singleton council meeting 2016

7/26/2019 Singleton Council Meeting 2016

1/217

1

NOTICE OF MEETING

Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the provisions of the Local GovernmentAct 1993 that a Meeting of Singleton Council will be held in the CouncilChambers, Queen Street Singleton, on Monday 20 June 2016, commencing at

5.30pm.

E M E R G E N C Y E V A C U A T I O N F O R C O U N C I L M E E T I N G S H E L D I N T H E C O U N C I L C H A M B E R S

In case of an emergency, for example a fire, please evacuate the building via the marked exitdoors (Mayor points to the doors). The order to evacuate may be signified by an alarm siren orby a Council officer or myself. Please proceed to the green emergency assembly area signseither near the cycleway on Queen Street (Mayor points in direction of Queen Street)or at theother side of the carpark towards the Gym & Swim (Mayor points again). An instruction toevacuate to a marked area should be followed without delay to assist Council in ensuring theHealth and Safety of all staff and visitors.

All electronic equipment (excluding Council laptops and iPads), including mobile telephones ofCouncillors and Council Officers shall be switched off during the meeting. Recording of theproceedings is not to be carried out without the prior authority of Council.

AGENDA PAGE

Opening of Meeting and Acknowledgement of Country

Apologies

Confirmation of Minutes1. 16/05/2016

Matters Arising from Minutes

Disclosures of Interest

Mayoral Minute

Notice of Withdrawal of Items and Late Items of Business


2/217

2

Presentation Items

PR3/16 United Wambo Joint Venture Project ...............................................4

Public Access Session

General Manager's Report (Items Requiring Decision)GM20/16 Community Satisfaction Survey .......................................................5

GM21/16 Potential Commercial Tourism Opportunity ................................... 10

Community and Infrastructure Services Report (Items Requiring Decision)

DC&IS68/16 Minutes - Roads Advisory Committee - 28/04/2016 ....................... 11

DC&IS69/16 Wallaby Scrub Road ...................................................................... 28

DC&IS70/16 Glass Parade Rectification Works ................................................. 33

DC&IS71/16 Minutes - Local Traffic Committee - 26/05/2016 ............................ 48

DC&IS72/16 Tender for Organics (Green Waste) Collection .............................. 58

DC&IS73/16 Milbrodale Mountain Classic - Traffic Control .............................. 59

Corporate Services Report (Items Requiring Decision)

DCS45/16 Proposed Lease to Gore Electrical & Data - 189 JohnStreet Singleton ............................................................................. 66

DCS46/16 Local Government Remuneration Tribunal .................................... 71

DCS47/16 Request for Financial Assistance Towards LegalExpenses ....................................................................................... 86

DCS48/16 Tender for the Supply and Delivery of Ready MixConcrete ........................................................................................ 92

DCS49/16 Acquistion of One Parcel of Land on Hermitage Road asPart of the Hermitage Road Upgrade Project ................................ 93

Planning and Sustainable Environment Report (Items Requiring Decision)

DP&SE24/16 Finalisation of the draft Branxton Subregional Land UseStrategy ......................................................................................... 98

DP&SE25/16 Adoption of the 2016/17 Operational Plan and Budget ................105

DP&SE26/16 Request to Remove Section 88b Restriction as to User ..............113

DP&SE27/16 Association of Mining Related Councils - Proposed MoUfor Negotiating Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPAs) ..............135

General Manager's Report (Items for Information)

GM22/16 Minutes - Arts Upper Hunter Board Meeting - June -September - December 2015 .......................................................143


3/217

3

GM23/16 Minutes - Association of Mining Related Councils -13/05/2016 ...................................................................................156

Corporate Services Report (Items for Information)

DCS50/16 Disclosures by Councillors and Designated Persons -

April and May 2016 ......................................................................168

Planning and Sustainable Environment Report (Items for Information)

DP&SE28/16 Minutes - Wambo Coal Community ConsultativeCommittee (CCC) - 12/04/2016 ...................................................169

DP&SE29/16 Minutes - Mount Thorley Warkworth CommunityConsultative Committee (CCC) - 09/11/2015 ...............................175

DP&SE30/16 Public Health Act 2010 - Statutory Review Submission ...............185

DP&SE31/16 Minutes - Hunter Valley Operations CommunityConsultative Committee (CCC) - 10/03/2016 ...............................191

Questions Given

QG3/16 Questions of Which Notice Has Been Given ................................206

Questions of Which Notice has been Given

Closed CouncilCC16/16 Potential Commercial Tourism Opportunity

CC17/16 Tender for the Supply and Delivery of Ready MixConcrete

CC18/16 Tender for Organics (Green Waste) Collection

..GENERAL MANAGER


4/217

SINGLETON COUNCIL Meeting of Singleton Council - 20 June 2016

Presentation Items - PR3/16

4

3. United Wambo Joint Venture ProjectAuthor:Cheryl Smith

FILE:M17-3

Gary Wills - United Wambo Project Manager, Scott ElliotGlencore NSW ProjectsManager, Bret JenkinsGlencore NSW Approvals and Cultural Heritage Manager, AislinnFarnonUnited Wambo Project Approvals Manager and Michael AlexanderPeabodyProject Director from Glencore will give a presentation on the United Wambo Joint VentureProject.


5/217


General Manager's Report (Items Requiring Decision) - GM20/16

5

20. Community Satisfaction SurveyAuthor:Salena Avard

FILE:16/0237

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the findings of the Community SatisfactionSurvey undertaken in April 2016 and recommend actions to address the issues identifiedby our community as being important but of low satisfaction.

RECOMMENDEDthat Council:

1. Note the 2016 Community Satisfaction Survey Report.

2. Use the comparative data between the 2016 survey and the 2011 survey to inform theEnd of Term Report.

3. Use the 2016 data to inform engagement for the purpose of reviewing the CommunityStrategic Plan.

4. Use the 2016 data to inform service level reviews across the organisation andimplement an action plan to address the top 10 priority areas.

Background

Earlier this year Council engaged Micromex Research to undertake a communitysatisfaction survey of 504 residents. The survey report is shown as Attachment 1 - UnderSeparate Cover. Community satisfaction surveys are used to measure satisfaction withCouncils performance overall, assess importance and satisfaction with Council providedservices and facilities and identify current community priorities. Council last commissioneda community satisfaction survey in 2011 during development of the first SingletonCommunity Strategic Plan (CSP). The 2011 survey report is also shown Attachment 2 -Under Separate Cover.

As the current local government term is coming to an end in September 2016, Singleton

Council is required to prepare an End of Term report, outlining its achievements againstthe outcomes of the current CSP. The End of Term report must be adopted by Council atits last meeting in August 2016. Council is also required to review the CSP and endorsethe revised CSP by March 2017.

To assist with the preparation of the End of Term Report and the review of the CSP, the2016 community satisfaction survey was structured in a similar fashion and sampled asimilar size of the community to the survey conducted in 2011. This allows for soundcomparisons to be drawn from the two data sets. The 2016 results were also compared tonormative data from other local government areas.


6/217



6

Results

The results showed that overall 83 per cent of residents were at least somewhat satisfiedwith Councils performance in 2016. This result is similar to 2011 and in line withcomparative benchmarks.

Of the thirty-five (35) measures included in the survey, Micromex has normative data forTwenty-three (23). Five (5) of the comparable measures received satisfaction ratingsabove the norm. These were: maintaining the local road network; Gym & Swim facilities;managing industrial and commercial development; managing residential development andprovision of cycleways.

Seven (7) of the measures received satisfaction ratings below the norm. These were:stormwater drainage; environmental monitoring and protection, Council responsiveness tocommunity needs, car parking in the town centres, waste collection and disposal,maintenance of parks, playgrounds and reserves and; informing the community of Council

decisions.

The importance of car parking in the town centres increased from 2011 to 2016, whilethere were significant decreases in the importance of youth services; environmentaleducation; sewerage and wastewater services; managing residential development;development and building processes; social planning; library hours, collection and service;Gym & Swim facilities, appearance of the town centre; and cycleways.

Satisfaction levels increased from 2011 to 2016 across 12 measures being library hours,collection and service; Gym & Swim facilities; health and hygiene of local food outlets;Council-run community events; environmental education; companion animal control;

heritage identification and management; appearance of the Singleton town centre; socialplanning; development and building process; and maintenance of public toilets.

There was a significant decrease in satisfaction levels for car parking in the town centres;and maintenance of parks, playgrounds and reserves.

Commentary

The changes in importance and satisfaction levels can be attributed to some direct activityby Council while others are likely a reflection of current community attitudes. For example,Council would expect satisfaction levels with the appearance of the Singleton town centreto increase following completion of the town centre revitalisation project. Similarly, Councilembarked on an ambitious community events calendar since 2012, delivering up to sixmajor community events per annum where there had previously been none, contributing toincreased satisfaction.

Council would also expect the importance of some measures to decrease followingsignificant investment from Council over the past four years. For example, the importanceof social planning has decreased but satisfaction has increased and this reflects thedevelopment and adoption of major strategies for youth, children, community safety,ageing and accessibility.


7/217



7

The perceived lack of parking in the town centre remains contentious since therevitalisation of the town centre was completed last year and this is reflected in currentsatisfaction levels. This issue has been reviewed on several occasions by Council.

At the time the 2016 survey was undertaken, Council had recently closed Burdekin Park

due to the impact of the little red flying fox colony and this is likely reflected in thecommunitys decreased satisfaction level with the maintenance of parks.

Priority areas

The survey report includes a performance gap analysis. This establishes the gap betweenimportance and satisfaction. The greater the gap, the greater the difference is between theprovision of that service by Council and the community expectations for that service.

The 2016 survey report identifies ten (10) services that have the largest performance gapsmeaning these were rated as being high to extremely high in importance but have low to

moderate satisfaction levels.

These services are: Council responsiveness to community needs Informing the community of Council decisions Car parking in the town centres Consulting the community Maintenance of Councils public toilets Maintaining the local road network Stormwater drainage

Maintenance of parks, playgrounds and reserves Environmental monitoring and protection Provision of services and facilities for youth

It is recommended that these priority areas are used as the basis of conversations duringconsultation for the review of the CSP. These conversations would help Councilunderstand in more detail: What the community expects in terms of consultation and engagementwhat do they

want to hear about, through which channels, how often etc Explore other community concerns such as parking availability, maintenance of roads

and parks, stormwater drainage etc.

It may be that Council is already delivering in these areas but is failing to adequatelycommunicate their successes with the community.

Community Strategic Plan

The Community Strategic Plan is a reflection of the vision and aspirations of itscommunity. Its important this is measured periodically to ensure Council activities align tocommunity desires. The community satisfaction survey is one of the indicators used tomeasure Councils achievements against all four pillars of the CSP.


8/217



8

Delivery Program/Operational Plan

Nil.

Council Policy/Legislation

Nil.

Financial Implications

The results of the survey will be used to inform consultation for the purpose of reviewingthe Singleton Community Strategic Plan. Funding for consultation activities has beenincluded in the 2016/17 budget.

The review of the Community Strategic Plan will inform the activities of the new DeliveryProgram and Operational Plan and these may have financial implications that will be

addressed in these documents and considered by Council at the appropriate time.

Consultation/Social Implications

The Community Satisfaction Survey was undertaken by Micromex Research for thepurpose of examining community attitudes and perceptions towards current and futureservices and facilities provided by Council. A total of five hundred and four (504) residentinterviews were completed between 7 and 14 April 2016.

Four hundred and thirty-one (431) of the five hundred and four (504) respondents wereselected by a means of a computer-based random selection process using the electronic

White Pages. The remaining seventy-three (73) respondents were number harvested viaface-to-face intercept at a number of public spaces around Singleton to capturerespondents without landlines.

The sample size of five hundred and four (504) respondents provides a maximumsampling error of plus or minus 4.4% at 95% confidence. This means that if the surveywas replicated with a new sample of five hundred and four (504) residents, nineteen (19)times out of twenty (20), the results would be the same.

The sample was weighted by age and gender to reflect the 2011 ABS Census data and38% of respondents were from villages or rural areas.

A more detailed engagement with a sample of participants is being undertaken in the formof two workshops. These workshops will be facilitated by Mircomex and will aim to provideCouncil with more specific information on the topics which have been identified as havingthe greatest disparity. The results of these workshops will further inform the CommunityStrategic Plan document.

Environmental Consideration

Two of the top ten (10) priorities identified in the survey relate to environmental issues

such as stormwater drainage and environmental monitoring and protection. These will beaddressed in the service level reviews and feature in discussions as part of the review ofthe Community Strategic Plan.


9/217



9

Risk Implications

There is a level of reputational risk if Council does not take action to address the areasidentified in the survey as being of high importance and low satisfaction. The purpose of

the survey is to improve the delivery of Council services and better align Council serviceswith community desires. To ignore the findings or not take action could be perceived bythe community as Council not being responsive to community needs.

Options

The following options are available to Council:

1. Council take no action on the findings of the community satisfaction survey.

2. Council use the findings of the community satisfaction survey to inform consultation for

the review of the CSP and inform service level reviews across the organisation.

Option one is recommended.

Conclusions

It is recommended that Council use the data provided in the survey report to informconsultation with the community for the review of the CSP. Community satisfactionsurveys are one method of ensuring Council services align with community desires andthis is in keeping with Councils strategic direction for business improvement.

Jason LinnaneGeneral Manager

AttachmentsAT-1 Community Satisfaction Survey - Final Report - 2016 Attachment Under

Separate CoverAT-2 Community Survey Report 2011 - IRIS - IPRF Attachment UnderSeparate Cover


10/217



10

21. Potential Commercial Tourism OpportunityAuthor:Salena Avard

FILE:16/0370

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on the progress of apotential commercial tourism opportunity in Closed Council with the press and publicexcluded, as the report contains information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed(i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer acommercial advantage on a competitor of the council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

RECOMMENDEDthat the report on a potential commercial tourism opportunity be

considered in Closed Council with the press and public excluded in accordance withSection 10A(2) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the reportcontains 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 commercialadvantage on a competitor of the council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

Jason Linnane

General Manager

AttachmentsThere are no attachments for this report


11/217


Community and Infrastructure Services Report (Items Requiring Decision) - DC&IS68/16

11

68. Minutes - Roads Advisory Committee - 28/04/2016Author:Rabiul Awal; Peter McMurray

FILE:16/0167

Executive Summary

The Roads Advisory Committee held its ordinary meeting on 28 April 2016. The minutesare shown as Attachment 3for Councils consideration.


1. Adopt the Roads Advisory Committee Terms of ReferenceAttachment 1.

2. Note the minutes of the Roads Committee held on 4 February 2016 and 28 April 2016

Attachments 2 and 3.

3. Adopt the following recommendations in relation to the minutes of 4 February 2016and 28 April 2016:

4 February, 2016

Update on Access Way at 1419 Mirannie Road, Reddy Creek

1. Accept the maintenance responsibility of the 30m long sealed access way area at1419 Mirannie Road.

2. Authorise Manager Infrastructure Strategy and Planning to write to Mr Chick,advising the subject 30m long sealed access way area will be resealed every timeCouncils Work Crew undertakes any reseal and rehabilitation works in front of1419 Mirannie Road.

3. Authorise Manager Infrastructure Strategy and Planning to include 30m longaccess way area as part of Councils 2016/2017 Rural Reseal Program (reseal willbe undertaken in October/November 2016).

Maintenance of Lane off 336 McMullins Road, Branxton

1. Not accept the routine maintenance responsibility of the 505m long laneway off 336McMullins Road.2. Include 505m section of this road in Councils low maintenance road list.3. Authorise the Manager Infrastructure Strategy and Planning to write to Mr & Mrs

Hemsworth advising the subject lane will be included in Councils low maintenancepublic road list.

Allocation of Roads to Recovery Funds 2016

1. An amount of $1,100,000 from 2016/17 Roads to Recovery is allocated to theupgrade of Hermitage Road.

2. The remaining $723,731 is allocated to the 2016/17 Capital Works Program.

Capital Works Program 2016/2017


12/217



12

1. Adopt the draft Capital Works Program 2016/2017.

Lot 103 Wollombi Road Broke

1. Support an investigation of the Crown Road to determine if owners of Lot 3DP777632-712 Wollombi Road, Broke are able to purchase the section of CrownRoad in question.

2. A report be prepared for the Roads Committee.

28 April 2016

Maintenance of Ironbark Lane

1. Accept the maintenance responsibilities of 850m long section of Iron Bark Lanebetween Mirannie Road and Franks Road, Sedgefield;

2. Include 850m section of this road in Councils maintained unsealed road list;3. Allocate $5,000 from 2016/17 financial year for the maintenance of 850m long

section of Iron Bark Lane.4. The Manager Infrastructure Strategy Planning and Programming write to Mr

Cruickshanks and Councillor Rogers advising the subject 850m long section of IronBark Lane will be included in Councils maintained unsealed road list.

Maintenance of Sanitary Pit Lane, Whittingham

1. Not to accept any maintenance works along 1800m long section of Sanitary PitLane;

2. The Manager Infrastructure Strategy Planning and Programming write to CouncillorScott advising the subject lane is a Right of Carriageway and residents using theROW are responsible for maintaining it.

Maintenance of Swain Street, Belford

1. Write to NSW Department of Lands to transfer the control and care of Swain Streetto Singleton Council.

2. Accept the transfer of Swain Street as a Council owned Public Road.

3. Include Swain Street as a low maintenance road;

4. Allocate $5,000 from 2016/17 Low Maintenance Road Safety Program for themaintenance of Swain Street.

5. The Manager Infrastructure Strategy Planning and Programming write to Mr PaulBrown and Les Conrad advising Swain Street will be included in Councils lowmaintenance public road list.

Update of Gresford Road Bridge

1. Note Gresford Road Bridge Update and a report to Councils May 2016 meeting.


13/217



13

Update on 712 Wollombi Road, Broke

1. This matter be deferred pending a further report to the Roads Committee.

Update on Blaxland Street & Harrowby Street, Broke

1. Note the transfer of Blaxland Street and Harrowby Street Broke to the care andcontrol of Singleton Council.

Update on Glass Parade, Hunterview

1. Note that a report, providing details on the status of Glass Parade upgrade, will besubmitted to Council at its meeting on 20thJune 2016.

Gary ThomsonAGM/Director Community & Infrastructure Services Group

AttachmentsAT-1 Terms of Reference - Roads Advisory CommitteeAT-2 Minutes - 4 February 2016AT-3 Minutes - 28 April 2016


14/217

Attachment 1 Terms of Reference - Roads Advisory Committee

14


15/217


15


16/217


16


17/217

Attachment 2 Minutes - 4 February 2016

17


18/217


18


19/217


19


20/217


20


21/217


21


22/217

Attachment 3 Minutes - 28 April 2016

22


23/217


23


24/217


24


25/217


25


26/217


26


27/217


27


28/217



28

69. Wallaby Scrub RoadAuthor:Peter McMurray

FILE:15/0271

Executive Summary

Council has received a request from Coal and Allied (Warkworth Mining Ltd)) for Council,as the roads authority for Wallaby Scrub Road, to apply to the Minister for Roads, Maritimeand Freight to close the road.

It is acknowledged that, there is a complex history of applications lodged for modificationand extension of mine operations at the Mount Thorley/Warkworth Mine site.

If Council refuses to consent to the closure of the road, it is possible for the RMS toexercise the Councils functions as the appropriate roads authority for the road and provideconsent. The road, once closed, would still vest in Council, and Council, provided it agreedto the sale, would still be entitled to the proceeds of any sale of the land comprising theformer public road. Should Council choose to not sell the road, it is possible that unders.177 of the Roads Act, 1993(the Act), for the RMS to compulsory acquire the publicroad. The details and implications of which are further discussed later in this report underCouncil Policy/Legislation.

It is intended that this report, taking into consideration any other issues raised by Council,seeks approval for commencement of the process to close Wallaby Scrub Road, which willthen trigger the start of the consultation process.

Should the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road be approved, the road remains vested inCouncils ownership until Council determines a proposed use. Clearly, with the consentgranted specifically approving mining through Wallaby Scrub Road Council will need toseriously consider the sale of the road.

RECOMMENDEDthat:

1. Council apply to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight to close Wallaby ScrubRoad under s.34(1)(b) of the Roads Act, 1993.

2. A further report be brought back to Council at the completion of the consultationprocess related to the road closure for the Council to consider whether to consent tothe closure of the road under s.37(2)(b) of the Roads Act, 1993.

Background

Warkworth Mining Limited, in 2014, lodged a new Development Application (DA), toextend the Warkworth Mine, classified as the Warkworth Continuation Project (SSD 6464).Councils position in respect of the 2014 Project DA was determined at its meeting on 18August 2014 (refer Item 40Warkworth Mine Extension - DP &SE40/14 - Attachment 1)and the report concluded as follows:


29/217



29

This submission highlights a number of issues of concern to be raised with the Departmentof Planning, particularly in respect of biodiversity, air quality, visual amenity and the futureof Wallaby Scrub Road.

The NSW Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), in November 2015, determined that

the Project be approved, subject to stringent consent conditions, aimed at addressing thekey environmental, economic and social impacts of the project. It did not however proposeany alternate options for Wallaby Scrub Road other than full closure. It is clearly stated bythe Department of Planning, in its Determination Report, dated 26 November 2015, underSection 4.6.1, page 19, Wallaby Scrub Road .the Commission considers that therelocation of Wallaby Scrub Road is not feasible and notes there is sufficient road capacityto service detoured traffic

In its Executive Summary of the Planning Assessment Commission Determination ReportWarkworth Continuation Project dated 26 November 2015, the Commission noted thatthe project has been the subject of a comprehensive development assessment process

over the past 18 months, including several assessment reports by the Department and tworeviews undertaken by the Commission. There has also been extensive publicconsultation, including two public hearings, one public meeting and multiple opportunitiesfor written comments from the general public.

The PAC, in its assessment of the DA, determined that it was satisfied that the project wasconsistent with current government policy, and noted that the conditions of consent wereprogressively strengthened through the development assessment process in order toaddress the six main issues of concern incorporating the Village of Bulga; biodiversity;noise and air quality; socio-economic; final void; water quality and other issues (WallabyScrub Road).

A further report adopted by Council on 21 March, 2016 (refer Item 11- Draft Mount ThorleyWarkworth Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA)DP &SE 11/16), noted that a proposedVPA had been drafted and the proposed draft Agreement was consistent with theconditions of consent granted by the PAC. While it is acknowledged that the quantum ofthe draft VPA will go some way to reflect the extent of impacts, as highlighted in Councilssubmission to the PAC dated August 2014, it does not provide any potential benefits in lieuof a proposed closure of Wallaby Scrub Road or payment for the sale of the landcomprising the (former) public road. Notwithstanding, the future of Wallaby Scrub Roadmust be considered separately of any Voluntary Planning Agreement.


The decision to close Wallaby Scrub Road will not impact on the principles as outlined inCouncils Community Strategic Plan.

Our PlacesInfrastructure is Sustainable


The decision to close Wallaby Scrub Road will not impact on the principles as outlined inCouncils Delivery Program and Operational Plan.


30/217



30

Road and Infrastructure meets community needs


This report provides an overview of the likely impacts associated with the proposed

closure of Wallaby Scrub Road.

On the basis that 2014 DA was determined, Council sought legal advice on what could bepossible impacts of changes to the Act, on any decision not to approve the road closure.The explanatory note in the Act, relating directly to the change, and substantiated inresponses to Council by three (3) separate law firms states:

The proposed amendment to the Roads Act, 1993 expands the purposes for which theRoads and Traffic Authority (which is to be replaced by Roads and Maritime Services) mayexercise the functions of a roads authority under that Act to include the exercise of thosefunctions for the purpose of carrying out State significant development for which

development consent has been granted under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act, 1979.

Accordingly, the power of the RMS under s.64(1A) of theAct, would now seem to extendto enabling RMS to provide the consent of the Council, under s.37(2)(b) of theAct,to theclosure of a road if such consent is for the purposes of enabling the carrying out of Statesignificant development for which development consent has been granted, under Part 4 ofthe Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

Given the recent changes to the Act, the RMS can now, in the event Council refuse toconsent to the closure of a road, act as the roads authority for road closures associated

with State significant development, such as the Warkworth Continuation project.

Council needs to address the application for the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road in anobjective and lawful manner considering its role as the road authority. There is a high riskthat the RMS could usurp Councils role if Council failed to consider the applicationappropriately.

Should Council choose to not sell the road, there is also the possibility, under s.177 of thethe Act, for the RMS to compulsory acquire, the public road. It would then cease to be apublic road as a consequence of its compulsory acquisition (refer s.41 of the Act).While itis considered highly unlikely for the Crown to compulsory acquire a public road (if it is notclosed), under s.204 of the Act, Council would still be entitled, to compensation. Given theamount that can be potentially negotiated on any sale of Wallaby Scrub Road it is stronglyrecommended that Council maintain its control, as the road authority, to maximise anybenefits to the community in this regard.

Consultation/ Social Implications

The closure of Wallaby Scrub Road would result in current traffic (1100 vehicles per day),being detoured via Putty Road, potentially Charlton Road and the Golden Highway. Thedetoured traffic would be subject to some increased daily travel times (6 minutes).

Traffic studies assessed as part of the determination indicate that detoured traffic wouldnot significantly impact the capacity and level of service (LoS) of the detoured roads,including Charlton Road, and relevant intersections.


31/217



31

An emergency access road/fire trail will be constructed between Putty Road and theGolden Highway to allow emergency vehicles to access areas west of Wallaby ScrubRoad. The Rural Fire Service (RFS) has accepted the proposed emergency access road,provided it is constructed in accordance with the RFSs access standards. Furthermore,

the conditions of consent would require MTW to consult with Council, the RMS and RFSprior to closure of the road, and develop a protocol for ongoing access and use of theemergency access track.

The process of s.138 Road Closure Application will allow for 28 day public exhibitionprocess seeking public submissions and community input. The results would be reportedto Council at the October 2016 Council meeting.

Environmental Considerations

The road closure will not directly impact the local environment. The impacts of mining

generally and particularly through Wallaby Scrub Road have been considered by the PAC.

Risk Implications

As indicated above, if Council fails or refuses to apply to the Minister to close WallabyScrub Road, it is possible for another public authority, such as the RMS, to apply to theMinister to close the road. Under this scenario, it is possible for the RMS to exercise theCouncils functions as the roads authority for Wallaby Scrub Road and provide consent tothe closure of the road on behalf of Council. This is the case whether the Minster proposesthe closure or another public authority, such as the RMS, applies for the road to be closed.

Once closed, the land comprising the former public road is owned by the Council. IfCouncil resolves to dispose of the land, the proceeds of the sale are to be paid to Council.However, as highlighted in the Policy/legislation section of this report, should Councilchoose to not sell the road, there is also the possibility, under s.177 of the the Act, for theRMS to compulsory acquire, the public road, potentially impacting on the proceeds of sale.

If, on the other hand, the Council initiates the road closure process, the Council would begiven another opportunity to consider whether to consent to the closure after publicsubmissions have been made. If Council refuses consent at that time, there would still bethe possibility for RMS to intervene and provide that consent, as highlighted above.

Other risks associated with detouring traffic have been assessed as low, with regard toboth LoS and traffic safety, on all detoured roads and relevant intersections.


There are no financial implications relating to the processing of the application. There willbe financial implications if, following an approved road closure, Council choose to sell theroad. Any decision to sell the road would be subject to a further report to Council.


32/217



32

Options


1. Endorse the draft recommendations.

2. Not endorse the draft recommendations. This is not considered to have merit as it willpotentially result in Council being disempowered in the consideration of the proposedroad closure.


Conclusion

The determination by the NSW Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) of theWarkworth Continuation Project (the Project) has placed stringent conditions, aimed at

addressing the key environmental, economic and social impacts of the project. It does nothowever propose any alternate options for Wallaby Scrub Road other than full closure. It isclear the intention of the approval was for mining through Wallaby Scrub Road.

In order for Council to retain its control over the road closure process the processing of thes.138 application is deemed to be the best outcome under the circumstances. Once theapplication has been considered a further report will be brought to Council in October 2016indicating the feedback from the advertising process. It will also consider Councils optionsregarding the future of Wallaby Scrub Road.


AttachmentsThere are no attachments for this report.


33/217



33

70. Glass Parade Rectification WorksAuthor:Sam Walker; Peter McMurray

FILE:RD02774

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to highlight options regarding the rectification of Glass Paradeand advise on the recommended option and time frame for pavement rectification.


1. Proceed with the Full Depth Asphalt rectification works on the section of Glass Paradebetween Bridgman Road and Pioneer Road.

2. Approve the reallocation of roads funding from the Local Roads Capital Works Programto undertake this work.

3. Direct the funds associated with the retained security bond to this project.

Background

Singleton Council entered into a commercial agreement with Bridgman Ridge Holdings P/Lto develop Council land for residential and commercial use in accordance with the termsand conditions of the agreement.

The development of land within Bridgman Ridge Estate, created the need for theconstruction of Glass Parade between Bridgman Road and Pioneer Road (the sectionknown as the Pioneer Road extension). In accordance with the terms and conditions of theAgreement, Bridgman Ridge Holdings developed designs for Glass Parade and Counciladvertised the tender for the construction of the road. The construction costs were to beshared between Singleton Council and Bridgman Ridge Pty Ltd.

Civil Edge Contracting Pty Ltd (Civil Edge), was the successful tenderer and Councilawarded the tender for the construction of Glass Parade at the Council meeting of 5December 2011. A condition of the tender contract, amongst numerous technical, financial

and legal conditions, included the payment to Council of a security bond. The physicalconstruction of Glass Parade road works were completed on 19 December 2012 andpractical completion process was completed in January 2013. It was noted, soon after theconstruction works were completed, that cracks had started to appear in the newpavement. By July 2013, the cracks reached a point, that major rectification works wereidentified and required to enable the continued use of Glass Parade.

In order to identify the causes of the failure, Council commissioned Cardno GeotechSolution Pty Ltd to undertake a detailed investigation of the pavement and surfacestructure and to advise Council on the causes and proposed options for repair. TheCardno report dated October 2013 indicated that the causes of the pavement failure weredirectly attributed to poor quality of base material used by Civil Edge in the pavementconstruction.


34/217



34

Council provided a copy of the report to Civil Edge before the expiry of the defect liabilityperiod ending on the 19 December 2013 and requested a meeting to rectify the defectivepavement. Council has been negotiating with Civil Edge since 2013 in an attempt to rectifythe matter and there has been various meetings since. Council has also engaged Local

Government Legal to assist with these negotiations. No resolution had been determinedbetween Council and Civil Edge over this period.

It was originally envisaged that Civil Edge would come back to complete the rectificationworks however, due to the inability of Civil Edge to provide a reasonable and workablesolution to the problem, and Councils concerns in respect of entering into any furthercontractual arrangement with Civil Edge, this was not recommended. Civil Edge hadraised with Council the issue of return of the security bond in exchange for completing therectification works. Negotiations between Council and Civil Edge have been extensive anda scope of works could not be agreed upon and is unlikely to be reached in a short termperiod. The negotiations have been drawn out as both parties could not agree on a scope

of works and to what extent each party would contribute in terms of the rectification works.Council had also indicated it did not consider any return of the security bond warrantedand that this bond would be used to contribute toward costs.

Cardno were again engaged by Council in April 2016 to prepare an options report for thepavement rectification. It was at this point that Council Officers determined that therectification works would proceed, based on a review of the Cardno report. A copy of thisreport is shown at Attachment 1.

The most appropriate and cost effective solution was identified as Option 2 in the Cardnoreport which incorporated a full depth asphalt replacement on Glass Parade.

It is proposed that Council does not proceed with entering into any further arrangementwith Civil Edge regarding rectification works, and that the security bond should be used tocontribute to funding for the completion of any works. A meeting was conducted betweenrepresentatives of Council, Civil Edge and Cardno in May 2016 where the matter wasdiscussed. Written notification was then also forwarded to Civil Edge advising of the intentto proceed with the rectification works using the security bond funding.

Concerns had also been raised with Council from the community with regard to theremoval of the centre concrete median on Glass Parade. This matter was investigated byCouncils Local Traffic Committee at its meeting in October 2014 (Attachment 2). Council,at its meeting on 17 November 2014 adopted the recommendations of the October LocalTraffic Committee report, which recommended that: Council endorse the removal of thetwo chicanes on Glass Parade (Pioneer Road extension) and the retention of the existingmedian as shown on drawing PS028-RevA(Attachment 3).

Work associated with the removal of the chicanes will be included as part of therectification works. There are no plans to remove the centre concrete median as itperforms a necessary traffic safety role.

Rectification Evaluation

The failed base material used by Civil Edge has caused the wearing surface to crack, thisin turn had resulted in water penetrating the pavement damaging other layers of the


35/217



35

pavement. In April 2016, Cardno, as part of its report recommendations, highlighted threeseparate options for rectification. The costs provided in the Cardno report were indicativeonly, and a more detailed cost estimate analysis was obtained using an asphalt pavingcontractor. Please refer to Attachment 1for the Cardno report summary for each option.

Summary

While the recommended option constitutes a change of pavement design, this treatment isconsidered the preferred option in terms of time of construction and having minimal impacton the community.

Selection of any of the other Options 1 or 3, would result in significant time delay andwould pose further potential disputes and delays. Furthermore, if Council decided to moveforward, with full reconstruction or stabilization this would require a full tender process,which again would delay delivery of final rectification works.

Full Depth Asphalt possesses many advantages compared to the other options with themain advantages being associated with rapid construction time, longer pavement life, noneed to go out for tender or design and visual inspection of sub base for pavementconstruction.

Council has the ability to, under the regional procurement contract conditions engagedasphalt contractors to complete the full depth asphalt (FDA) works, at predetermine rates.Subject to Council approval of this report, a nominated contractor will be available tocommence work on site in July 2016, with a 10 day project completion period.

As indicated previously, the removal of the chicanes will also be incorporated into this

scope of works.


The project once finalised will contribute to Councils adopted Community Strategic Planby:

Our Community

Ensuring Singleton is a safe place to live.

The Community have raised numerous concerns with Council about the delay inrectification works and the lack of action associated with the repairs to Glass Parade.While the prescribed asphalt works are not the cheapest option, this method ofrectification will enable a quick construction time completion period and have theleast impact on the community. This method of rectification also provides a longpavement life and cause fewer defects in the future. Given the background of thisproject:

Completing repairs to the road will make our community feel supported andcared for through the provision of services and facilities

Strengthen the sense of place and identity of the locality of Bridgman Ridge


36/217



36

Our Places

Roads and transport are safe and infrastructure is sustainable.

Through the construction and completion of the works, our community will be:

Safer through a safer road Has sustainable assets Well plannedsustainable, accessible, affordable Well connected Attractive for locals and visitors Promoting healthy activity and public safety in the newly developed area Improving access to the proposed shopping centre and Bridgman Road and

Town Centre


Our Placesplan for a sustainable and safe community.

Our Placesroad and infrastructure meets community needs.


Council has adhered strongly to its legal advice and has at all times, been transparent andaccountable in making decisions impacting on the time frames and costs associated withthis project. The recommendations do not impact on any Council policy relating to itsCapital Works Program or tender procurement processes.

Council is able to engage asphalt contractors under the regional procurement tenderwithout having to go out to an open tender.

The proposed works adhere to the principles of Councils Asset Management Plans.


There is a community expectation that the road will be repaired. The Bridgman Ridge areais newly developed and the road accessing the newly developed area is need of urgentrepair. The community has a high expectation that Council will complete these repairs in

the very near future. It is recommended that Glass Parade is repaired as a matter ofpriority.

Any road closures will be advertised with alternative routes identified.


Environmental impacts will be addressed in applicable project management plans by thecontractor carrying out rectification works.


37/217



37

Risk Implications

Council could be exposed to potential increased risk of public liability if Glass Parade is leftto deteriorate further.

There may be the possibility of legal action by Civil Edge. Any pending legal issues will beactioned using the appropriate legal resources and advice.

Financial

Works for the rectification of Glass Parade can be funded from the 2015/16 Local RoadsCapital Works Program and the use of the retained security. There is no impact on fundingfor other projects listed in the 2015/16 Local Roads Capital Works Program.

Options


1. Endorse the proposed recommendation to proceed with the Full Depth Asphaltrectification works on the section of Glass Parade between Bridgman Road andPioneer Road.

2. Not proceed with the rectification works. This option is not considered to have merit asit would significantly add cost to any future repairs of Glass Parade and create anegative perception of Council.

3. Consider use of either Option 1 or 3 as the preferred pavement rectification option. This

is not considered to have merit as either option would add significant time delay for thecompletion of any works, and for Option 1, would add significant costs to the projectwhich could not be met in Councils 2015/16 Local Roads Capital Works Program.


Conclusions

Full depth pavement replacement for Glass Parade provides the most cost effectivesolution for Council in terms of time for construction, minimal impact on the communityduring construction, pavement life and decreased risk of public liability.


AttachmentsAT-1 Glass Parade - Cardno Evaluation - Rectification Options

and costings 2016AT-2 Glass Parade (Pioneer Road extension) Removal of

chicanesAT-3 Action Sheet - Council Meeting - Glass Parade (PioneerRoad Extension)


38/217

Attachment 1 Glass Parade - Cardno Evaluation - Rectification Options and costings2016

38


39/217


39


40/217


40


41/217


41


42/217


42


43/217

Attachment 2 Glass Parade (Pioneer Road extension) Removal of chicanes

43


44/217


44


45/217


45


46/217


46


47/217

Attachment 3 Action Sheet - Council Meeting - Glass Parade (Pioneer Road Extension)

47


48/217



48

71. Minutes - Local Traffic Committee - 26/05/2016Author:Paul Smith

FILE:16/0149

Executive Summary

The Singleton Local Traffic Committee held its ordinary meeting on 25 May 2016. Theminutes are shown as Attachment 1for Councils consideration.


1. Note the minutes of the Singleton Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 25 May2016.

2. Adopt the following recommendations made by the Local Traffic Committee:

1. Hermitage Road Upgrade ProjectLocal Traffic Committee recommends that Council approves the installation of thetraffic control devices associated with the Hermitage Road Upgrade Project perdrawings 3695C5564-1, 3695C6500-1 to 3695C6531-1, 3695C593-1 to 3695C595-1, 3695C8007-1 to 3695C8008, 3695C8011, 3695C8024, 3695C8034-1,3695C8044-1, 3695C8061-1, 3695C8071-1, 3695C8072-1 & 3695C8080-0.

2. Pioneer Road Upgrade ProjectLocal Traffic Committee recommends that Council approve the installation of thesigns and line marking as shown on design drawing P1-RD00067-LTC01to P1-RD00067-LTC06attached as APPENDIX A to item 3.2 of the meeting agenda,withthe addition of flood warning signs and depth indicators and the retention of theexisting speed hump.

3. Glendonbrook Road Rehabilitation ProjectLocal Traffic Committee recommends that Council approve the installation of thesigns and line marking as shown on design drawing P1-RD00067-LTC01 to P1-RD00067-LTC06attached as APPENDIX A to item 3.3. of the meeting agenda.

4. Singleton Town (Area 1) SchemeSTOP SignsLocal Traffic Committee recommends that Council approve the implementation of 22STOP signs as part of the installation of the Singleton Town (Area 1) Road Safetyimprovement scheme as shown on drawing numbers 22-18150-C010 Rev D, 22-18150-C011 Rev D, 22-18150-C018 Rev D & 22-18150-C019 Rev D attached asAPPENDIX Cto item 3.4 of the meeting agenda.

5. Singleton Town (Area 1) SchemeWilliam StreetLocal Traffic Committee recommends that Council do not install the speed humpson William Street at this time, install the kerb build-outs and change the GIVE WAYsigns and line markings to STOP signs and monitor the accident level at the

intersection and if accidents continue to occur look at installing measures in thefuture.


49/217



49

6. Cranky Corner Road (South) / Stanhope RoadIntersection improvementsLocal Traffic Committee recommends that Council approves the implantation of theproposed improvements to the intersection as per drawing PS16-027CrankyCorner Road (South) and Stanhope RoadSTOP sign and vegetation removalattached as APPENDIX Bto item 3.6 of the meeting agenda.

7. Lake St Clair Charity Bicycle RideLocal Traffic Committee recommends that Council note the Traffic ManagementPlan as submitted by the Rotary Club of Singleton and approve the event inaccordance with this plan.

8. Lydes LaneGated road closure ELECTRONIC MEETINGLocal Traffic Committee recommends that Council approves the closure of LydesLane at Golden Highway by means of erection of a gate as per the drawing attachedas APPENDIX C to item 3.8 of the meeting agenda.

3. Allocate funds as follows to undertake the works recommended by the Local TrafficCommittee:

Item Title Source of funds Est.amount

1 Hermitage Road UpgradeProject

NSW Resourcesfor Regions

$9.3m

CouncilContribution

$100,000

2 Pioneer Road Upgrade Project Council Funding $50,0003 Glendonbrook Road

Rehabilitation Project

Regional Road

Funding fromRMS

$400,000

4 Singleton Town (Area 1)SchemeSTOP Signs

Transport forNSW SaferRoads

$435,00

5 Singleton Town (Area 1)SchemeWilliam Street

N/A N/A

6 Cranky Corner Road (South) /Stanhope RoadIntersectionimprovements

Council Funding $1,000

7 Lake St Clair Charity BicycleRide N/A N/A

8 Lydes LaneGated roadclosure ELECTRONICMEETING

N/Afunded byWarkworthMining Limited

N/A


All proposed works can be funded from existing Council budgets or external funding.


50/217



50


AttachmentsAT-1 Local Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes 26/05/2016


51/217

Attachment 1 Local Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes 26/05/2016

51

Local Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes

Thursday 26th

May 2016

Table of Contents

FORMAL AGENDA ITEMS

Item Subject Page(s)

3.1 Hermitage Road Upgrade Project 3

3.2 Pioneer Road Upgrade Project 4

3.3 Glendonbrook Road Rehabilitation Project 4

3.4 Singleton Town (Area 1) SchemeSTOP signs 5

3.5 Singleton Town (Area 1) Scheme

William Street 5

3.6 Cranky Corner RoadIntersection Improvements 5

3.7 Lake St Clair Charity Bike RideTraffic Management Plan 6

3.8 Lydes LaneGated Closure (ELECTRONIC MEETING) 6


52/217


52

Local Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes

The meeting of the Singleton Local Traffic Committee was held in the Council Chambers on 26 May 2016

at 9:30am.

NOTE: These minutes are to be read in conjunction with the Local Traffic Committee meeting agenda

of the above meeting.

PRESENT

Committee Members:

Cr Sue Moore (Singleton Council) (Chairperson)

Bob Winter (representative for The Honourable Joel Fitzgibbon MP)

Nick Trajcevski (Traffic Engineering Officer, RMS)

Senior Constable Steve Murrell (Traffic Officer, Singleton Police)

Other attendees:

Mayor John Martin (Singleton Council)

Jason Linnane (General Manager, Singleton Council)

Paul Smith (Traffic Engineering and Road Safety Officer, Singleton Council)Michael Hector (Major Projects Investigation Officer, Singleton Council)

Alicia Christe (Infrastructure Administration Officer, Singleton Council)

APOLOGIES

Gary Thomson (AGM/Director Community and Infrastructure Services, Singleton Council),

Senior Constable Chris Dengate (Hunter Valley Local Area Command)

Peter McMurray (Manager Infrastructure Strategy, Planning & Programming, Singleton Council)

1. Confirmation of Minutes:

The minutes of meeting held on 25 February 2016 were confirmed. (Murrell/Winter)

2. Business Arising:

None


53/217


53

3. Items to be Recommended to Singleton Council by the Local Traffic Committee for Consideration:

Item 3.1

Subject: Hermitage Road Upgrade Project

From: Ralf Metzner, Major Projects Contracts Manager, Singleton Council

Reason for report: For the approval of the installation of the traffic control devices associated with the

Hermitage Road Upgrade Project.

Discussion:

Nick Trajcevski queried the use of the proposed pedestrian warning sign with flashing lights near Mistletoe

Lane. He does not feel the flashing lights are necessary as they lose their effectiveness over time when

continuously flashing.

Council advised that the flashing lights are proposed due to the high number of pedestrians crossing the

road at this point and to highlight this to motorists. The lights could be timed to coincide with peak crossing

times.

Cr Sue Moore suggested that it would be better to start with the flashing lights and then stop using them,

rather than not having them and then getting requests to install them.

Nick Trajcevski advised that he has carried out an initial speed limit assessment on the road and at this

stage feels that the speed on the 100km/h section could be brought down to 80km/h and that the section

near Mistletoe Lane could come down to 60km/h. Nick advised that he hopes to have a final decision by

August 2016.

Council requested that the outcome of the speed limit review be made known ASAP as if changes to thespeed limit will affect the layout of the line marking and potentially the locations of the signage.

Recommendation to Council: Local Traffic Committee recommends that Council approves the installation of

the traffic control devices associated with the Hermitage Road Upgrade Project per drawings 3695C5564-1,

3695C6500-1 to 3695C6531-1, 3695C593-1 to 3695C595-1, 3695C8007-1 to 3695C8008, 3695C8011,

3695C8024, 3695C8034-1, 3695C8044-1, 3695C8061-1, 3695C8071-1, 3695C8072-1 & 3695C8080-0

Mover and seconder: Trajcevski/Winter


54/217


55/217


55

Item 3.4

Subject: Singleton Town (Area 1) SchemeSTOP signs

From: Paul Smith, Traffic Engineering and Road Safety Officer, Singleton Council

Reason for report: To consider changing 22 of the 24 proposed GIVE WAY signs in the Singleton Town (Area

1) scheme to STOP signs in line with the RMS Situation Diagram referred to in the RMS Australian Standards

Supplement to Australian Standard AS1742 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices Parts 1 15.

Recommendation to Council: Local Traffic Committee recommends that Council approve the

implementation of 22 STOP signs as part of the installation of the Singleton Town (Area 1) Road Safety

improvement scheme as shown on drawing numbers 22-18150-C010 Rev D, 22-18150-C011 Rev D, 22-

18150-C018 Rev D & 22-18150-C019 Rev D attached as APPENDIX C to item 3.4 of the meeting agenda.

Mover and seconder: Trajcevski/Moore

Item 3.5

SUBJECT: Singleton Town (Area 1) SchemeWilliam Street

FROM: Paul Smith, Traffic Engineering and Road Safety Officer, Singleton Council

Reason for report: For a decision on the proposal to install 3 speed humps on William Street following

public consultation.

Recommendation to Council: Local Traffic Committee recommends that Council do not install the speed

humps on William Street at this time, install the kerb build-outs and change the GIVE WAY signs and line

markings to STOP signs and monitor the accident level at the intersection and if accidents continue to occur

look at installing measures in the future.

Mover and seconder: Winter/Murrell

Item 3.6

SUBJECT: Cranky Corner Road (South)/Stanhope Road Intersection improvements


Reason for report: To consider changes to the intersection of Cranky Corner Rd (South)/Stanhope Rd.

Recommendation to Council: Local Traffic Committee recommends that Council approves the implantation

of the proposed improvements to the intersection as per drawing PS16-027Cranky Corner Road (South)

and Stanhope RoadSTOP sign and vegetation removal attached as APPENDIX B to item 3.6 of the meeting

agenda.

Mover and seconder: Moore/Winter

Item 3.7


56/217


56

SUBJECT: Lake St Clair Charity Bicycle Ride


Reason for report: To consider the TMP associated with the Lake St Clair Charity Bicycle ride due to take

place on 20th

August 2016.

Recommendation to Council: Local Traffic Committee recommends that Council note the Traffic

Management Plan as submitted by the Rotary Club of Singleton and approve the event in accordance with

this plan.

Mover and seconder: Winter/Moore

Item 3.8

SUBJECT: Lydes LaneGated road closure ELECTRONIC MEETING


Reason for report: To consider the installation of a gated closure on Lydes Lane by Warkworth Mining Ltd

as part of State Significant Development Approval for the Warkworth Continuation Project.

Recommendation to Council: Local Traffic Committee recommends that Council approves the closure of

Lydes Lane at Golden Highway by means of erection of a gate as per the drawing attached as APPENDIX C

to item 3.8 of the meeting agenda.

Mover and seconder: Unanimous support via email

4. Other Business

4.1 Mayor John Martin queried why the LEFT TURN ON RED sign that was in place at the traffic signals at the

intersection of John Street and Ryan Avenue (south) has been removed.

UPDATE: Council contacted RMS after the meeting and the sign was removed as part of the two phase site

pedestrian protection upgrade program which is a state wide programme to upgrade signalised intersections that

also have pedestrian lights. The upgrade means that rather than the green light being given to motorists and

pedestrians waiting to cross the road at the same time, pedestrians get the green man around 4 seconds before the

green light comes on for traffic. This gives pedestrians a head start in crossing the road. The benefit of the headstart is that it is thought that after pedestrians have entered the intersection, vehicles are less likely to try to pre-

empt their right-of-way when making turns.

LTOR signs have to be removed at these sites as having this sign in place would allow motorists to turn on the red

light which would make the head start redundant.


57/217


57

4.2 PC Steve Murrell advised that during the Anzac Day parade there were instances of motorists entering the parade

area. Council advised that 2 road closures were missing from the TCP but were installed once the traffic

management company realised. There were also some instances of motorists going past ROAD CLOSED signs.

Council advised that next year it is planned to use a Police rolling closure rather than the traffic control that has

been used to date as it is very difficult to manage all of the road closures to ensure people do not drive past. This

will be discussed with the Police well before next Anzac Day.

4.3 Council raised the suggestion to have a LTC meeting every 2 months rather than every 3 months as per the current

arrangement. The LTC members do not feel the need to have a meeting every 2 months and as such the 3 month

meeting schedule will be retained with any urgent issues to be dealt with via email or by an extraordinary meeting.

There being no further business the meeting concluded at 11:30am.


58/217



58

72. Tender for Organics (Green Waste) CollectionAuthor:Angelika Hesse

FILE:T2015.020

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to advise Council that a report has been prepared forCouncils consideration in Closed Council which contains commercial information of aconfidential nature that would, if disclosed, prejudice the commercial position of the personwho supplied it (the Tenderers).

Tenders for the collection of Organics (greenwaste) were called by Maitland City Councilon behalf of Singleton and Cessnock Councils on 1 March 2016 and tenders closed at 2.00pm on 26 April 2016.

RECOMMENDEDthat the report on the tender for organics (greenwaste) collectionservices for Cessnock, Maitland and Singleton Councils be considered in Closed Councilwith the press and public excluded in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the LocalGovernment Act 1993 , on grounds that the report contains commercial information of aconfidential nature that would, if disclosed, prejudice the commercial position of the personwho supplied it.


AttachmentsThere are no attachments for this report.


59/217

Attachment 1 LTC Report - Milbrodale Mountain Classic - Special Event - 9-6-2016

59

73. Milbrodale Mountain Classic - Traffic ControlAuthor:Paul Smith

FILE:16/0149

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the traffic control plan proposed for the30thAnniversary Hedweld Milbrodale Mountain Classic 2016.

RECOMMENDED that Council endorse the Traffic Control Plan as submitted by HVORRAand approve the temporary closure of Welshs Road in accordance with this plan.

Background

The 30th Anniversary Hedweld Milbrodale Mountain Classic 2016 is due to be held on 2 & 3July 2016. The Event is being run by Hunter Valley Off Road Racing Association Inc.(HVORRA).

The racing will be conducted on private property at Milbrodale, NSW however the vehicles willcross Welshes Road, which is a Council owned public road, at two separate points along theroad. Traffic controllers will be used to temporarily stop traffic when vehicles cross the road.

The attached Local Traffic Committee (LTC) report outlines the event in more detail andincludes a copy of the proposed Traffic Control Plan.

If Council wishes to regulate traffic for purposes other than those specified in Division 1 of Part8 (Section 115) of the Roads Act, 1993(road works, public safety etc.) it must seek the advice

of its LTC.

The function to regulate traffic under Division 2 of Part 8 Sections 116 to 119 of the Roads Act1993(i.e. for special events) is delegated to Council in the Delegation to Councils Regulation of Traffic (Delegation). Council may not sub-delegate this item.

The Delegation requires Council to seek the advice of the NSW Police and the RMS prior toexercising their delegated functions. This is usually done via the LTC. The LTC has nodecision-making powers.

The Local Traffic Committee recommends that Council endorse the Traffic Control Plan as

submitted by H.V.O.R.R.A. and approve the temporary closure of Welshs Road in accordancewith this plan.


AttachmentsAT-1 LTC Report - Milbrodale Mountain Classic - Special Event -

9-6-2016


60/217


60


61/217


61


62/217


62


63/217


63


64/217


64


65/217


65


66/217


Corporate Services Report (Items Requiring Decision) - DCS45/16

66

45. Proposed Lease to Gore Electrical & Data - 189 JohnStreet SingletonAuthor:Larissa Bourke

FILE:15/0635

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the lease of the workshop at 189 JohnStreet, Singleton to Gore Electrical & Data.

RECOMMENDEDthat:

1. Council endorse the lease of the workshop at 189 John Street, Singleton to GoreElectrical & Data for a two year term with an option to renew for a further one year

term.

2. The rental amount be $26,000 per annum plus GST.

3. The rent be waived for the first six months.

4. The Mayor and General Manager be authorised to sign and seal any documentsassociated with the lease.

Background

Gore Electrical & Data currently lease property in Walter Street, Singleton and they areseeking a larger property to allow for expansion of the business. Mr Gore has approachedCouncil to lease the old Sutton Ford Workshop (not including the showroom) located at189 John Street, Singleton.

Gore Electrical & Data was established in April of 2010 and services the local Singletonarea. Since that time, Gore Electrical & Data has grown to employ more than ten full timeemployees, several casual staff and continually engages the services of subcontractorsthroughout the Hunter Valley for projects. In early 2014 due to expansion Gore Electricalrelocated to their current location in Walter Street, Singleton (near the Singleton train

station) in the Walter Street Complex, which houses other local businesses.

A copy of a letter from Gore Electrical & Data requesting consideration of the lease isshown as Attachment 1and an aerial photograph of the site is shown as Attachment 2.

It is proposed that the lease will commence on 1 August 2016 and be for a term of twoyears with an option of a further one year period. Upon agreement by Council a draftlease will be prepared by one of Councils legal services providers.


67/217



67


Our Community

The adopted Community Strategic Plan identifies that Our Community feels

supported and cared for through the provision of services and facilities.


Outcome 1.1.3 specifies that Council supports planning, development and implementationof programs and services to meet the needs of our diverse community.


The proposed lease has been prepared in accordance with relevant legislation. Thesubject land is Operational Land and as such there are no special Local Government Act

restrictions.

Any required Development Consents will be sought in accordance with the relevantplanning requirements.


The proposed lease site is currently unused and is being considered for futureredevelopment. Council is responsible for maintaining this property.

A valuation has been provided by Tew Property Consulting which has placed the current

market rental value of the site at $57,000 per annum.

Gore Electrical & Data have written to Council requesting that the rent be $26,000 perannum plus GST and be waived for the first six months of the lease term to assist withcompensation for the decommissioning, new connection/MSB and electrical upgrades. Acopy of this request is shown as Attachment 1.


The lease proposal has been considered by relevant staff and has been endorsed byCouncils Executive Leadership Team.

Upon approval by Council a lease will be drafted by one of Councils legal servicesproviders and will be finalised in consultation with Gore Electrical & Data.


Nil.

Risk Implications

Minimal risk for Council will result from the implementation of this lease.


68/217



68

The site is currently vacant and requires a reasonable amount of maintenance work. Theuse of this site which will include internal upgrades by the Lessee will assist with themaintenance of the site and will also minimise the risk for vandalism. The proposed leasewill not impact on planning for future development of the site.

Options

1. That the proposed lease of the workshop at 189 John Street, Singleton to GoreElectrical and Data be approved.

2. Not approve the proposed lease of the workshop at 189 John Street, Singleton to GoreElectrical and Data.


Conclusions

This report recommends that Council approve the lease of the workshop at 189 JohnStreet, Singleton to Gore Electrical and Data.

Anthony Egan

Director Corporate Services Group

AttachmentsAT-1 Gore Electrical and Data Proposal for LeaseAT-2 Aerial - 189 John Street


69/217

Attachment 1 Gore Electrical and Data Proposal for Lease

69


70/217


71/217



71

46. Local Government Remuneration TribunalAuthor:Anthony Egan

FILE:16/0390

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to advise Council that the Local Government RemunerationTribunal has concluded its review for the year 2016/2017 and set the annual fees payableto the Mayor and Councillors for the 2016/2017 year.

RECOMMENDEDthat the Mayoral fee be increased to $24,630 and the Councillor fees beincreased to $11,290 in accordance with the Local Government Remuneration Tribunalsdecision for the financial year commencing 1 July 2016.

Background

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal has concluded its review for the year2016/2017 and determined that an increase in fees of 2.5% for Mayors and Councillors isappropriate.

Attachment 1is a copy of the report and determination from the Local GovernmentRemuneration Tribunal in which Singleton Council is c lassified as Rural.

The increases are effective from 1 July, 2016 and the minimum and maximum fees per

annum for Council are as follows:

Year Mayor Year CouncillorsMinimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

2015/2016 $8,860 $24,030 2015/2016 $8,330 $11,0102016/2017 $9,080 $24,630 2016/2017 $8,540 $11,290

The Mayor and Councillors were paid the maximum fees for 2015/2016 and it should benoted that the Councillor fee is paid to the Mayor in addition to the Mayoral allowance.

The 2016/2017 draft budget makes provision for a 2.5% increase to the maximum feespayable.

On 20 January 2016, the Tribunal wrote to all mayors advising that given the limitationsplaced on the Tribunal in respect of determining increases in fees no general submissionsfrom individual councils were required for the 2016 review. The Tribunal notes in theirreport that they will be required to undertake a review of councillor remuneration during2016 as part of the local government reforms. The Tribunal states that in undertaking thisreview the Government may wish to consider the impact of the Governments wages policyon increases in mayoral and councillor fees and the limitations this may impose on anyfuture remuneration model.

Council needs to fix the remuneration level for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 forthe Mayor and Councillors by way of resolution. Should Council not determine or fix an


72/217



72

annual fee, then in accordance with section 248 (4) and 249(4) of the Local GovernmentAct, 1993the minimum remuneration levels as determined by the Tribunal will apply.


The adoption of the recommendation will not have an impact on the Community StrategicPlan.


The adoption of the recommendation will not have an impact on Councils DeliveryProgram and Operational Plan.


Pursuant to Section 241 of the Local Government Act, 1993 the NSW Local Government

Remuneration Tribunal determines in each category of Council, the maximum andminimum amount of fees to be paid to Mayors and Councillors of Councils.

In determining the minimum and maximum fees payable to each of the categories, theTribunal is required, pursuant to Section 242A of the Local Government Act 1993, to giveeffect to the same policies on increases in remuneration as those that the IndustrialRelations Commission is required to give effect to under Section 146C of the IndustrialRelations Act 1996, when making or varying awards or orders relating to the conditions ofemployment of public sector employees.

The current Policy on wages pursuant to Section 146(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act

1996is articulated in the Industrial Relations (Public Sector Conditions of Employment)Regulation 2011. The effect of the Regulation is that public sector wages cannot increaseby more than 2.5%, and this includes the minimum and maximum fees payable tocouncillors and mayors.


The 2016/2017 draft Budget makes provision for a 2.5% increase in fees and payment ofthe maximum fees.


Not applicable.


Not applicable.

Risk Implications

Not applicable.


73/217



73

Options


1. Council increase the fees to the Mayor and Councillors for the 2016/2017 year

commencing 1 July, 2016 by the recommended 2.5%.

2. Council approve the payment of another fee amount to the Mayor and Councillors forthe 2016/2017 year commencing 1 July, 2016 in line with the determination from theTribunal.

3. Council maintains the Mayor and Councillors fees at the 2015/2016 maximum level.


Conclusions

It is recommended that Council approve the payment of the maximum fees to the Mayorand Councillors which is in line with past practices.

Anthony EganDirector Corporate Services Group

AttachmentsAT-1 2016 Annual Determination - Local Government

Remuneration Tribunal - 29 March 2016


74/217

Attachment 1 2016 Annual Determination - Local Government Remuneration Tribunal -29 March 2016

74


75/217


75


76/217


76


77/217


77


78/217


78


79/217


79


80/217

Attac

singleton council meeting 2016

Documents