominantly in the

western areas of the shire. This has been amended and these areas are

identified on the spread sheet appended.

3 Maria River State Forrest mapped as RU3 Rural Forestry, corrected from

RU2 Rural Landscape.

Other matters for Council to note:

Home Occupation (Sex Services)

The Draft Kempsey LEP 2012 must make provision for the permissibility of Home

Occupation Sex Services. These are proposed to be permitted with consent in all

residential zones. It is noted that this landuse is likely occurring without Council

having the opportunity to place any conditions upon their operation. This landuse

is different from Sex Services premises (brothels), which are only permissible in the

IN1 and IN2 zones.

‗Tourist and Visitor Accommodation‘ in RU1, RU2, RU4 and R5 Zones

Council received a Development Application for cabins near Crescent Head which

highlighted that the parent landuse of „Tourist and Visitor Accommodation‟ and its

child landuses had been incorrectly applied in the DKLEP 2012 in the RU1, RU2,

RU4 and R5 zones. It is recommended this be changed to make „Tourist and Visitor

Accommodation‟ permissible with consent in the RU1, RU2, RU4 and R5 zones, and

the landuses of „backpackers accommodation‟, „hotels and motels‟ and „serviced

apartments‟ prohibited.

It is noted that this is consistent with Council‟s intention not to reduce currently

permissible landuses by transferring the provision of KLEP 1987 across to the

DKLEP 2012 on a like for like basis.

1211 RBP

SUMMARY

Reporting that a Draft Kempsey Rural Residential Land Release Strategy has been

prepared, for which Council‟s endorsement is sought for the purposes of public

exhibition.

1.7 Draft Local Growth Management Strategy Rural Residential Component File: 848


That the Draft Kempsey Rural Residential Land Release Strategy be placed

on public exhibition.


Environmental: The Draft Strategy indicates land which has been prepared having

regard to known environmental constraints. Areas identified as possible rural

residential expansion areas will be subject to further assessment at the rezoning

stage.

Social: The Draft Strategy makes provision for additional lots over the next 25

years. It is considered that the proposed location and staging will provide additional

housing choice and living options. This has the potential for a positive social impact.

Economic (Financial): The provision of additional Rural Residential land will assist

with economic growth by providing more housing options in the region.

Policy or Statutory: The Draft Strategy is consistent with the Settlement Planning

Guidelines as issued by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

REPORT DETAILS

Draft Strategy Preparation Project Timeline and Stages

Background

Council‟s current Rural Residential Land Release Strategy was approved in 1990.

Although the Strategy has achieved its purpose of providing land for the purposes

of rural residential subdivision, it became apparent through feedback from

members of the community, that the Strategy was not delivering land in all areas of

Shire where demand exists. Based on limited investigations in the early 1980s, it is

also apparent that large areas of land that was zoned for rural residential purposes

has limited potential for small acre subdivision due to flooding, bushfire and

threatened flora and fauna habitat.

Consistent with the approach used in the residential component of the Kempsey

Local Growth Management Strategy, it was determined that a locality-based

approach should also be applied to the release of rural residential land.

Council has been progressing a review of the Kempsey Rural Residential Land

Release Strategy through the preparation of the Rural Residential Land Release

Capacity Report which was finalised in June 2011. This report provides an overview

of the existing supply of Rural Residential Land and its capacity to meet projected

future demand.

Workshop

A consultant was appointed with a workshop held with the community and

stakeholders in April 2012. The workshop sought feedback on various matters

related to the future of rural residential development in Kempsey Shire. A copy of

the public workshop outcomes are summarised in the appended document.



Following the stakeholder workshop in April 2012, a Background Report was

prepared with the matters raised at the workshop incorporated into a set of

Sustainability Criteria. The Sustainability Criteria were formulated to determine

whether development of land for rural residential purposes would be sustainable,

having regard to a range of social, economic and environmental factors drawn from

the workshop, Council‟s Delivery Plan, Mid North Coast Regional Strategy, North

Coast Settlement Guidelines, including:

Whether development would provide (or has potential to provide) safe and

cost-effective two-way sealed road access

The availability of adequate support services of the Shire‟s towns and villages

The Shire‟s capacity to service development

Whether development would support Kempsey as a major town centre

The cost of developing the land

The ability to dispose of effluent

Protection of scenic amenity

The need for clearing native vegetation

Landuse efficiency

Protecting Koala habitat

Impact on planned urban expansion

Potential conflicting landuses

Rationalisation of the existing 1(g) zone

The Background Report identified and analysed 12 rural residential investigation

areas, nominated as a result of research into environmental, accessibility, servicing

and market conditions in the Shire. The 12 areas identified were:

South West Rock and Arakoon

Collombatti

Frederickton

Aldavilla and Yarravel

West Kempsey

Verges Creek

Euroka and Dondingalong

South Kempsey

Kundabung

Crescent Head


Stuarts Point and Yarrahapinni

Barraganyatti

Each of the 12 areas was then ranked against the Sustainability Criteria.

Area Score ESD

Ranking

1 South West Rocks & Arakoon 6.78 D

2 Collombatti 9.91 B

3 Frederickton 10.08 B

4 Aldavilla & Yarravel 8.0 C

5 West Kempsey 6.74 D

6 Verges Creek 8.0 C

7 Euroka & Dondingalong 8.01 C

8 South Kempsey 9.01 B

9 Kundabung 9.41 B

10 Crescent Head 8.11 C

11 Stuarts Point & Yarrahapinni 7.17 C

12 Barraganyatti 7.17 C

Interpretation of the ranking scores is provided in the table below.

Overall

ranking

Total score for

each area

evaluated

Description

A 11 – 12 Excellent contribution to sustainable development

expected.

B 9 -10 High contribution to sustainable development

expected. Area should be developed, subject to

resolution of outstanding issues or further

investigation.

C 7 - 8 Moderate contribution to sustainable development

expected – should only be considered for

development after outstanding issues are

resolved, if possible.

D 5 - 6 Small contribution to sustainable development

expected – possibly should not be considered

further.

E 4 Unsustainable – do not consider further.

Areas below a ranking of C were excluded from any further investigation leaving 10

localities.

Draft Kempsey Rural Residential Land Release Strategy 2013

The Draft Strategy:


Identifies the current supply of rural residential land in each of the localities.

Assesses the capability of the remaining 10 investigation areas for potential

rural residential release or intensification.

Presents data on existing and potential rural residential lots according to

Settlement Planning Guidelines of the Department of Planning and

Infrastructure.

Provides a model for monitoring shifts in demand from district to district

across the Shire.

Proposes an implementation program for further planning and the steps

required to implement the Strategy.

Notional Existing Supply of Rural Residential Land

The estimated total supply of land zoned for rural residential development is

approximately 800 lots which notionally equates to a 25 year average annual

supply of around 32 lots per annum. However, it is noted that not all this land is

suitable for subdivision due to flooding, bushfire and threatened flora and fauna

habitat.

Potential Rural Residential Lot Yields

To determine the potential additional rural residential land supply in the Shire it is

first necessary to estimate the number of lots which could be derived from the

investigation areas studied in the Background Report.

Areas with potential for rural residential expansion or intensification are shown in

pink on Maps 3 – 9 of the draft Strategy and equate to a potential yield of 7,281

lots (Appendix M - Page SE469).

Preliminary Lot Yields

Rural Residential Areas

Existing supply (lots)

Additional area (ha)

Yield1

(lots) Intensification area

2 (ha)

Additional potential yield (lots)

Area Lot Totals

1 South West Rocks & Arakoon

30 0 0 0 0 30

2 Collombatti 114 1,500 1,200 1,310 934 2,248

3 Frederickton 38 355 284 322

4 Aldavilla & Yarravel

187 1,186 949 1,136

5 West Kempsey 6 0 0 0 6

6 Verges Creek 121 607 485 606

7 Euroka & Dondingalong

113 470 376 489

8 South Kempsey 149 318 254 403

9 Kundabung 13 1,532 1,225 465 359 1,597




Existing supply (lots)


Yield1

(lots) Intensification area

2 (ha)

Additional potential yield (lots)

Area Lot Totals

10 Crescent Head 38 197 158 143 92 288

11 Stuarts Point & Yarrahapinni

0 195 156 156

12 Barraganyatti 0 368 294 294

SHIRE TOTALS

809 6,728 5,087 1,921 1,385 7,281

For strategic planning purposes it is prudent to accommodate a higher number of

potential lots, for these key reasons:

Owners of some of the land may not wish to develop within the timeframes of

the strategy.

More detailed planning may lead to some land being protected due to

environmental risk or the land having high conservation values.

Unforeseen changes to planning policy may limit the release of land in some

areas or require larger lot sizes.

Acceleration in demand may also lead to more land than current trends

indicate being released in the future.

Reduced yields from existing supply due to flooding, bushfire and threatened

species habitat.

To align the land supply with the likely demand over the life of the strategy, the 10

remaining investigation areas were then re-assessed via a more rigorous

application of the Suitability Criteria, having particular regard to:

Conservation of habitat for Koalas and potential Endangered Ecological

Communities.

Protection of land that may have long term agricultural production potential.

Access to urban services and availability of two or more routes for emergency

access and egress.

Extensive discussion about how these areas were re-evaluated for each area is

detailed within the Draft Strategy. The results of the re-evaluation of each

investigation area are shown in Maps 10 to 19 with the revised yields shown in the

following table (Appendix N - Page SE476).

Revised Lot Yields


Existing supply

(lots)


Yield1

(lots) Intensification

area2 (ha)

Additional potential

yield (lots)

Area Lot

Totals


30 0 0 0 30




Existing supply

(lots)


Yield1

(lots) Intensification

area2 (ha)

Additional potential

yield (lots)

Area Lot

Totals

2 Collombatti 114 91 63 224 141 318

3 Frederickton 38 47 33 71


187 105 73 260

5 West Kempsey 6 0 0 6

6 Verges Creek 121 178 124 245


113 355 248 361

8 South Kempsey 149 6 4 153

9 Kundabung 13 786 548 465 920

10 Crescent Head 38 28 19 57

11 Stuarts Point & Yarrahapinni

0 173 121 121

12 Barraganyatti 0 0 0 0 0

SHIRE TOTALS

809 1,767 1,009 689 500 2,542

Staging Forecasts

Consistent with the North Coast Settlement Guidelines, estimates of likely demand

for each locality was then used to prioritise staging forecasts for each locality in

order to prevent the uneconomic provision of infrastructure and disruptions to

fauna linkages caused by uncontrolled “leap-frogging” of development.

Staging

Forecast

Land suitability criteria

Short

Term

0-5 years

Infrastructure Adequate (no or minor work needed) roads

Environmental Constraints can be addressed in a Planning Proposal

or a DA

Access Good (within a 15 minute drive) with an existing or

potential alternative emergency access route

Density Can accommodate lots 1 ha

Demand High

Medium

Term

6-10 years

Infrastructure Adequate (works needed, would likely satisfy cost

benefit analysis)

Environmental Constraints can be addressed in a Planning Proposal,

or may need policy direction before rezoning and

development is considered

Access Good (within a 15 minute drive)



Staging

Forecast

Land suitability criteria

Demand Moderate

Long Term

11-25

years

Infrastructure Inadequate (work needed, unlikely to satisfy current

cost benefit analysis)

Environmental Potential high conservation value or constraints are

possibly insurmountable, need policy direction before

rezoning and development is considered.

Access Moderate to poor (within a 30 minute drive)


Demand Low

Kempsey Shire 25 Year Land Release & Staging Forecast

Shire Staging 2011

Supply

Stage 1

2014 – 2018

Stage 2

2019 – 2023

Stage 3

2024 - 2038

TOTALS


Vacant Lots

Potential Yield

(zoned land)

Lots Additional Area (ha)




Lots


20 10 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30

2 Collombatti 20 94 114 38 25 197 125 80 54 315 318

3 Frederickton 14 24 38 47 33 0 0 0 0 47 71


26 161 187 36 25 40 28 29 20 105 260

5 West Kempsey

1 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

6 Verges Creek 3 118 121 178 124 0 0 0 0 178 245


27 86 113 70 49 217 151 68 48 355 361

8 South Kempsey

40 109 149 6 4 0 0 0 0 6 153

9 Kundabung 6 7 13 290 203 173 121 786 583 1,249 920

10 Crescent Head

22 16 38 28 19 0 0 0 0 28 57

11 Yarrahapinni 0 0 0 59 42 114 79 0 0 173 121

TOTALS 179 630 809 752 524 741 504 963 670 2,456 2,542

Maps 21–30 appended indicate where the staging areas are (Appendix O - Page

SE486).

Public Exhibition and Consultation

It is proposed to place the draft Strategy on Public Exhibition for a period of two (2)

months. Several workshops will be held taking the community through the various

stages of the preparation of the Draft Strategy, and summarising the contents of

the document. This process is intended to enable the community to critically

analyse the draft strategy, and to make detailed submissions.




Department of Planning and Infrastructure

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI) must approve the strategy

following Council‟s final endorsement of the Strategy. The DoPI will review the

strategy, while it is on exhibition, and will advise Council of any issues it may have

with the plan.


2211 KEO

SUMMARY

Reporting on the need to extend the delegation given to the Kalateenee

Recreational Reserve Committee.

1 That the Kalateenee Recreational Reserve committee is delegated the

responsibility for the care and management of the Kalateenee

Recreational Reserve, the Dondingalong Multi-purpose Centre and

toilet facilities located on the Kalateenee Recreational Reserve.

2 That the Dondingalong Bushfire Brigade continues to have care,

control and management of the Bushfire Brigade Shed.


Environmental: Nil.

Social: The Dondingalong Multi-purpose Centre and Kalateenee Recreational

Reserve provide an important social venue for residents of the Dondingalong/Pipers

Creek area.

Economic (Financial): The facilities provided at the Kalateenee Recreational

Reserve are covered by Council‘s existing insurance arrangements.

Policy or statutory: Section 355 of the Local Government Act outlines how a

council exercises its functions. Under this section Council has determined to

exercise its functions relating to halls, tennis facilities and cultural/environmental

services through citizen membership committees of Council.

REPORT DETAILS

Background Information

The Kalateenee Recreational Reserve Committee was adopted as a 355 Committee

of Council at the 19 June 2012 Council meeting.

This committee is responsible for the care and maintenance of the Kalateenee

Recreational Reserve.

A second component of this report was that Council pursue discussions with the

Rural Fire Service (RFS) to take over care, control and management of the

Dondingalong Multi-purpose Centre and toilets situated on this reserve. The RFS

has indicated that they no longer wish to take on the management of the Centre.

GOAL 2: To Foster and Enhance Effective Social, Cultural and

Community Relations Building Respect and Civic Pride

2.1 Kalateenee Recreational Reserve File: F12/266-02 Copy: LA7574

RECOMMENDATION


Kalateenee Recreational Reserve Committee

In response to the above advice from the RFS, the Kalateenee Recreational Reserve

Committee was approached to determine if they would take over the care and

management of the Dondingalong Multi-purpose Centre.

On 24 May 2013, the Kalateenee Recreational Reserve Committee advised that ―the

committee has now met and it was agreed that the reserve committee would take

over the hall and toilets.‖

Change of Delegation required

Given that the original delegation provided on 19 June 2012 was ―for the

maintenance of the Kalateenee Recreational Reserve‖ there is a need to now

expand the delegation to include the additional requirements of the Dondingalong

Multi-Purpose Centre and toilets.

Under Section 355 of the Local Government Act any changes to delegations need to

be adopted by Council.

2211 KEO

SUMMARY

This report is to place on public exhibition, amendments to Macleay Valley

Community Art Gallery 2013/2014 fees of a „Non-refundable Booking Fee‟.

That Council place on public exhibition for 28 days the amendment to the

Fees and Charges for the Macleay Valley Community Art Gallery being a

„Non-refundable booking fee of $25 per exhibition‟


Environmental: Nil.

Social: The Macleay Valley Community Art Gallery provides a valuable place for

artists and people to exhibit, view and appreciate works of art.

Economic (Financial): These amendments will result in increased income for the

Macleay Valley Community Art Gallery.

Policy or statutory: It is a requirement that all fees and charges are exhibited for

a period of 28 days.

REPORT DETAILS

The Macleay Valley Community Art Gallery Committee at its meeting of 22 May

2013 considered and adopted fees and charges for the next financial year including

a non-refundable booking fee of $25 per exhibition.

2.2 Amendment to Fees and Charges for Macleay Valley Community Art

Gallery File: F12/117-02

RECOMMENDATION


As part of the exhibition period of the Operational Plan 2013/2014 the fees and

charges for the Macleay Valley Community Art Gallery were only partly changed

and advertised.

Council is now required to undertake a further exhibition period for the Macleay

Valley Community Art Gallery‟s „Non-refundable booking fee‟ which has not been

included in the Operational Plan.


3219 RJS

SUMMARY

A report to consider the expansion of the Crescent Head Rural Fire Service onto

adjoining Crown Reserve 96649.

That Department of Primary Industries – Crown Lands be requested to

revoke Reserve R96649 and incorporate it into R92095.


Environmental, Policy or statutory: Nil

Social: The area is currently being used for emergency services purposes. There

are no other impacts.

Economic (Financial): Consolidation of this reserve will allow the local emergency

services the opportunity to plan for future expansion. There are no immediate

impacts upon Council‘s budget.

REPORT DETAILS

A request has been received from the Crescent Head Rural Fire Service (RFS) to

expand their operations to include the land adjacent to their current building. A

copy of the submission is presented at (Appendix A – Page IS1).

The Crescent Head RFS is currently limited in footprint available for expansion of

their facilities and their submission seeks to increase the area of land available to

them so that they can plan strategically for future facilities.

The land occupied by the RFS building is Crown Reserve 92095 set aside in April

1980 for Bush Fire Brigade purposes. The adjoining land now sought by the RFS for

expansion is Crown Reserve 96649 set aside in March 1983 for public recreation

purposes. Both Reserves are situated within Lot 1 Section 4 DP758302. A map of

the site identifying the different Reserves is attached at (Appendix B – Page IS2)

The current use of Reserve 96649 that was reserved for public recreation is limited.

The area currently is maintained by the members of the Crescent Head RFS and

regularly used for car parking, training and other related purposes. There are no

embellishments within the area of public recreation reserve and it is considered

appropriate that the purpose of the Reserve be revised.

Whilst Council has not been appointed Trust Manager of the public recreation land

(R96649), pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993, the land

GOAL 3: To Plan and Fund the Shire‟s Infrastructure and Service

Needs

3.1 Expansion of the Crescent Rural Fire Service File: F12/166-02, LA15603

RECOMMENDATION




has devolved to Council. Councils have less power to deal with devolved Crown

lands as distinct from Crown lands over which councils have been appointed as a

Trust Manager. If Council resolves to support the expansion of the current RFS

facility, then in terms of Crown land management, Council can write to Crown

Lands advising of its support for the RFS expansion and requesting Crown Lands

undertake administrative actions to extinguish (revoke) the reserve set aside for

public recreation and add that land to the existing bush fire purposes reserve.


4122 DLR

SUMMARY

The Local Government Act Review Taskforce has released a report of their views

and is seeking feedback.

That a submission be lodged in line with the body of the report, indicating

overall support for the approach being developed.


Environmental, Social, Economic (Financial): Nil

Policy or Statutory: Will change the current legislation that Council works under

significantly.

REPORT DETAILS

The Taskforce has released a report outlining the underpinning philosophy that the

Taskforce would like to use in developing the new Local Government Act. They are

looking for feedback on the approach. The full report can be found at the following

link:

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/information/Local%20Govern

ment%20Acts%20Taskforce%20-%20Preliminary%20Ideas%20Paper%20-

%20October%202012.pdf

Purposes of the Local Government Act: A simplified purpose is provided that

sets out the reasons clearly and concisely. It removes specific purpose statements

that have been added over time in response to certain issues being topical, which

better belong in other aspects of the legislation.

The purpose proposed is supported.

Role and Principles of Local Government: Defining the role as achieving well-

being for the community is considered good, as it clarifies why we should be doing

things, rather than focussing on what we do. There is a concern over item ii) of the

principles, in that it calls for local government to respond to the needs of individuals

and diverse community groups. Nowhere in the principles does it require local

government to respond to the needs and interests of the broader community.

As government, it is considered that local government has to continue to act for the

greater good of the entire community. This has to be undertaken with a social

conscience, to ensure that the needs of individuals and minority groups are

respected and not overlooked. To place such a focus on individuals and diverse

groups creates an unrealistic expectation that the resources of the Council will be

directed to individualistic needs.

GOAL 4: To Pursue Beneficial Relationships with Regional Neighbours and Other Levels of Government

4.1 Local Government Act Review Taskforce File: *

RECOMMENDATION

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/information/Local%20Government%20Acts%20Taskforce%20-%20Preliminary%20Ideas%20Paper%20-%20October%202012.pdf




That the focus on meeting the needs of individuals and diverse community groups

be changed to a focus on engaging with the community to ensure that community

well-being is maintained or enhanced.

Focus on Integrated Planning and Reporting: They see this framework as

being a positive change and are looking to strengthen its use. This is supported, as

it has worked to change the focus from annual plans focused on where to spend the

money next year to determining the strategic directions needed to be followed to

achieve lasting results.

Creating this as a core function of how councils are operated is seen as a positive

outcome.

Community Consultation and Engagement: The Taskforce sets out a number of

rights of the community and factors to take into account for consultation. These

principles are considered to be fine. However, the Taskforce talks about councils as

being enablers. For this to be the case, the responsibilities of the community need

to be brought into the legislation. With rights comes responsibilities and these

should be clear in the legislation. Otherwise, there is a single-sided focus on

legislation that will perpetuate the current system of learned helplessness where

people turn to government for all solutions.

Developing community responsibilities as well as rights is seen as a valuable way to

develop a culture of self-help with government only providing for needs that cannot

be met by the community. This will minimise costs and maximise community

involvement.

Some of the wording will need to change, such as the use of „fairer access to

resources‟. This should be that people have equitable access, as it is not possible to

perpetually provide fairer access. Similarly, with the use of the term “better

opportunities to get involved”, this should be changed to simply that people have

the opportunity to get involved.

The Taskforce also talks about ensuring that people affected are provided with

access to information to relevant information. It is considered that this is not

practically possible, that instead the Council should make it available, but does not

have to ensure that it is accessed.

Recognise the importance of technology: The Taskforce has focused on this

area as there are quite a few provisions in the Local Government Act that relate to

communications and meeting practices that define the method. Overall, the

Taskforce is looking at the Act being less prescriptive and most of the problems that

currently exist are really due to the Act being too prescriptive. The objective of the

Taskforce is to make the legislation „future proof‟ in that it refers to what needs to

be done (e.g. ensure that people are reasonably informed) as opposed to the

medium of doing it (place an advertisement in a major metropolitan newspaper).

This approach is supported.

Elections: The move to postal voting, and later electronic voting, is supported.

This will significantly reduce the cost of elections.

The section also includes provisions for reducing the need for by-elections. While

these would allow for a reduced number of by-elections, there are alternative

methods that could be used. For example, if a council was to establish a range of

councillor numbers (e.g. 7 to 9) then whenever the council was within that range it

could elect whether or not to hold a by-election. There would only be a by-election

when there was a significant need.


The initial paper allowed for half-term elections of councillors, but this proposal has

been dropped by the Taskforce.

Overall, the changes are seen as positive, but a suggestion for operating on

reduced councillor numbers is seen as better than the proposals currently being

considered.

In addition, the closing of the postal votes at 6.00 pm on the Monday following the

election significantly delays the determination of the outcome of the election. It is

considered that closing the postal votes at 6.00 pm on election day would improve

outcomes and not disenfranchise many voters.

Meetings: Modernising the requirements and consolidating the Code of Meeting

Practice are seen as positive outcomes. Councils would still be able to add local

provisions, but they would be clearly separate for the standard procedures used.

Councillors may wish to consider commenting on the need to be physically present

at meetings. At this stage, the Taskforce is considering making provision for

attendance in absentia, with a focus on this only being in special circumstances

(e.g. during isolation by a disaster such as flooding).

Appointment and Management of Staff: The Taskforce is looking to separate

the strategic functions of the governing body of the Council from the operational

functions of the General Manager. They are looking at the development of

organisation structures and all appointment of staff to be the role of the General

Manager. The governing body is responsible for determining the services and

priorities that are required to be achieved and to provide the required funding.

This approach is supported as the governing body of the Council manages the

performance of the General Manager. The General Manager‟s role is to achieve the

results the best way possible. If the option selected by the General Manager is

wrong, this should be reflected in the performance reviews. It would also give

increased flexibility to change the organisation as needed because, over time, the

appropriate staff structure will change. Changes should happen in small incremental

sections rather than a large change as can happen under the rigid structures

currently in place.

Pecuniary Interest/Delegations: Rewriting the provisions into plain English is

supported.

Financial Governance: Moving the system away from prescriptive regulatory

focus to a risk management based focus is likely to result in better financial

oversight by the governing body.

Procurement: Moving to a more principles approach basis is considered positive.

Looking at a more flexible threshold than the current use of a specific figure is

being considered by the Taskforce. The Taskforce has indicated that the current

system is costly for business looking to provide services to local government and

those businesses cannot understand the need, when such high levels of details for

such low levels of value are not required in any of their other dealings.

It is considered that each council can easily determine the degree of delegation that

they are comfortable with delegating to the General Manager. This can be

supported by policies that set out the level of process required.

Capital Expenditure Framework/Public Private Partnerships: The Taskforce

is looking at developing a framework to support large capital expenditure. It is


considered that this is simply adding additional structures that should be

incorporated into the Integrated Strategic Planning system.

The aspects of funding, including the risk factors and the robustness of the financial

underpinnings, should be considered as part of the strategic process of setting the

direction and developing the ten year financial plan.

Acquisition of Land: The Taskforce sees no problem in this area. However, the

process of compulsory acquisition of land has significant flaws, in that the Council

has ability to determine the acquisition price before the land is acquired by the

Council and the process if time consuming and costly. The process is often more

expensive than the land acquisition, particularly when, in many rural cases, the

land is a small portion or part of a farm where the road does not align with the road

reserve. The timeframes are very long for what should be simple processes.

Public Land: The Taskforce is looking to end the classification of land as

community or operational and remove the need for individual plans of management

for each parcel of land. Instead, use and disposal of land would be undertaken

through the Asset Management Plan and as part of the Delivery Program process.

This is supported as a much lower cost and more practical way of managing the

land owned by the Council. The current system requires considerable expense, for

example, to have plans of management developed for a park block smaller than a

house block.

Approvals, Orders and Enforcements: The Taskforce proposes reviewing the

penalties, as they have not been changed in 20 years.

It is proposed to suggest that there needs to be a mechanism under which the

penalties increase automatically (e.g. in accordance with CPI) unless the Minister

determines a separate figure. This would prevent the same situation from coming

into existence after the new penalty amounts are imposed. There must be some

mechanism currently used for state-based penalties which may be able to be used.

4122 DLR

SUMMARY

The Local Government Independent Review Panel (Panel) had released its twenty

steps that are designed to create a robust system of local government. Generally

the twenty steps are simply a range of motherhood statements and a reworking of

an approach from 40 years ago.

The Panel has been using financial information inappropriately, leading to the

conclusions about local government as an industry being reached by the Panel most

likely being wrong. While there are a number of councils that are in significant

trouble and a number that will get there, it would appear that the position has been

significantly overstated. This is not unusual for government investigations of this

nature.

The use of county councils and the way they have been applied in this area will

have significant impact on this Council. Establishing a county council with two

members, as proposed by the Panel, will not effectively work and is, in effect, an

amalgamation. The scale of the county council will not provide scope or scale

efficiencies of any significance over what currently exists. The lack of detail on any

4.2 Local Government Independent Review Panel File: *


of the proposals indicates that what is suggested has not been well thought out.

The lack of evidential support means that the report has very low credibility.

The impacts on this Council of the proposal will be to increase the cost of operating

the Council and remove control over key elements for shaping the future of the

community from Council‟s control. The Panel‟s proposal will create an unworkable

situation, which will then lead to further changes being required to repair that

situation, but will lead to a breakdown in the current good relationships between

ourselves and Port Macquarie-Hastings Council, which are considered vitally

important in gaining good outcomes for our local government area. We are part of

a region and we have to work together as a region to get the best outcomes.

That a submission be lodged outlining the need:

a) for the Panel to actually develop an evidence-based solution based on

sound research into innovative and practical ways that community

governance and local government services can be provided;

b) for the panel to provide a solution that can be shown to actually fix

the problems that the Panel believes exist;.

c) to revisit the financial modelling to ensure that the Panel makes

recommendations based on correct data;

d) for the Panel to gain an understanding of the true meaning of

strategic capacity and modern approaches to providing solutions;

e) to develop a solution that does not depend on „free loading‟ on the

resources of one local government area by others; and

f) for the panel to bring in critical thinking from outside of Local

Government.


Environmental, Social, Policy or Statutory: Nil

Economic (Financial): It is difficult to provide a firm estimate of the likely costs of

the changes proposed by the Panel. The proposal will provide very little in positive

outcomes but increased cost in the duplication of processes.

REPORT DETAILS

The report developed by the Independent Review Panel is difficult to assess and

report on as it provides little factual data and instead offers only opinions that are

not supported by evidence or a clear set of logical thoughts that show how the

Panel reached its conclusions. The language within the report shows that the Panel

members clearly have an ingrained belief that bigger is better. The report is

peppered with unsupported statements that assume councils will have to be bigger.

The Panel members all come from a background that is based on supporting bigger

local government as better, so this is no surprise. In addition, many of the „twenty

steps‟ do not actually provide clear „steps‟ that show an outcome.

From reading the paper, the approach is based on the following assumptions:

RECOMMENDATION


1) Larger councils are better than smaller councils.

2) That councils that are the largest population centre in the region have better

technical skills at their disposal.

3) That councils that are „regional centres‟ have spare capacity and should

allocate some of their resources to helping out the other councils in the

region.

4) Local Government will not change of its own accord.

5) Councillors and staff have little awareness of the problems facing local

government.

6) There is capacity in the rate base to fund local government.

7) There is limited capability in local government to be a partner with State and

Federal Government.

While a number of these assumptions may be true, the Panel fails to actually prove

their assumptions are valid.

The other main failing of the paper before considering their proposal is that it is

focused on the structure and process of government. It has not considered the

fundamental question of what is a local community. Before starting to build a model

of local government there is a need to define what the model needs to achieve. As

the Panel has not done this the chances that their proposal will be one that meets

the actual needs of the community best out of all the options possible is remote. It

is little better than randomly selecting options.

The goals that the Panel claims to need to achieve with the twenty steps are a more

sustainable system of democratic local government that:

- has added capacity to address the needs of local communities

- has added capacity to address the needs of regional communities; and

- can be a valued partner of state and federal governments.

The Panel claims that there are financial problems in local government and claims

that there is not sufficient „strategic capacity‟. Strategic capacity as defined by the

Panel is virtually everything. The Panel does not provide a definition of strategic

capacity. The key elements set out by the Panel required to have strategic capacity

are:

- More robust revenue base and increased discretionary spending

- Scope to undertake new functions/major projects

- Ability to employ a wider range of skilled staff

- Knowledge, creativity and innovation

- Advanced skills in strategic planning and policy direction

- Effective regional collaboration

- Credibility for more effective advocacy


- Capable partner for state and federal agencies

- Resources to cope with complex/unexpected change

Based on these being the key elements, strategic capacity as described by the

Panel is primarily about having increased access to higher levels and greater quality

and quantity of resources. The way the Panel sees this as being achieved is to

create larger organisational structures. The second aspect of strategic capacity is

the ability to work in partnership with the region and other levels of government.

As can be seen, it is simply a restatement of the stated goals of the Panel, with

more detail.

Strategic Capacity

Strategic capacity is a formal academic term. What the term means significantly

varies from the interpretation that the Panel has given to the term. The concept is

based on the work by Marshall Ganz, which appears to be built on earlier work

relating to capacity building undertaken by Jacqueline Stavros. Based on a brief

reading of the concepts, the essential elements of local government would be

organisations:

- where the aims and purpose are about the community‟s values, not issues;

- that can work with communities to transform their resources into power;

- that have alignments with other communities to build broader coalitions and

larger alliances;

- where the leadership can bring the resources together and turn them into

power;

- that can identify and train leaders within the community; and

- that can find ways to couple local action with national purpose.

Strategic capacity can be developed in many ways other than by creating increased

size of organisations. In fact, the philosophy of the work undertaken by Ganz

comes from identifying the ways that small groups with limited resources can

achieve positive outcomes against larger bodies with much greater resources at

their disposal. Many smaller communities have much higher resilience and ability to

achieve good results with limited resources. This aspect has been identified in the

Panel‟s papers when talking about local government. Strategic capacity, in its

proper sense, is about showing how to keep things on a small scale and getting

better outcomes through networking and alliances.

The Problem as Identified by the Panel

So the problems according to the Panel can be simplified down to insufficient

resources to undertake the roles required properly and lack of ability to work with

others.

The first part of the problem only has a limited number of ways it can be solved:

1) Increase the overall level of resources

2) Reduce the number or level of services provided


3) Gain efficiencies of scope by changing the organisation size

4) Gain efficiencies of scale by changing the organisation size

5) Gain technical efficiencies by changing the organisation size

6) Gain technical efficiencies by improving efficiency

Councils Actions So Far

This Council has already started on the process of increasing the overall level of

resources from rates, looking for a significant above rate peg increase, covering

point 1. The Council has polled residents about cuts to services and has recently

seen the reaction to service cuts. The community‟s desire is not for lower service

levels. This puts point 2 out of contention.

There are a wide range of studies that have shown that the efficiencies of scale and

scope fail to eventuate from amalgamating local government, so points 3 and 4 can

be discarded.

Through MIDROC, our region has already started the process of seeking to identify

if there is potential for scope, scale and technical efficiencies through development

of different models of service provision. This would cover points 3, 4 and 5.

This Council has already cut its discretionary budgets around $2 million and has

allocated a future funding stream to implement efficiency practices, covering point

6.

It is agreed that there is a need for local government to develop improved ways to

operate within a regional framework. This is needed to build effective working

relationships with state agencies and is needed to provide the weight of numbers

behind what the community is calling for.

Panel‟s Twenty Steps

So will the twenty essential steps provided by the Panel provide increased „strategic

capacity‟? The following sections look at and discuss the areas shown as being

steps. The full paper is available at the following link:

http://www.localgovernmentreview.nsw.gov.au/documents/LGR/Future%20Directio

ns%20Paper.pdf

Step 1 provides no actual outcomes. It simply states that everyone has to be

willing to accept change. This is nothing but stating a reality. It is true that local

government has been resistant to change (a common fact in all types of

government around the world) and things have been done relatively the same for a

long time. The step does not actually provide any increased strategic capacity, but

it is important because without a willingness to adopt significant change there

cannot be a significantly changed outcome.

Step 2 simply sets out what the Panel sees as an effective system, which does not

in itself provide any improvement. It goes on to outline new structures. The

structures that are proposed in the report are amalgamations, county councils

(amalgamating part of the council‟s operations) and local boards (amalgamating

most of the council‟s operations). The Panel justifies the need for amalgamations

based on there not being enough revenue or staff resources to sustain 152

councils. But amalgamating councils does not increase revenue. Previous history

and studies do not show it reduces staff. The Panel itself commissioned a report

that found that employment increased. So, based on the Panel‟s own research

(which admittedly is of extremely poor quality in this case) amalgamations will

http://www.localgovernmentreview.nsw.gov.au/documents/LGR/Future%20Directions%20Paper.pdf

http://www.localgovernmentreview.nsw.gov.au/documents/LGR/Future%20Directions%20Paper.pdf


make the problem worse as the revenue will not increase, but the number of staff

will increase. This will reduce strategic capacity.

Step 3 is about localism. Here the Panel claims that making larger councils is OK

because they cannot find any evidence that shows it leads to loss of individual

identity. Yet strangely, despite their claim that there will not be a loss of individual

identity, the Panel states that “a range of methods have to be used to keep the

„local‟ in larger local government areas”. These two statements on the same page

are totally contradictory, as is the idea that there is a need for the new local

boards. If loss of the council will not lead to loss of local identity, why is there the

need for establishment of new methods and organisations, which will have a cost

and require additional staff. Accordingly, step 3 reduces strategic capacity in one

way, as it increases the workload and cost while providing no additional revenue. It

increases the Panel‟s partnership aspect of strategic capacity as the decision

making is removed from local areas and undertaken regionally. This theoretically

reduces the number of councils that the State Government has to deal with, which

is one of the aspects seen as beneficial to the State Government. While it is unlikely

that the communities within the Kempsey Local Government Area would lose their

identity, it is considered likely that they may feel more disenfranchised in a large

amalgamated local government area. If the results of Queensland polls to de-

amalgamate are anything to go by, communities desire smaller local governments.

100% of the polls allowed to occur resulted in de-amalgamation, with generally

60% support.

Step 4 is about the financing of local government. It relies heavily on the TCorp

reporting which suffers from two major flaws. The first is that it excludes 12% of

the revenue of councils (on average). The second is that the data in relation to

assets is of poor quality. These two problems affect 45% of the weight used to

determine the financial position of the councils.

The reason given for TCorp excluding 12% of the revenue of local government is

that capital grants and contributions in a year can distort the position between

councils. In a single year, and for making comparisons between councils, this can

be the case. But TCorp and the Panel have then sought to use this modified data to

assign a financial position and future financial position that purports to show the

financial position of the councils and industry. This is flawed logic. Accordingly, all

of the assessments made, based on the TCorp data, are equally flawed.

To provide a useful set of data will require TCorp to recast its estimates by

including an average level of capital grants and contributions. Based on longitudinal

assessment of the comparative financial data available for local government, the

amount of capital grants and contributions is relatively stable across the entire

industry over time.

To give an indication of the likely impact of this, overall, local government would

move from making a financial loss to making a financial surplus. It is likely that

instead of one third of councils indicating an operating surplus, two thirds will be

making an operating surplus (based on 2012 comparative data).

TCorp and the Panel both state that the data on assets has not been checked. On

reviewing the data there are a number of inconsistencies that are immediately

apparent. This reduces the reliance that can be placed on this data.

The outcomes from step 4 are for TCorp to explain their report and the implications

and for councils to change their policy settings accordingly. This is seen as not

providing value to local government as TCorp has shown a fundamental lack of

understanding of financial analysis by inappropriately using data and by basing

assessments also on unverified data that has apparent anomalies that were either

not detected by TCorp or deliberately ignored.


There is nothing in this step that can currently increase strategic capacity. The level

of financial advice available to this Council is considered to be better than could be

provided by TCorp.

Step 5 is more about the finances of local government. Again, the Panel urges local

government to implement the TCorp recommendations, despite the data and

analysis being flawed. The Panel suggests the development of benchmarks to allow

for comparison across NSW and against other states. Currently, there are a large

range of benchmarks already calculated in the comparative information and a range

that are included in the financial statements, but are not collated in any way. The

Panel dismisses this data, but not all of it is useless, but it is correct that good

benchmarks on financial performance would assist in increased transparency in

performance. However, to achieve good data on performance of local government

there is a need to identify the causes of changes in costs. Without this there can be

no true comparison. For example, it is possible to compare the average residential

rates between council areas. But this is not compared to average earnings (for

example) to see whether the comparative impact of local government is similar.

This type of comparison would also allow a more accurate assessment of whether

councils are rating at an equitable level or could, relatively, raise more from this

source.

The Panel indicates that TCorp has made a number of recommendations on

improving the financial performance of local government and that they could play a

role in providing guidance. To determine whether TCorp could actually provide

guidance, the performance of the NSW government (TCorp‟s main customer) was

assessed against the same benchmarks that were applied to local government.

Where data was available to achieve this, the NSW Government performed worse

than local government overall. On this basis, it is not seen that in reality TCorp is

likely to be able to provide better financial advice than is currently available within

local government.

The fact that the NSW government is performing no better than local government

does not support the argument that there is a need for all councils to employ an

appropriately qualified chief financial officer to get good financial results. The

statement also shows that the Panel is mired in traditional local government

thinking. Most small business will not employ a chief financial officer with high

qualifications. They engage accounting services from firms that specialise in

providing that service until such time as they become large enough to make it more

cost effective to have their own in-house resources. The Panel should have included

people with commercial business experience to get input from people with varying

views and opinions.

The Panel suggests some guidelines that should be added to the Integrated

Planning Framework, in regards to the Delivery Plan. They state that the Delivery

Plan should give effect to the long term financial and asset management plans. This

is putting the cart before the horse. The Council must first determine what it

intends to deliver, such as the service levels. The financial planning and asset

management needs to be developed to then support delivering those services.

Including a requirement to the Delivery plan such as “substantially increased

funding for infrastructure maintenance and renewal” is also considered

inappropriate as it may not apply to all councils and it is a response to a current

situation, not a strategic principle. They also include a range of motherhood

statements that have no real meaning, such as “apply increased borrowing to meet

infrastructure needs wherever appropriate and financially responsible.” Inclusion of

such statements as this just add clutter and do not add value.


The Panel suggests that council audits come under the auspice of the Auditor

General. They provide no evidence of poor audit practices and none is known of.

This would appear to simply be adding another bureaucratic layer which will simply

add increased cost to local government without additional value being provided.

Developing some good benchmarks should improve the position of councils by

increasing the pressure to achieve those targets. The other measures are likely to

detract from sustainability by adding costs for no increase in value.

Step 6 is about increasing revenue. The Panel is of the opinion that more income

should be raised from rates. This view is supported. For many people the cost of all

the services provided by local government is less than what they pay just for

electricity.

Removing the need for local government to fund pensioner concessions would bring

NSW into line with most other states, and give a significant boost to the finances of

councils. In the case of this Council, it would improve the financial situation by

$600,000. But, the $1-$2 per week increase the Panel sets out as acceptable for

most NSW ratepayers is nowhere near what would be needed to resolve most

problems based on the TCorp analysis. If the TCorp data is used (which it should

not be) a $2 per week increase on every rate assessment across NSW would still

leave local government, on average, with an operating deficit. For the case of

Kempsey, the previously determined level of change in rates necessary equates to

$10 per week. So it can be seen that for the councils that are facing financial

problems an increase of $1 to $2 per week is a drop in the ocean. It is likely to

solve less than 5% of the financial problem.

The Panel also suggests the ability for ratepayers to defer a portion of their rates

where they are “income poor but asset rich”. This should be viewed with caution as

the impact on the cash flows of the council in areas, such as ours, which are

retirement destinations or have high levels of low income people could be

significant if, with the introduction of this change, a change was made to who could

gain access to this program. If this concession was no greater than what is already

available, in terms of who it applied to and the value amount, this may not be an

issue, in which case eventually councils would be better off.

The Panel proposes allowing a 3% above rate peg allowance without having to go

to IPART. While this would be seen as a concession, it will still perpetuate the same

existing system where it is easier to stay within the limits than take responsibility

for increasing rates to the level councils need to be at to provide the infrastructure

and service the community wants. The Panel is also proposing exemptions from

rate pegging where councils can show high levels of performance in financial and

asset management. The main problem with this is that achieving this will only be

possible in a well-resourced council, so only those councils that do not need to be

exempted from rate pegging will be able to be exempted.

The Panel is also recommending the removal of minimum Financial Assistance

Grant allocations. Considering that the purpose of this grant is to ensure horizontal

equity in the cost of providing services (e.g. that the effective cost of providing

services in a range of different locations is the same) minimum grants are contrary

to the objective. As such, the removal of the minimum grants should be supported.

Currently, 15.5% of the council‟s allocation comes from the base amount. If 30% of

the total available funds are put into the base, it is logical to assume that councils

such as Kempsey would see a net benefit from such a change. It is difficult to

determine whether Kempsey is in a more disadvantageous position than the

average council and, thus, whether the result would be a transfer to more

disadvantaged councils, as the data on the factors is not available. The Grants

Commission indicates that councils receive less than half of their assessed needs.


This would indicate that removal of the base would benefit more disadvantaged

councils.

The Panel has recommended establishing a state-wide funding agency to raise

borrowings. They have indicated a belief that this could reduce the cost of debt by

2%-3%. Achieving this would improve the financial position of many councils,

including Kempsey, as most councils will have to use debt financing at some stage.

The Panel recommends exploring supplementary revenue raising options. The

options canvassed are generally just increasing taxation charges in other ways (e.g.

fees not rates). While there is no negative in looking at commercial options,

councils need to ensure that they have suitable assessment of the risks being

undertaken and are able to withstand the potential losses as well as profits. There

is also a need to ensure that the Council has, in reality, or has made provision to

acquire, the resources to undertake the venture successfully.

The proposals in this step would be expected to overall benefit this council due to

increased grant revenue. The above rate peg exemption is unlikely to materially

affect this council as much more than that level of funding is needed. Accordingly,

Council would not simply be able to stay within the revised rate peg limit without

facing a significant financial risk. Council is already reviewing its fees to see if there

is scope for increased cost recovery, which is also suggested by the Panel, so that

will not impact. But in reality the number of fees that are not limited by regulation

or legislation are small and would have minimum impact without very large

changes, which would probably make the service unaffordable. It is unlikely that

the NSW or federal government will take on the full funding of pension rebates, for

the same reason as why we should not expect increased grants – they do not have

the spare cash, so this source of revenue identified by the Panel can be discounted.

Overall, this step should improve the financial position of councils in a poor position

and require councils with a strong base to raise more from that base. But the

quantum of changes identified will fall well short of solving the financial situation for

those councils identified as being weak, even when the true level of revenue is

taken into account.

Step 7 is another area where the main problem is that the extent of the problem is

based on the TCorp report that even TCorp states is based on unreliable data. But it

is considered that there is more likely than not an infrastructure problem at some

councils. The work undertaken here in the past is considered to show that such a

situation exists at this council. There will be other councils in a similar situation as,

while Kempsey is a very low rating council, the extent of the problem would

indicate that quite a number of higher rating councils are facing the same situation

to differing extents.

But while going through the individual reports, a number of concerning situations

were identified.

In one case, a council is showing 98% of its assets are in backlog state. From

knowledge the road network in this council is similar to the surrounding areas, yet

they do not show near this percentage. One council with 1,420km of roads has

assets of $95.2 million. Another rural council with only 1,201km of roads has

$540.5 million in assets. One council which had an asset renewal ratio over the

three years of reporting of a very low 0.15, still managed to improve the overall

standard of its assets during that period. In some cases, assets that replace a pre-

existing asset and provide the same service to the community are assessed as new

assets and in other reports new assets are included in the calculation of the asset

renewal ratio. In another council, the amount of asset renewals decreased and the

amount of depreciation increased but the ratio (which is calculated by

renewals/depreciation) increased significantly.


This leads to a belief that the data is of poor quality and cannot be relied upon.

It is difficult to determine if the Panel‟s proposal to extract a portion of the grant

funds from the Financial Assistance Roads component and re-allocate it to councils

most in need would have a positive or negative impact on this Council. But re-

allocation of a portion of the Financial Assistance Grant into a pool should not be

supported on the basis that:

1) the Financial Assistance Grant is about equalising cost effort, so the factors of

disability should be set to achieve the result; and

2) establishing such pools leads to large costs to administer and for councils to

apply for the relatively small competitive pool of funds.

If more funding needs to be channelled to councils in need because the general

pool does not still create horizontal equalisation, then the option should be to

transfer funding from the roads pool into the general pool. The equalisation

formulas will then direct the funds into the area of need without administrative

overheads.

To support the Panel‟s proposed grant funding pool, it is intended to establish a

panel of similar nature to what is currently in existence in Queensland. In this case

it would be one panel consisting of mayors, general managers, ROC representatives

and state agency representatives and a technical panel consisting of staff from

councils, the ROC and state agencies.

Under this model the region would create a pool that would then be allocated to the

projects most in need by those councils that could least afford it. It is considered

more effective to simply re-allocate the funds based on disability and allow the

councils to then fund the loan repayments from a large project from those funds.

The cost of running these committees would support the interest on $672,000 of

loans per annum. A pool of 15% of the funds for this council‟s county council would

amount to $603,600. The cost of the committees would be equivalent to 5% to

10% of the pool of funds. The available funds would be sufficient to fund a $15

million loan.

As the „weak‟ councils are generally clustered, this approach will also only lead to

funds being often diverted from one weak council to a weaker council. The net

benefit is likely to be negligible.

A similar system is already in place in NSW, where regional groups of RMS and

council engineers meet each four years to determine the allocation of funds to

regional roads from the „block‟ allocation. If such a pool of funds were to be created

it may be beneficial to have the allocations based on technical need than political

need.

The step also includes an expectation by the Panel that larger regional centres

should fund and support other areas. A system that entrenches cross-subsidisation

in this way will lead to increased resentment between areas. Any system developed

should see that the ratepayers in one area are not subsidising other areas. While

there is no problem with councils sharing resources and assisting the region, as is

already done, such activities should be voluntary.

An interesting comment in this section is that the Panel believes that “at any given

time a significant percentage of a council‟s infrastructure assets will be at a less

than desirable standard”. TCorp has assessed the percentage of assets that should

be at less than desirable standard at 2% of assets. This would seem to be at odds

with the Panel‟s position, but there is no mention of this by the Panel.


This council has been part of an audit on the methods used to undertake the asset

valuations. The acceptable level of road condition used at this council was higher

than other councils were generally using. But the methodology that is being used

seemed flawed compared to what would be good practice, in that it only calculates

the cost of bringing the road segment back to the minimum acceptable condition.

This means that you would, in any road segment, only fix enough to bring the

overall segment back to average. But many engineers do actually follow this type of

approach in local government, so it may not be unrealistic for many councils.

Effectively, our backlog would be well overstated using the theoretical calculation

that seems accepted, compared to other councils. Compared to undertaking best

practice road works, it is still about the same level as reported.

Extracting funds into a pool from the Financial Assistant Grant is not seen as likely

to improve the overall strategic capacity of local government as it does not create

any additional revenue and creates additional costs. As the asset data is not highly

reliable, establishing a future direction on that data is risky and not advisable.

Step 8 calls for promotion of innovation, productivity improvements and increasing

competitiveness. The Panel states that one of the advantages of current local

government is the large number of organisations and places at which innovation

can occur. The Panel‟s proposals reduce the number of places at which innovation

can occur. The Panel points out that there needs to be a more concerted effort to

drive the process of innovation, seeing the development of a board and data

collection and reporting as being the solution. Their proposal is simply to develop

service standards, based around the Victorian model. While it is fine to measure

service standards, unless there are standardised service standards across the

industry there will be no effective way people can assess performance other than

longitudinally within one council. This point is alluded to in the next step‟s

commentary.

The Panel also misses an important point, in that the community is normally less

interested in the service standard than whether they are satisfied with the service

standard and the performance of council. The Panel looks to be taking a very

expensive typically government way to the need to ask the community are you

satisfied with a standard or service and are you getting that service level.

Within this step the Panel also talks about workforce and leadership skills. The

Panel indicates that quality management and inspirational leadership have a large

impact. The Panel does not go on to identify why they believe that these are not in

existence in local government. The system of employment within local government

is unlikely to be attractive to the most valuable and innovative employees. You are

predominantly employed under awards that are designed to try and ensure

transparency, not reward. The level of remuneration is often low compared to what

performing employees (particularly skilled) could demand elsewhere. You are open

to a much higher level of criticism about where you work and how you do your job.

And there is a negative perception to working in government. None of these factors

are touched on or addressed by the Panel.

The Panel also does not address how you could make local government operations

innovative, productive or competitive. As such, this step will not increase strategic

capacity.

Step 9 calls for a change from a culture of compliance to one of improvement. The

Panel states that compliance tasks should be reduced wherever possible, and

councils given greater flexibility to manage their affairs according to local needs.

Reduction on the regulation and prescriptive approach to local government that is

currently applied by the NSW government would be beneficial, as currently there

are many instances where the state government imposes regulation across the


state to deal with a problem in one area. This reduces the flexibility of how a

council can respond to an issue. The Panel does not explicitly address the need for

a change in culture in the NSW government to achieve this.

The Panel is proposing to mandate audit committees and have in place internal

audit processes. Their opinion is that without this in place a new agenda of

innovation and accountability cannot occur. The very name and nature of this

process works against achieving innovation and accountability. Effectively you set

up a third party that goes in to see whether parts of the organisation are complying

with the centrally mandated rigid performance measures that are in place. It can

often remove the onus on the managers to be responsible for ensuring they are

monitoring and measuring performance, as they see it as being the role of the

internal audit. It is considered that a much better use of the amount of resources

would to be to use the funds to develop skills and systems that actually allow

managers and staff to perform the activities. Alternatively, all the councils could be

levied for a state-wide body that is staffed by high level skilled technical staff

focussed on identifying and training others in innovative performance, effectively

research and development. Individual councils will not be able to employ specialist

skills to cover all the main aspects of the operations undertaken, meaning that the

value of a generalist position holder in identifying best practice improvements is

likely to be limited.

The Panel‟s views on the use of the Auditor General fall into the same theme of

focusing on compliance, not accountability and innovation. Another concern with

using the Auditor General is that, as an industry, we will continue to compare

ourselves to government. To truly seek innovation and competitiveness we need to

be comparing to operations in a competitive environment. This is probably a service

best provided by a private industry based organisation.

The Panel includes the option for an annual general meeting. Unfortunately, these

are concepts from the last century. The reality is that people are not going to come

to a council meeting, even if you call it an annual general meeting, unless there is

an issue that affects them or the council has gone well past the state where there

should have been intervention by the Division of Local Government. Traditional

meetings are not the way to communicate with communities in today‟s age.

Step 10 focuses on the political arm of councils. The Panel is recommending

mandatory professional training. They include a valid point in that councillors

become front line decision makers from their first meeting. Increasingly, members

of corporate boards are required to gain qualifications and undertake higher levels

of training. It should be expected that councillors, who are setting the strategic

direction for the community, should also have a high level of skills. This is an area

where the roles of councillors as the governing body of a multi-million dollar

business collides with councillors as a representative group of the community,

many of who would be put off by having to undertake significant formal training.

The Panel favours limiting the term of councillors. They give an indication of three

terms. While this would lead to more people gaining a chance to be a councillor, the

community should have the option to select the best candidate that is prepared to

stand. If that person has been a councillor for a long time, what is to say they will

suddenly be a worse councillor in their fourth term. Democratic election processes

allow the community to determine whether they believe a councillor is performing

or not. The length of time they have been a councillor should be immaterial.

The Panel touches on councillors‟ remuneration. The current system of centralised

control over councillor remuneration prevents communities from determining what

they see as the worth of a councillor. The value councillors provide to the

community is like the value directors provide to a company, varied in different

areas. A mechanism that allows the community to determine the board


remuneration, similar to companies, is likelier to lead to councillor salaries being set

at the appropriate level and may also create a greater emphasis on councillors to

provide value that matters to the broader community from their role. But it could

easily also lead to populist short term decision making, which is one of the core

reasons for the current position of local government. The Panel is also looking to

have increased levels of administrative support for councillors, but is not clear on

exactly what level of cost this will impose on local government.

The Panel is looking at the option of developing a mix of councillors that are elected

across the entire area who focus on the strategic aspect and councillors from

specific wards who focus on representation of the community‟s wishes. In large

councils, councillors elected at large could take on specific portfolios within the

operations of Council. It is difficult to see how in most councils of the current sizes

that this would not lead to councillors becoming highly operationally focused on the

area of their portfolio. Councils in their current form are simply not large enough to

justify a full-time strategic oversight position. Neither is the size of the elected pool

large enough that there is the need for one person to specialise. When you have 70

members and the need to align the actions of government with a party structure

then it is seen that a cabinet is required. But this situation does not exist in local

government where, at most, there are 8 or 9 members in a party. However, the

Panel is looking to increase the size of councils and create large county councils. It

is still not considered that the scale the Panel proposes in its paper would require

portfolio politicians.

Most of the proposals in this step increase the cost of governance, with

questionable value. Mandatory training will only provide value to councillors willing

to learn, who will normally undertake the training voluntarily. So no real increase in

skill levels and improvement in decision making will occur. Limiting the term of

councillors may lead to the best leaders being ineligible to stand, thus reducing the

governance skills. As such, it is not seen that there is an increase in strategic

capacity from this step.

Step 11 looks at the role of Mayors. The Panel points out that the current Local

Government Act is unclear as to the role of the Mayor. The proposals do not

increase the role that any good Mayor will already be doing. Clarification of the role

of Mayors to provide the strategic guidance in the development of the high level

plans of councils may improve the focus of a number of Mayors on aspects of their

role that are sometimes currently neglected.

Over the industry, there may be an increase in strategic capacity, but this is not

assured as Mayors may continue with a fixed view of their role that continues to be

at variance with the intention of the legislation.

Step 12 discusses revisiting council-management relations. But the primary aspect

of this section is to suggest increased clarity as to the role of the General Manager,

based around the current concepts that are in place. They propose changing the

requirements for summary dismissal to needing a two-thirds majority and that

General Manager contracts must be advertised after 10 years‟ service. As with

limiting the term of councillors, it is not seen how the added cost of this is

warranted in a situation where the councillors are happy with the performance of

the General Manager. It will reduce the attractiveness of the position and thus

make it more difficult to attract good quality applicants, particularly in rural areas,

where a change in position means selling the family home and moving your family.

Private companies do not see the need to undertake this, so it is difficult to see the

basis of merit for this argument, other than to blindly believe in change for

change‟s sake.

The Panel suggests that the Mayor should be heavily involved in the selection

process, performance reviews and dismissal proceedings of senior staff. This varies


from the current position where the councillors appoint a General Manager and the

General Manager then employs all staff, with consultation with the council

(governing body) on senior staff positions.

The Panel also recommends General Managers be required to undertake ongoing

professional development. While in theory this seems like a great ideal, in reality

professional development (other than attending useless short courses and

conferences for the sake of it) involves quite an additional time investment on

people who already normally work long hours. To require this continually is not

reasonable. The valuable part of professional development for high level staff

happens in bursts and spurts, often built around busy periods in changed

employment and family stages. There needs to be a better focus on making the role

a desirable role to attract good applicants.

The changes are, overall, seen to reduce the attractiveness of senior level

employment in the industry and thus will reduce the level of skills and knowledge in

critical positions. This is not seen as leading to an increase in strategic capacity.

Step 13 incudes the Panel‟s response to how to build a regional approach. It

proposes County Councils as an interim step. The County Councils have clearly

been outlined as the boundaries for the amalgamated councils that the Panel

believes should exist. They meet all the criteria set out in the Panel‟s previous

signposts as to what a council area should look like. They clearly have not been

established based on a review using good data to create a workable regional

framework. There is no logic provided for why some areas have been proposed for

amalgamation and others for county councils. The Panel has created a number of

County Councils with only two members, a situation that is clearly unworkable.

What is proposed for this area shows the reality of the poor effort that has been put

into developing a model. Under the Panel‟s model, there will be a County Council

between Kempsey and Port Macquarie. The board will have two members, the

Mayor of Port Macquarie-Hastings Council (Chair) and the Mayor of Kempsey Shire

Council. In the event that the two cannot agree the Mayor of Port Macquarie-

Hastings Council will have a casting vote. The County Council will be operationally

led by the General Manager of Port Macquarie-Hastings Council. The County Council

will not employ this person, only the councillors of Port Macquarie-Hasting Council

have that control. Performance assessments will be under the control of Port

Macquarie-Hastings Council. Kempsey Shire Council will only be able to sack their

General Manager, who similarly will have no control over the person providing

services through the County Council.

As all disputes are resolved the way that the Mayor of Port Macquarie-Hastings

Council wishes and the General Manager‟s employment relies solely on satisfying

the councillors of Port Macquarie-Hastings Council, it will only be a matter of time

before the relationship becomes toxic. Even with the best intentions of the Mayors

and General Manager, such a result is inevitable as you are still trying to achieve

many things with much less resources than is needed to achieve them. This will

create stress and the dynamics of the arrangements will exacerbate those stresses.

It should be clear that this is not a situation that Port Macquarie-Hastings Council

has sought or is promoting. Like us, they are simply caught up in the Panel‟s

proposal.

In addition, the individual councils will lose power over a range of important aspects

of driving their communities. Strategic planning will become a function of the

County Council. Basically, the strategic planning for Kempsey would be whatever

the Mayor of Port Macquarie-Hastings Council sees as appropriate. Water and road

planning and decisions on what works to undertake would similarly transfer to a

decision of Port Macquarie-Hasting Council‟s Mayor.


To create such a model shows that what is proposed is not a serious proposal. It is

believed that as a result of the feedback over the Panel‟s proposal that the County

Council should be chaired by the Mayor of the „regional centre‟ and that council‟s

General Manager, the Panel has moved to saying that the details are up to each

region to determine. The Panel has opted out by suggesting that it is up to the

individuals to find the way to make it work. It is clear that they have either not

thought through what they have proposed or know it will not work. There is no way

to make a compulsory County Council of two work.

The Panel‟s concept of regions would seem to be built around their position on what

are the regional centres in NSW. Regions vary significantly in population, area and

number of members. The county council areas do not align with current

government boundaries or in many cases pre-existing working groups. As no

reasoning is provided for their selection, it is difficult to see if the boundaries make

good sense. In the words of one Panel member, they started with the set

boundaries of Sydney and the Queensland border and worked from those. They

were not sure what to do with the bit in the middle. The problem for Kempsey Shire

Council is that in terms of lobbying, our County Council will be a minnow compared

to many others. This will impact on the importance that is shown to our area from

State and Federal Government. Also, the larger lobbying groups will likely have

much higher levels of lobbying resources and will be able to out compete our

county council for attention and response in this way.

The Panel claims that the county councils will provide economies of scale and scope

in planning, service delivery, major infrastructure and sharing of expertise. Based

on the investigations already undertaken as part of MIDROC‟s work, the Panel is

clearly not basing this statement on evidence. The combination of the two

workforces do not create and significantly larger workgroups that would be able to

achieve technical efficiency, scale or scope efficiencies. The number of staff in a

recast organisation drops by 12, or 1.5%. Most of the staff numbers dropped are

expected to be sucked up by the fact that the recast organisation increases the

number of people under managers. Currently those managers often undertake

more than simply managing staff. That work would have to be reallocated to other

staff to allow the managers time to manage the larger group they will be

responsible for. While this may be more efficient, the changed outcomes will be

negligible. Within the staffing structure, you do not get higher levels of specialised

management occurring that would indicate increased levels of available technical

skills.

In addition, there will be additional costs, as the County Council will have to

undertake all its own development of plans, create financial statements, run and

service council meetings and so on. Many of these costs will effectively duplicate

the costs as the member councils will still also have to do these things.

Overall, the proposal will lead to increased duplication, increased disputes and

reduce the capacity of local communities to determine their own futures. The

reduction in net resources and loss of localism means that this step is assessed as

not providing increased strategic capacity.

Step 14, 15, 16 and 17 do not directly relate to this council area and so minimal

comment is made on those steps. The councillors may wish to consider the

proposals that are being considered in Sydney. As the capital of the state, the

performance of local government has the potential to impact on the regions. In

reality NSW competes with other states and international bases in building its

economic and social hubs. Just as our residents use regional facilities and

businesses, so to they use Sydney facilities and businesses. So the strength of

Sydney impacts on the strength of our area.


Step 18 is focused on the local government and state government relationships.

From discussions with various stakeholders, it is clear that the number of councils

creates an unworkable situation for state agencies. They simply cannot interact in

any meaningful way with all of the existing councils. While there will be great

resistance to local councils giving up direct access to government, the reality is

unless local government can build a mechanism for channelling their needs through

a regional point, the ultimate result will be that eventually councils will either

disappear or be sidelined. The Panel seeks to achieve this regional point by forcing

councils into County Councils. Under the model proposed by the Panel, this will not

reduce the demands on the state agencies. There will still exist many of the

individual councils, which they will have to deal with on some issues. And the state

agencies will have the County Councils to deal with on other issues. In reality, a

situation will come to arise similar to what exists currently with Council‟s caravan

parks. As they are on Crown land, when someone has a complaint, the manager

has to deal with it, Council‟s staff have to deal with it and the Lands Department

staff have to deal with it. Similarly, under this model, any issues that affects a

council area, but is a county council problem, will still have the local council wanting

to be involved in fixing the issue as well as the county council seeking to fix the

problem. Thus leading to more groups that the State agencies will have to try and

deal with.

The Panel does highlight the need for a better relationship between the two groups

of government, but this is nothing new.

The Panel is proposing changing the wording relating to local government in the

NSW Constitution to remove the reference to “duly appointed”. This is argued by

many in local government to allow the NSW government to remove elected

members and replace them with government appointed administrators. Care should

be taken as from time to time there is a need to appoint an administrator. In

addition, the boards of county councils are made up of people appointed by the

member councils. They are not elected, in the true sense of the word. In terms of

building a good governance model, there may be merit in having some appointed

members to the council‟s governing body. This would be no different to private

boards that appoint people to bring legal or financial skills to the board. This may

be a good way to balance the election of people with the interests of the people at

heart with the need to have good skills included in the mix to direct multi-million

dollar businesses.

Contrary to the views of the Panel, the model is unlikely to result in a centralised

contact point for State agencies. The scale of the County Council in this area has

been shown not to create any technical efficiencies, so there will be no change in

the ability of the local government structures in this area to be a „better‟ partner.

The resources will be split over three organisations instead of two. Due to these

reasons this step is not seen to create improved strategic capacity.

Step 19 focusses on Local Government NSW. The Panel indicates that the

association has not been providing the leadership and advocating for change and

innovation that is needed. This is true, as the association has been focused on

advocacy on individual matters. This can be easily seen in the way that the annual

conferences have been run, with hours of sessions being devoted to going through

hundreds of motions of very specific nature. As with most of the „steps‟, no solution

is provided and thus it does not increase strategic capacity.

Step 20 talks about how to make innovation and improvements happen. It would

appear that this can be achieved through establishing a board for the next 3-4

years. The Panel gives this board a small secretariat and then a large workload that

will not be able to be practically achieved with a small secretariat and no other

funding.


The incentives basically are some transitional grants and an exemption from rate

pegging. These are hardly likely to promote wholesale reform, where the costs to

any council are likely to be in the millions. This approach shows the weakness of

the Panel proposal. A good strong proposal is its own incentive. The failure of being

able to show that here shows the failure of the Panel‟s twenty steps report in

providing a solution for the problems facing local government.

MIDROC Initiatives

Through MIDROC the General Managers have been looking at whether there are

possibly technical efficiencies to be provided. This has come about through in initial

investigation looking at restructuring the staff from the eight MIDROC councils into

various organisational models. The most models indicate an overall reduction in

staffing numbers, ranging from 1% to 4%, and one model indicated an increased

staffing level. It is expected that in real world application there would be minimal

staffing level change.

There are eight councils in the MIDROC region. Staffing models have been

developed to test:

- One large service provider

- Three service providers

- Specialty service providers (like existing county councils)

Consideration was given to a system where a hub was created for services with a

large potential for more effective service delivery at a large scale and other services

remaining with the member councils. This model, which mirrors the proposal of the

Panel, was not fully developed as it became apparent that there would not be

sufficient services left in the member organisations to make those organisations

efficient and effective and that the splitting of functions that would occur would lead

to unworkable situations, similar to what led to the demise of the New England

Strategic Alliance.

The models did indicate that there are some significant pools of staff that would be

expected to gain better outcomes from providing combined services. Accordingly,

the General Managers have tasked a range of staff to develop proposals for

alternative service delivery. The groups have been advised that any option will be

considered except those needing increased funding, those that restrict the ability of

the member councils to control the future of their communities and those that

require one council to subsidise another. Proposals are being developed and these

will provide the information that will guide the development of the best structure

for providing services.

No work has yet been done on how to best provide for the political aspects of local

government MIDROC has determined that the outcome should leave the existing

member councils with their own effective governance. This aspect will also have to

be developed as information starts to guide how the operations should occur. It will

be important to ensure that there is an appropriate balance between the political

and operating arm, so that good outcomes for the community can be achieved.

4124 DLR

4.3 MIDROC Strategic Plan File: *


SUMMARY

MIDROC has been in the process of developing a Strategic Plan.

That the MIDROC Strategic Plan be noted for consideration of how

objectives of Kempsey Shire Council align with the plan.


Environmental, Social, Policy or Statutory, Economic (Financial): Nil

REPORT DETAILS

The Strategic Plan is attached (Appendix A - Page GM1).

4124 DLR

SUMMARY

For some time the General Managers of MIDROC have been considering the optimal

format for the ROC to develop. Establishing a corporation is considered to provide

the flexibility to provide services regionally and advocate.

1 That the formation of a corporation or several corporations to provide

regional based services and lobbying on behalf of Kempsey Shire

Council as part of the Mid North Coast Region be undertaken.

2 That the Mayor and General Manager work with MIDROC councils to

develop a constitution that ensures the local council retains the

authority to determine services and service levels and which provides

fair and equitable treatment of all members of the corporation.


Environmental, Social: Nil

Policy or Statutory: The establishment of the corporation will require the approval

of the Minister for Local Government.

Economic (Financial): Providing a vehicle for providing services at a regional level

if more effective will provide a positive economic impact. Having a regional strategic

approach to take to government will improve the chances of increased funding and

political focus on the Mid North Coast.

REPORT DETAILS

RECOMMENDATION

4.4 Establishment of Incorporated Entity - MIDROC File: *

RECOMMENDATION



Currently, the regional organisation of councils that exists (MIDROC) is a section

355 committee of Port Macquarie-Hastings Council. This was established as a

temporary measure while investigations were undertaken into organisation models.

A report was generated that indicated that continuing as a section 355 committee

was not the best structure. From research it was identified that most ROCs are

moving towards a fully corporatised structure. The main alternatives are

establishing a county council or an incorporated association.

Establishing a county council can occur. The negatives around the county council

model are seen to be:

- The limitation that board members must be councillors from the member

councils: Currently MIDROC operates from a board that consists of the mayors

and general managers combined. This provides greater input and ownership in

the regional direction. It allows for a greater variety of skills and experience to

be involved in determining the organisational approach. This approach would

also prevent the appointment of independent members to the board based on

specialist skills, which may be beneficial into the future. For example, it may be

beneficial to have directors with legal backgrounds to assist in ensuring good

decisions are made.

- The additional cost that would be incurred compared to a corporate structure

through county councils needing to mirror virtually all of the governance

requirements of the Local Government Act: Accordingly the county council

would have to develop its own.

- The inflexibility of the structure: Most aspects of the organisation are set by

ministerial proclamations and regulations. So if, for example, the membership

wished to change its contribution levels or what services are offered through a

county council it would require going through the process of gaining ministerial

approval. Under a corporate structure it would only require the members‟

support (at whatever level is established in the constitution). Similarly, in the

future environment there is scope to be an efficient service provider to groups

outside the owning membership. If this is achieved there may be a desire to

provide for dividends, which are not readily catered for under a county council

model, which only has provisions for contributions from members to the county

council.

Establishing an incorporated association was not considered appropriate as it is felt

that the organisation would quickly exceed the threshold level at which

organisations are considered too large to be incorporated associations. Accordingly,

the councils would only have to come back and go through the same process again

to change the organisational structure.

Establishing a corporation would bring the organisation under the general

requirements for any corporation. Directors would have fiduciary responsibilities

and be required to meet a similar level of care and diligence to what is required of a

councillor. The corporation would be required to report to and meet the

requirements of ASIC and the corporations‟ legislation, which requires annual

financial reports to be audited. The provisions effectively provide a similar level of

transparency to the Local Government Act, but would avoid having to develop

community strategic plans and delivery plans, which should be established at the

member council level, with the regional organisation simply being a vehicle to

provide the services and lobbying for what its members request of it.

It is clear from discussions with a range of people within the NSW Government that

there will be a need in the future for regional advocacy. It is clear from the research

undertaken so far that there is potential for better results by some services being


provided regionally. A corporation is seen as the optimal structure to achieve this

outcome. It will be separate from the members, yet owned by the members. It will

provide regulation around transparency for how it operates, but not have the

additional costs of duplicating local government specific community planning.


SUMMARY

Reporting on the statement of bank balances and investments.

That the information to be noted.


Environmental, Social, Policy or Statutory, Economic (Financial): Nil

REPORT DETAILS

The Local Government Act 1993 requires that council be notified at each ordinary

meeting of details of all monies invested by Council.

A statement of balances is shown in (Appendix A – Page CM1).

The statement of investments is shown in (Appendix B – Page CM2).

5513 PJH

SUMMARY

To appoint a delegate to the Mid North Coast Regional Arts Board following the

resignation of Councillor Gribbin.

That nominations be sought for the vacant position on the Mid North Coast

Regional Arts Board.


Environmental, Social, Policy or Statutory, Economic (Financial): Nil.

REPORT DETAILS

With the resignation of Councillor Gribbin a vacancy exists on the Mid North Coast

Regional Arts Board as Council delegate. Councillor Green was appointed as

GOAL 5: To Ensure Leadership and Effective, Efficient, Accountable Management

5.1 Statement of Cash and Investments File: F12/57-02

RECOMMENDATION

5.2 Appointment of a Delegate to the Mid North Coast Regional Arts

Board File: F12/612-02

RECOMMENDATION




alternate delegate at the Council meeting held on 25 September 2012. The Mayor

attended the last meeting of the Board as Council representative.

Councillor representation on Committees is required to enable them to function in

the most appropriate manner.

5331 APC

SUMMARY

Reporting on a single source tender for the supply and delivery of Hygienic Services

for participating Council‟s under the Mid North Coast Group of Council‟s Alliance.

That the tender from Rentokil Initial Pty Ltd t/as Pink Hygienic Solutions

be accepted for the supply and delivery of Hygienic Services for the Period

1 July 2013 until 30 June 2015, and that provision be allowed for a 12

month extension based on satisfactory supplier performance which may

take this tender through to 30 June 2016.


Environmental and Social: Nil.

Economic (Financial): The tender ensures Council access to competitive market

tested pricing over the following three years with savings to Council of 16% per

year against current pricing being received.

Policy or Statutory: Local Government Procurement has no contract in place for

the supply and delivery of hygienic services. The tender has been conducted in

accordance with Council‘s Purchasing Policy and requirement of the Local

Government Act and Regulations.

REPORT DETAILS

A Single Source tender has been facilitated by the Mid North Coast Group of

Council‟s for supply and delivery of Hygienic Services.

Participating councils in this tender are:

Coffs Harbour City, Nambucca Shire, Kempsey Shire, Greater Taree City, Great

Lakes, Gloucester Shire and Mid Coast Water.

Tenders closed 10.00 am Tuesday 14 May 2013.

The tender evaluation in accordance with approval provided by the member

Council‟s was conducted on Tuesday 14 May 2013 at Hunter Councils administration

office by a panel comprising representatives of Regional Procurement.

Tender Evaluation Criteria

5.3 Panel Source Tender for Supply and Delivery of Hygienic Services

File: F12/303-02

RECOMMENDATION


The % weightings and criteria were agreed upon prior to the tender closing:

Adding the value of the PPS unit rates and other items together to determine

the overall price for each tenderer.

The lowest overall amount for each tenderer is then awarded the full Criteria %

for this criterion.

Each subsequent total $ value is then divided into the lowest total amount to

obtain a score.

The tenderer‟s ability to meet specific requirements of the remaining evaluation

criteria as determined by the panel.

A copy of the Tender Evaluation report and appendixes are attached as

(Confidential Appendix A – Page CM1) within the confidential section of

Council‟s business paper. The evaluation report has been provided to Council on a

“Commercial in Confidence” basis as it involves commercial information of a

confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the

person who supplied it. (Local Government Act 1993, Section 10A (2) (d) (i)).

Tender Outcome

Tenders were received from Rentokil Initial Pty Ltd t/as Pink Hygiene Solutions, ISS

Hygiene Services, San-Serve Pty Ltd t/as Country Hygiene Services and Enviro-LCS

Pty Ltd

Council‟s current tender for supply and delivery of Hygienic Services expires on the

30 June 2013.

Council will have a single source supplier with fix pricing for a period of 24 months

plus a 12 month option subject to satisfactory performance by the successful

tenderer.

Whilst Council‟s annual expenditure on the services provided under the tender are

minor an evaluation undertaken by Council‟s Fleet and Procurement Coordinator

has identified annual savings of $1,042 will be achieved under the new tender.

5211 APC

SUMMARY

Reporting on the tender for the Appointment of an External Auditor for the period 1

July 2013 to 30 June 2019.

That Thomas Noble & Russell be appointed as Council‟s Auditor for the

period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2019 at an initial fee of $54,120 (GST

inclusive) with future year fees to be adjusted in accordance with the

movement in private sector full-time adult ordinary time earnings

“AWOTE” as published by the ABS (report 6302).

5.4 Tender for the Provision of External Audit Services File: TQE13/5

RECOMMENDATION



Environmental and Social: Nil

Economic (Financial): Nil

Policy or Statutory: The Appointment of the Auditor is in accordance with

Sections 422 and 424 of the Local Government Act.

REPORT DETAILS

The Local Government Act provides that the Auditor is appointed for a six year term

and that the appointment is subject to tender.

Council‟s current Auditors, Thomas Noble & Russell were appointed in 2007; the

term of the appointment expires on the 30 June 2013.

Tenders for the appointment of the Auditor for the six-term to 30 June 2019 closed

2 pm Tuesday 21 May 2013

Tenders were received from the following firms:

Hills Rogers Spencer Steer

Crowe Horwath Auswild

Forsyths

Lawler Partners

Prosperity Audit Services

Thomas Noble & Russell

UHY Haines Norton

Wrights Chartered Accountants.

Tender Evaluation

The tenders received were firstly reviewed for conformance with the Conditions of

Tendering which formed part of the Tender Document. The instructions to the

tenders included a requirement that a certificate of currency for Insurance policies

specified under the General Conditions of the Contract were to be provided. Whilst

all tenders attested to their insurance coverage only three provided the certificate

of currency.

All tenderers were evaluated against the assessment criteria nominated in the

tender document:

Demonstrated capacity of the Tenderer to provide Council with Auditing

Services

Quality and depth of audit performance

Proposed Audit Plan


Price

Quality of Audit Staffing Resources

Technical expertise.

The foregoing criteria was in turn weighted by Council and scored having regard to

the information provided by the tenderers.

A copy of the Tender Evaluation report and appendixes are attached as

(Confidential Appendix B – Page CM4) within the confidential section of

Council‟s business paper. The evaluation report has been provided to Council on a

“Commercial in Confidence” basis as it involves commercial information of a

confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the

person who supplied it. (Local Government Act 1993, Section 10A (2) (d) (i)).

Tender Outcome

Thomas Noble & Russell were evaluated as providing the best outcome to Council in

line with the evaluation criteria.

Thomas Noble & Russell are Council‟s current auditors who have a strong presence

in the Local Government Auditing field and have provided excellent service to

Council over the past six years.

Questions on Notice Kempsey Shire Council – Ordinary Meeting 18 June 2013

16 QUESTIONS FOR NEXT MEETING

(Excerpt from Code of Meeting Practice Procedure 5.1.4)

2.4.3 Questions for Next Meeting

1 Councillors, just prior to the end of a Council meeting, may raise

questions on the understanding that the answers will be provided at

the following meeting. Each Councillor will be allowed a maximum of

five questions.

2 Such questions will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

3 When such questions are listed, there is nothing preventing an answer

being given straight away if it makes sense to do so. (Local)

= response provided at meeting

= response not provided at meeting

Responses from last meeting 21 May 2013

3151 RJS

21.5.13

COUNCILLOR D F SAUL FILE: F12/227-02, D13/17346

QFNM1

When will Council be given a report on the incident at the airport on May 7

regarding animals on the tarmac?

RESPONSE:

A separate report will not be provided. On 7 May 2013, Council Aerodrome

Reporting Officer was called out to attend the Aerodrome in order to clear wildlife

from the runway for a pilot who was attempting to land. The pilot maintained a

holding pattern circling the airport for approximately 10 minutes whilst Council staff

responded to the out-of-hours callout. The runway was successfully cleared and the

pilot was able to land. The encounter was documented in accordance with Council‟s

Draft Wildlife Management Plan.

2511 KEO

21.5.13

COUNCILLOR A J WILLIAMS FILE: F12/227-02

QFNM1

What happened to the red night rider “booze bus”? Does council still own

this bus? If so, where is it located? If not, when was it sold and for how

much?

RESPONSE:

Council no longer has ownership of the red night rider. This bus was sold to

Kempsey Children‟s Service for a nominal fee of $20.00 on 7 January 2008.

Kempsey Assistance Patrol (KAP)

The KAP operated from 1995 to 2007 utilising volunteers and then via a grant

employing a coordinator and bus driver to oversee the operations.

In 2007 the NSW Attorney Generals Department decided not to continue with

funding the existing patrol service and called for Expressions of Interest for other

local organisations to run the service. This funding was subsequently awarded to

the Kempsey Local Aboriginal Lands Council who ran the patrol in 2008 only.

As the bus was purchased via a grant from Department of Community Services

(DoCS), they deemed the buses to be community property. Upon the cessation of

the Night Patrol Service DOCS wrote to council and requested ―that the buses be

Questions on Notice Kempsey Shire Council – Ordinary Meeting 18 June 2013

retained in the community by transfer to a non-government organisation for use

either by a similar project or for continued community use.‖

Council resolved in September 2007 to seek Expressions of Interest from interested

groups to continue the community bus service and therefore transfer the buses to

that service.

In consideration of the applications a nominal fee was included to ensure Council

had a legitimate bill of sale over the vehicles. The $20.00 nominal fee per bus was

determined by management.

Current operations

To assist licensed premises in Kempsey, Council applied and received funding to

implement an Alternative Transport program.

This program commenced in February 2012 operating on Friday nights over a

designated bus route. A review of this service at the 2012 winter shut down period

revealed that the service wasn‟t being fully utilised.

The program recommenced in September 2012 as the Taxi Voucher Scheme

operating on both Friday and Saturday nights and special event days including

Kempsey Cup and ANZAC Day. This new arrangement has been successful and

runs all year round.

4111 KEO

21.5.13

COUNCILLOR A J WILLIAMS FILE: F12/227-02

QFNM2

Previously Council oversaw a “Sports Council”. Why did this cease to

exist? And was there any costs involved to Council for this group to exist?

RESPONSE:

Matter is still being investigated.

Confidential Section Kempsey Shire Council – Ordinary Meeting 18 June 2013

17 CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

MOTION FOR CONFIDENTIAL SESSION

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government

(General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following

business is of a kind as referred to in section 10A(2) of the Act, and should be dealt

with in a part of the meeting closed to the media and public.

Set out below is section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 in

relation to matters which can be dealt with in the closed part of a meeting.

The matters and information are the following:

(a) personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors)

(b) the personal hardship of any resident or ratepayer

(c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a

person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business

(d) commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed;

(i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it,

or

(ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council,

or

(iii) reveal a trade secret

(e) information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law

(f) matters affecting the security of the Council, councillors, council staff or

Council property

(g) advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged

from production in legal proceedings on the grounds of legal professional privilege

(h) information concerning the nature and location of a place or an item of

Aboriginal significance on community land.

Councillors are reminded of their statutory obligations in relation to the

non-disclosure to any outside person of matters included in this section.

That Council form itself into the Confidential Session, and at this stage, the

meeting be closed to the public to permit discussion of the confidential

business items listed for the reasons as stated in the Agenda.

Confidential Goal 1 Kempsey Shire Council – Ordinary Meeting 18 June 2013

Section 10A(2)(e) – Maintenance of Law

This report is submitted on a confidential basis as it involves advice concerning

litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal

proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege. (Local Government Act

1993, section 10A(2)(g))

On balance, the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of the information

which relates to matters of law outweighs the public interest in openness and

transparency in Council decision making by discussing the matter in open meeting.

1211 RBP


This report is submitted on a confidential basis as it involves information that

would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law. (Local Government Act 1993,

section 10A(2)(e))


which relates to matters of law, outweighs the public interest in openness and

transparency in council decision making by discussing the matter in open meeting.

1211 RBP




section 10A(2)(e))




1211 RBP


GOAL 1: To Facilitate Ecological and Economical Sustainable Development in the Shire

1.1 Proposed Tourist Facility File: T6-12-372

1.2 Development Without Consent File: LA10371

1.3 Development Without Consent

File: LA16574, LA16575, LA16576 & LA8883

1.4 Development Without Consent File: LA9850




section 10A(2)(e))




1312 RBP

Section 10A(2)(c) – Commercial Advantage in Business Dealing


would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the

council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business. (Local Government Act

1993, 10A(2)(c))




1.5 Possible Land Sale File: LA 10371


Section 10A(2)(g) – Legal Proceedings

This report is submitted on a confidential basis as it involves advice concerning

litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal

proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege. (Local Government Act

1993, Section 10A(2)(g))

On balance, the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of the advice

outweighs the public interest in openness and transparency in Council decision

making by discussing the matter in open meeting.

GOAL 5: To Ensure Leadership and Effective, Efficient, Accountable Management

5.1 Various Legal Matters

Conclusion Kempsey Shire Council – Ordinary Meeting 18 June 2013

18 CONCLUSION

Minutes 21 May 2013 Kempsey Shire Council – Ordinary Meeting 18 June 2013

MINUTES FROM LAST MEETING

kempsey shire council · kempsey shire council ... day for aboriginal centre – kempsey high...

Documents