agenda: page no. - cessnock city council · pdf filethis is page 1 of the agenda of the...

This is of the Agenda of the Ordinary Council Meeting of the Cessnock City Council to be held on 15 May 2013

9 May 2013

To All Councillors Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993, that the next Ordinary Meeting of Council will be held in the Council Chambers, on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 at 6.30pm, for the purposes of transacting the undermentioned business. AGENDA: PAGE NO. (1) OPENING PRAYER

(2) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TRADITIONAL LAND OWNERS

(3) RECEIPT OF APOLOGIES

(4) CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 1 May 2013

(5) DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

DI13/2013 Disclosures of Interest ...................................................................6

(6) ADDRESS BY INVITED SPEAKERS

The following people have been invited to address the meeting of Council:

Speakers Company For / Against

Report Page No.

Duration

Stephen Meadows

Against EE32/2013 - Planning Proposal - Rose Hill, Millfield

104 7 mins

Roger Lewis Against EE32/2013 - Planning Proposal - Rose Hill, Millfield

104 7 mins

(7) NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DEAL WITH MATTERS IN CON FIDENTIAL SESSION

NI12/2013 Notice of Intention to Deal With Matters in Confidential Session....7

(8) MOTIONS OF URGENCY

MOU8/2013 Motions of Urgency........................................................................8

(9) DEFERRED BUSINESS

EE23/2013 Development Application 8/2013/37/1 - Subdivision of one (1) lot into two (2) lots .............................................................9


(10) ENHANCING OUR NATURAL, DEVELOPED AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

EE26/2013 Development Application 8/2012/267/1 proposing the Subdivision of One (1) lot into Three (3) lots at 15 O'Connors Road, Nulkaba......................................................26 EE27/2013 Development Application 8/2011/317/1 – Ten (10) Residential Units ...........................................................41 EE28/2013 Development Application 8/2012/570/1 - Subdivision of two (2) lots into four (4) lots .........................................................74 EE29/2013 Submission to NSW Government Draft State Environmental

Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Coal Seam Gas Exclusion Zones) ........94

EE30/2013 Systematic Review of the potential impacts of Coal Seam Gas Extraction.............................................................................97 EE31/2013 Cessnock Performing Arts Centre - Screening of Films .............100 EE32/2013 Planning Proposal - Rose Hill, Millfield ......................................104 EE33/2013 Huntlee Stage 1 Proposed Infrastructure Contributions .............123

(11) PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP

PM40/2013 March 2013 Quarterly Review of the 2011-13 Delivery Program ....................................................................................137 PM41/2013 Quarterly Budget Review Statements - March 2013 ..................142 ‡ PM42/2013 Investment Report - April 2013 ..................................................148 PM43/2013 Margin Scheme - Potential Recovery of GST ............................153

(12) ACTIVE PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNITY CONSULTATIO N

AP11/2013 Draft Communications and Engagement Strategy 2013 - 2017 ...............................................................................158 AP12/2013 Kurri Kurri Aquatic Centre Advisory Committee - Minutes

Wednesday 1 May 2013............................................................161

(13) BUSINESS OF WHICH WRITTEN NOTICE HAS BEEEN GIV EN

BN12/2013 Direct Debit for Cessnock Pool Fees .........................................164 BN13/2013 Council Pick Up System ............................................................165

(14) ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR NEXT MEETING

AQ59/2013 Noxious Weeds - Swamp Creek................................................166 AQ60/2013 Developments Subject to flooding within the East Cessnock

Floodplain..................................................................................167 AQ61/2013 Wermol Street Flood Study........................................................168 AQ62/2013 Wermol Street Flood Study Information.....................................169 AQ63/2013 Lindsay St Drainage - Notification of Residents .........................170 AQ64/2013 Cessnock Flood Risk Management Study and Plan Progress Update .......................................................................171 AQ65/2013 Swamp / Fishery Creek Flood Risk Management Study and Plan Progress Update.........................................................172 AQ66/2013 Corner of First Street, Kline Street and Cessnock Road, Weston......................................................................................173 AQ67/2013 John Street, Abermain...............................................................174 AQ68/2013 Heddon Street, Heddon Greta ...................................................175 AQ69/2013 Drain - 3 Keelendi Road, Bellbird...............................................176 AQ70/2013 Railway Parade Kurri Kurri ........................................................177 AQ71/2013 Congewai Road.........................................................................178 AQ72/2013 Vines Estate ..............................................................................179


AQ73/2013 Overhead Bridge - Weston ........................................................180 AQ74/2013 Maintenance of Trees................................................................181 AQ75/2013 LEP Process - Kurri CBD...........................................................182 AQ76/2013 Historic Military Signs - Kurri Kurri .............................................184

(15) QUESTIONS FOR NEXT MEETING

(16) COUNCILLORS' REPORTS

(17) REPORT OF THE CONFIDENTIAL SESSION OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING ON 15/05/2013


Council’s Charter • To provide directly or on behalf of other levels of government, after due consultation, adequate, equitable

and appropriate services and facilities for the community and to ensure that those services and facilities are managed efficiently and effectively.

• To exercise community leadership. • To exercise its functions in a manner that is consistent with and actively promotes the principles of

multiculturalism. • To promote and to provide and plan for the needs of children. • To properly manage, develop, protect, restore, enhance and conserve the environment of the area for

which it is responsible, in a manner that is consistent with and promotes the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

• To have regard to the long term and cumulative effects of its decisions. • To bear in mind that it is the custodian and trustee of public assets and to effectively plan for, account for

and manage the assets for which it is responsible. • To engage in long-term strategic planning on behalf of the local community. • To exercise its functions in a manner that is consistent with and promotes social justice principles of

equity, access, participation and rights. • To facilitate the involvement of Councillors, members of the public, users of facilities and services and

Council staff in the development, improvement and co-ordination of Local Government. • To raise funds for local purposes by the fair imposition of rates, charges and fees, by income earned from

investments and, when appropriate, by borrowings and grants. • To keep the local community and State Government (and through it, the wider community) informed

about its activities. • To ensure that, in the exercise of its regulatory functions, its acts consistently and without bias,

particularly where an activity of the Council is affected. • To be a responsible employer. Council’s Values

• Respect • Innovation • Teamwork • Integrity • Fairness • Commitment

Our Community’s Vision Cessnock will be a cohesive and welcoming community living in an attractive and sustainable rural environment with a diversity of business and employment opportunities supported by accessible infrastructure and services which effectively meet community need.

Cessnock – thriving, attractive and welcoming. Our Community’s Desired Outcomes • A connected, safe and creative community. • A sustainable and prosperous economy. • A sustainable and healthy environment. • Accessible infrastructure, facilities and services. • Civic Leadership and effective governance.


Council Model Code of Conduct Council adopted its current Code of Conduct on 6 March 2013. This Code provides details of statutory requirements and gives guidance in respect of the way in which pecuniary and conflict of interest issues should be approached. Generally, the policies refer to the following issues: 1. Councillors are under an obligation at law to disclose any interest they may

have in any matter before the Council and to refrain from being involved in any consideration or to vote on any such matter

2. Councillors must disclose any interest in any matter noted in the business

paper prior to or at the opening of the meeting 3. The nature of the interest shall be included in the notification 4. Councillors shall immediately and during the meeting disclose any interest in

respect of any matter arising during the meeting which is not referred to in the business paper

5. All declarations of interest shall be recorded by the General Manager 6. All disclosures of interest shall as far as is practicable be given in writing 7. Any member having a pecuniary or non-pecuniary significant conflict of

interest shall leave the meeting and remain absent while the subject of the interest is being considered by Council.

8. The meeting shall not discuss any matter in which a councillor has a pecuniary

or non-pecuniary significant conflict of interest while the councillor is present at the meeting.

Report To Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 May 2013

Disclosures Of Interest

Report No. DI13/2013

Customer Services


SUBJECT: DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Administration Services Manage r - Susan Morrison

RECOMMENDATION That Councillors now disclose any interests and rea sons for declaring such interest in the matters under consideration by Council at this meeting.

SUMMARY The provisions of Chapter 14 of the Local Government Act, 1993 regulate the way in which Councillors and nominated staff of council conduct themselves to ensure that there is no conflict between their private interests and their public trust. The Act prescribes that where a member of Council (or a Committee of Council) has a direct or indirect financial (pecuniary) interest in a matter to be considered at a meeting of the Council (or Committee), that interest must be disclosed as soon as practicable after the start of the meeting and the reasons for declaring such interest. As members are aware, the provisions of the Local Government Act restrict any member who has declared a pecuniary interest in any matter from participating in the discussions, voting on that matter, and require that member to vacate the Chamber. Council’s Code of Conduct provides that if members have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest, the nature of the conflict must be disclosed. The Code also provides for a number of ways in which a member may manage non pecuniary conflicts of interest.

ENCLOSURES

There are no enclosures for this report.


Notice of Intention

Report No. NI12/2013

Customer Services


SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DEAL WITH MATTERS IN CONFIDENTIAL SESSION


RECOMMENDATION That: 1. Council consider in Confidential Session the fol lowing matter in accordance

with Section 10A(2) (a), (c) & (di) of the Local Go vernment Act 1993: Report No PM44/2013 – Model Code of Conduct as it d eals with advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwi se be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the grounds of l egal professional privilege.

2. Council request the General Manager in accordanc e with Section 253 of Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 to report on t hese matters to the meeting in Open Session following completion of the Confidential Session.

SUMMARY It is necessary for the Council to adopt a resolution to formalise its intention to deal with certain matters in Confidential Session. The reports are incorporated in the “Confidential” business paper which has been circulated to Councillors. The Local Government Act, 1993 requires the General Manager to identify those matters listed on the business paper which may be categorised as confidential in terms of Section 10A of the Local Government Act, 1993.

ENCLOSURES



Motions of Urgency

Report No. MOU8/2013

Customer Services


SUBJECT: MOTIONS OF URGENCY


RECOMMENDATION That Councillors now indicate if there are any matt ers of urgency which they believe should be conducted at this meeting of Council.

SUMMARY Under Clause 10.5 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, business may be transacted at a meeting of Council even though due notice of the business has not been given to the Councillors. This can only happen if a motion is passed to have the business transacted at the meeting, the Mayor rules that the business is of great urgency and the business notified in the agenda for the meeting has been disposed of. Only the mover of such a motion can speak to the motion before it is put.

ENCLOSURES



Our Natural, Developed and Cultural Environment

Report No. EE23/2013

Built & Natural Environment


SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 8/2013/37/1 - SUBDIVISION OF ONE (1) LOT INTO TWO (2) LOTS

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Development Services Manager - Janine McCarthy Ordinary Meeting of Council at its meeting on 1/05/2013resolved that the matter be deferred to a future meeting

APPLICATION NUMBER:

8/2013/37/1

PROPOSAL: Subdivision of one (1) lot into two (2) lots

PROPERTY DESRIPTION:

Lot 11, Section 3, DP 758002

PROPERTY ADDRESS:

34 Vernon Street, Cessnock

ZONE: R3 Medium Density – Cessnock LEP 2011

OWNER: Ms R B Gairdner

APPLICANT: Marshall Scott Pty Ltd

RECOMMENDATION That Council determine Development Application No. 8/2013/37/1 proposing the Residential Subdivision Comprising One (1) Addition al Lot at Lot 11, Section 3, DP758002, 34 Vernon Street, Cessnock, pursuant to S ection 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by refusing to gra nt consent for the reasons detailed in this report.

REASON FOR REFERRAL Development Application No. 8/2012/208/1 is being r eferred to Council for determination because it is recommended that the ap plication be refused, and the refusal is considered to be merits based.






EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council is in receipt of Development Application 8/2013/37/1 seeking approval for a subdivision of one (1) lot into two (2) lots at 34 Vernon Street, Cessnock. The Development Application has been assessed against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000, relevant Environmental Planning Instruments and Council Policies. The outcome of this assessment is detailed further in this report. The Development Application was publicly exhibited and no submissions were received. Based on the assessment, it is recommended that the Development Application be refused for the reasons detailed in this report. LOCATION MAP






AERIAL






SITE DESCRIPTION AND LOCALITY

The subject site is commonly known as 34 Vernon Street, Cessnock, and is legally described as Lot 11, Section 3, Deposited Plan 758002. The subject site is a rectangular shaped allotment located on the northern side of Vernon Street. The site has a frontage of 20m to Vernon Street, a depth of 50m and an overall site area of 1,011.5m2. Vehicular access to the site is from the Vernon Street frontage. The subject site is currently occupied by a detached dual occupancy development comprising of a weatherboard dwelling to the Vernon Street frontage and a two (2) bedroom hardiplank dwelling to the rear of the land. Approval of the dual occupancy development was issued by Council via Development Consent 8/2005/792/1 on the 18 November, 2005. The immediate locality to the north, east and west is characterised by low density residential development primarily consisting of single storey dwellings with ancillary outbuildings. Land to the south comprises of recreational land including netball courts and ancillary facilities. Relevant development consents issued within the direct locality include: � DA 8/2011/814/1 – Multi dwelling housing approved 23 April 2012 at 8 Vernon Street,

Cessnock; � DA 8/2012/258/1 – Two (2) lot subdivision, attached dual occupancy and strata

subdivision (with rear lane access) approved on 9 October 2012 at 9 Aberdare Road, Cessnock; and

� DA 8/2003/1316 – Demolition of existing community hall and erection of seven (7) units approved on 23 January 2004 at 39 Aberdare Road, Cessnock.

The following refusals have been issued in the direct locality: � DA 8/2010/671/1 for a staged development comprising a two (2) lot subdivision, and

construction of a dual occupancy at 45 Aberdare Road, Cessnock; and � DA 8/2003/1384/1 for a two (2) lot subdivision at 27 Aberdare Road, Cessnock. HISTORY

The history of the subject Development Application is summarised in the following table: Date Action 30 January 2013 Application lodged with Council. 12 February 2013 Development Application allocated to assessment officer. 13 to 27 February 2013 Notification to adjoining landowners for 15 days – no submissions

received. 15 February 2013 Additional information request letter sent to applicant requesting

justification to vary development standard for subdivision in accordance with Clause 4.6 of Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 (LEP 2011).






19 February 2013 Follow up email to applicant requesting clarification on proposed variation to LEP 2011 as submitted Statement of Environmental Effects and proposed plan of subdivision contained inconsistencies.

13 March 2013 Additional information received by Council. 25 March 2013 Engineering referral completed. 26 March 2013 Planning assessment finalised.

Further to the above, a review of the history of the site and development applications issued by Council revealed: DA 8/2005/792/1 Dual occupancy with a relocatable dwelling to the rear of the lot,

approved 18 November, 2005 DA 8/2005/792/2 S.96 Application to dual occupancy approval relating to driveway and

parking, approved 29 January, 2008 DA 8/2006/386/1 Two (2) lot subdivision, approved 25 July, 2006 The approval issued for the two (2) lot subdivision of the land in 2006 also included a variation to the minimum lot size under the former Cessnock Local Environmental Plan, 1989. The approval was issued and included a deferred commencement condition which required a final Occupation Certificate to be issued for DA 8/2005/792/1 (dual occupancy) within 12 months of determination, prior to the development consent for subdivision becoming operative. No final Occupation Certificate has been issued for the dual occupancy development and therefore, the approval for the subdivision has subsequently lapsed. DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Development Application No 8/2013/37/1 seeks approval for the subdivision of the site from one (1) lot into two (2) lots via a torrens title subdivision, thereby subdividing the existing dual occupancy located on the site into two (2) separate lots. The proposed plan of subdivision is included within the enclosures of this report. Specifically, the subdivision proposes to create: • Lot 111 (battleaxe lot) having an area of 450.5m², excluding the access handle (of

127.5m²); and • Lot 112 having an area of 433.5m². The access handle proposed by Lot 111 is 25.89m long and 4.5m wide. Lot 111 intends to retain the existing, relocated hardi-plank dwelling approved by Council under DA 8/2005/792/1. Proposed Lot 112 intends to retain the existing weatherboard dwelling and access crossing, maintaining a frontage to Vernon Street of 15.6m.






Subsequently, the proposed subdivision will result in variations to the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 and the Cessnock Development Control Plan 2010 as follows: • Variation of 25% to proposed Lot 111 (minimum lot size for battle-axe being 600sqm

excluding the handle); • Variation of 3.6% to proposed Lot 112 (minimum lot size of 450sqm); and • Variation of 13.3% to the building line (minimum width at the building line of 18m).

ASSESSMENT

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 – Se ction 79(C)(1) In determining a Development Application, the consent authority is to take into consideration the following matters as are of relevance in the assessment of the Development Application on the subject property: (a)(i) The Provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument The Environmental Planning Instruments that relate to the proposed development are:

1. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land 2. Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011

An assessment of the proposed development under the Environmental Planning Instruments is provided below: 1. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Rem ediation of Land Clause 7(1) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, is relevant to the assessment of this Development Application. Clause 7(1) requires that consent not be granted until Council has considered whether the land is contaminated. If the land is contaminated, the Council needs to be satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out. In this instance, the land is currently occupied by residential development and there is no known history of land uses which may have led to contamination of the site. The land is also situated within an established residential area. On this basis, the land is considered suitable for the proposed development. 2. Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 Permissibility The subject site is zoned R3 - Medium Density Residential under the provisions of the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011.






Clause 2.6 of LEP 2011 states as follows:

‘(1) Land to which this Plan applies may be subdivided, but only with consent’. Under Section 4B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, subdivision is defined as:

‘The division of land into two (2) or more parts that, after the division, would be obviously adapted for separate occupation, use or disposition’

The proposed development meets the above definition and is a permissible form of development in the R3 zone. Objectives The objectives of the R3 – Medium Density Residential zone are as follows:

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.

• To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

Comment: Each of the proposed lots will result in the creation of additional dwelling entitlements, as a dual occupancy is a permitted form of development on each of the proposed lots. However, the proposed configuration and lot sizes represent variations (one being a significant variation at 25%) to the minimum lot size standard and these variations will inhibit the ability to satisfactorily house a 3 + bedroom home or dual occupancy on each new lot with provision for private open space, car parking and manoeuvrability. Proposed Lot 112 also seeks to vary Council’s Building Line Policy by 13.3% which may impact upon future development of housing permitted in the medium density zone. Whilst the objectives of the medium density residential zone seek to encourage a variety of housing types, the subdivision of land into two (2) undersized allotments will result in adverse amenity impacts and also sets a precedent which will undermine the objectives of the zone and Council’s current planning controls. The proposed torrens title subdivision is undesirable and does not provide for a positive planning outcome for the site. Relevant Clauses The Development Application was assessed against the following relevant clauses of LEP 2011: � Clause 2.6 – Subdivision – consent requirements Pursuant to Clause 2.6 of LEP 2011, all land which is not considered a ‘deferred matter’ may be subdivided only with development consent.






In granting consent, Council must also be satisfied that subdivision would not result in an existing principal and secondary dwelling (as defined under LEP 2011) being situated on separate lots unless the size of resulting lots satisfies relevant development standards. The proposed development is not within land identified as ‘deferred matter’ nor is the existing development onsite a secondary dwelling, defined under LEP 2011. The subdivision of land is therefore deemed permissible with consent in the identified residential zone. � Clause 4.1 – Minimum subdivision lot size In accordance with Clause 4.1 (3), the size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land is not to be less than the minimum lot size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land. Clause 4.1 (4A)(a) provides that land identified as T1 on the Lot Size Map not result in the creation of a battle-axe allotment which is less than 600sqm. Additionally, Clause 4.1 (4B) provides the calculation requirement for battle-axe allotments whereby the lot size is to be calculated by excluding the area of the access handle. Both allotments proposed by the development do not comply with Clause 4.1 as both allotments are less than the minimum lot size required for the zone (450sqm for proposed Lot 111 and 600sqm for proposed Lot 112). Additionally, the subdivision plan has been prepared notating that the total area includes the access handle. Subsequently, the proposed battle-axe allotment is significantly less than the minimum lot size requirements by 149.5sqm or 25%. � Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to development standards The proposed development has been supported by an objection to the development standard for subdivision pursuant to Clause 4.6, with the applicant’s justification for the variation being:

• the subdivision has been designed to conform with the dual occupancy consent DA 8/2005/792/1;

• the Hunter Water sewer main has been extended to provide for a torrens title subdivision as opposed to a common junction point for a strata subdivision; and

• under the provisions of the LEP the subdivision could be approved as a strata subdivision however in this circumstance where the dwellings are free standing with no common property, a torrens title subdivision is a far better outcome with this being a major flaw in the LEP in that an approved dual occupancy development can be strata subdivided without the need to satisfy the subject development standards but the more desirable outcome from a planning perspective being a torrens subdivision is not.

Additional justification made by the applicant includes that both lots have sufficient usable open space, car parking, meets the performance criteria of the DCP for lot size and shape, has minimal environmental impact, and the land is being subdivided by virtue of the dual occupancy consent. Pursuant to the provisions of Clause 4.6(4)(a), development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:






(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

(i) the applicant’s written request has adequately demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard;

Comment: The applicant has failed to provide sufficient reason for the significant variation to Cessnock LEP 2011. This is justified by the following: 1. The dual occupancy was approved under a former environmental planning instrument

and whilst dual occupancies were permitted, should an application be made for a dual occupancy under the current LEP, the requirements for private open space and setbacks (including the building line setback) would not comply based on the current onsite arrangements;

2. Given the land is zoned medium density, the proposed subdivision will limit future development on the land by the torrens title subdivision proceeding as the battle-axe allotment significantly varies the minimum lot size requirement of LEP 2011 by 25%;

3. An improved planning outcome for this particular development is not considered to be a torrens title subdivision as it results in a significant variation to LEP 2011, setting an undesirable precedent for the area. Strata subdivision, however, is deemed more appropriate in this circumstance where private and common areas can made available for each residence;

4. There are insufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard in this instance whereby the zone would provide for multiple dwellings rather than restricting future development due to the size and configuration of the proposed allotments;

5. There are no sufficient planning grounds to warrant contravention of Council’s development standards as refusal of the application would not prevent the land, or the existing development onsite, from being used for its intended purpose; and

6. In the immediate vicinity of the site, no approvals have been granted for undersized battle-axe allotments. It should be noted, however, that two (2) refusals have been issued for two (2) lot subdivisions within Aberdare Road to the north of the subject site whereby the applications proposed significant variations to Council’s LEP and DCP in force at the time.

(ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is

consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out

Comment: An assessment of the proposal against Clause 4.6 (4)(a)(ii) as stated above has concluded that the proposal is contrary to the public interest as the proposed development is inconsistent within the subdivision pattern of the immediate locality whereby the proposed allotments are significantly smaller than the average lot size of surrounding properties.






(b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained. Comment: A Planning Circular (PS 08-003) issued in 2008 and a guide to ‘Varying Development Standards’ published by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in 2011 advised Councils that the Director-General’s concurrence can be assumed in respect of clause 4.6 of the Standard Instrument except where development contravenes the following:

(2) Council may assume the Director- General’s concurrence in respect of an application to vary a development standard relating to the minimum lot size for the erection of a dwelling on land zoned RU1, RU2, RU3, RU4, RU6, R5, E2, E3 or E4 (or equivalent zone) only if:

(a) only one allotment does not comply with the minimum area, and (b) that allotment has an area equal to or greater than 90% of the

minimum area specified in the development standard. The development is not proposed within a rural or environmental zone and therefore, Council does not require concurrence from the Director-General in this instance. The guide published by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in 2011 provides additional matters which Councils should be aware of when assessing and determining variations to development standards. This includes consideration to the cumulative effects of varying development standards and whether similar approvals will undermine the objectives of the standard or the planning objectives of the zone. The guide also states that, if the proposed variation to the development standard is supported, the consent authority should give regard to cumulative effects which may occur by establishing precedence particularly with regard, in this circumstance, to subdivision applications in the immediate area which have not been supported due to the significant variations to the minimum lot size. (a)(ii) The Provisions of any Draft Environmental P lanning Instrument (that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Director-General has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been defe rred indefinitely or has not been approved)). No draft Environmental Planning Instruments are relevant to the application. (a)(iii) The Provisions of any Development Control Plan Cessnock Development Control Plan 2010 The following is an assessment of the proposal’s compliance with the numerical standards in Cessnock Development Control Plan 2010. Discussion of any variations of the standards is provided after the compliance table.






D.1 Subdivision Guidelines Complies Comments 1.3 General Requirements for Subdivision

Y N N/A The proposed subdivision generally complies with section 1.3.1 of the DCP 2010 with respect to the development principals of the LEP 2011 however the objection to the development standards for subdivision (Clause 4.6) is not supported as outlined above.

1.7.1 Lot Size Minimum width = 18m at building line Minimum depth = 20m Access handle maximum length = 60m Access handle minimum width = 3.5m No more than 5 lots share access way No more than 1m cut or fill

Y N N/A Proposed lot 112 varies the minimum width at the building line by 13.3% (provision of 15.6m) and therefore the configuration of the proposed allotment does not comply with the requirements of Cessnock DCP 2010.

1.7.2 Access way Minimum sealed width = 3m Maximum grade of 25%

Y N N/A The access way is proposed to be 4.5m wide and complies with section 1.7.2 of Cessnock DCP 2010.

1.7.3 Heritage Refer to Chapter Heritage

Y N N/A The subject site does not contain a heritage item nor is the site located within a heritage conservation area.

1.7.4 Local Street Design

Y N N/A The subdivision is proposed within an established residential area with road networks and street design assessed during the subdivision of the parent allotment.

1.7.5 Pedestrians and Cyclists Footpath required

Y N N/A No footpaths are located within the established residential area.

1.7.6 Solar Access

Y N N/A The subject site contains a northerly aspect and the subdivision is capable of complying with the provisions of Cessnock DCP 2010.






1.7.7 Stormwater and Drainage

Y N N/A No kerb and gutter exists to the frontage of the site, however kerb and gutter is found within Vernon Street. Council’s Development Engineer has advised that an upgrade would be required in the event development consent was granted to the proposed subdivision, The site slopes towards Vernon Street and the existing stormwater and drainage design is generally consistent with Council’s Engineering Requirements for Development Guidelines.

1.7.8 Utility Services

Y N N/A Existing services are available to the subject land.

Variations to Cessnock Development Control Plan 201 0: General Requirements for Subdivision The configuration of the proposed allotments does not allow for the appropriate siting of future development or covered parking structures located behind the building line. Additionally, the proposed development will limit the provision of private open space, landscaping treatment, uninterrupted solar access and opportunity for future recreational use as previously elaborated. Lot size and shape The proposed subdivision varies the minimum width at the building line by 13.3% (provision of 15.6m for proposed Lot 112) and therefore the configuration of the proposed allotment does not comply with the requirements of Cessnock DCP 2010. Additionally, the proposed lot sizes vary Council’s development standard as follows:

• Proposed Lot 111 varies the standard by 25% • Proposed Lot 112 varies the standard by 3.6%

Despite approval of the torrens title subdivision of the subject land by Council under the former Cessnock LEP 1989, also with a significant variation, the consent was issued with a deferred commencement condition that a final occupation certificate must be issued for the dual occupancy development. No final occupation certificate has been issued.






Performance Criteria for DCP Part D.1: Subdivision Guidelines � The area and dimensions of resulting lots will limit opportunity for the construction of

ancillary outbuildings, provision of private outdoor space and convenient vehicle access and parking; and

� Proposed lot sizes do not meet the projected requirements of people with different

housing needs as each of the proposed allotments would not be able to reasonably accommodate another form of permissible housing, such as multiple dwellings, as the land is considerably undersized.

Performance Criteria for DCP Part D.2: Urban Housing

� The undersized allotment fronting the street is likely to compromise high quality urban design opportunities for any future redevelopment;

� Future parking structures required by Council’s Development Control Plan are likely to dominate the frontage of proposed lot 112 given vehicle access is provided directly from Vernon Street and the width of the property is less than the required 18m minimum standards; and

� The subdivision proposal in conjunction with the existing dual occupancy has been assessed on its own merits and does not achieve compliance with the Urban Housing Guidelines with respect to setback requirements, acoustic and visual privacy buffers, along with adequate provision of private open space accessed directly from living areas of each dwelling.

(a)(iiia) The Provision of any Planning Agreement t hat has been entered into under Section 94F, or any draft Planning Agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under Section 93F No such agreement has been proposed as part of this application. (a)(iv) The Regulations There are no matters prescribed by the Regulations that apply to this development. (b) The likely impacts of the development, includin g environmental impacts on

both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts on the locality

As demonstrated by the above assessment, the proposed development is likely to have a significant impact on both the natural and built environments, and the social and economic conditions of the locality. In particular, the cumulative impact of permitting significantly undersized allotments in a battle-axe arrangement would undermine the fundamental intent of the medium density residential zone and would not provide a positive planning outcome for the locality.






(c) The suitability of the site As demonstrated by the above assessment, the site is considered to be unsuitable for the development for the following reasons: • The subject site, being 1,011.5m² in total area, is unable to accommodate a two (2)

lot torrens title subdivision under Council’s development standards regardless of how each allotment is configured as an area of at least 1,050m² is required (excluding the area which would be required for the access handle);

• The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density and the proposed torrens title subdivision will create additional dwelling entitlements on two (2) undersized allotments and is contrary to the strategic direction of the City Wide Settlement Strategy 2010;

• Whilst it is acknowledged that Clause 4.6 of Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 was established to provide flexibility in the application of numerical standards, the accumulation of non-compliances with both allotments being undersized and the width of the front allotment being less than required under Council’s Development Control Plan, indicates that the subject site could not reasonably accommodate future medium density residential development and therefore the proposal will prejudice appropriate future use of the site; and

• The proposed development is inconsistent with the settlement pattern of surrounding properties which has been acknowledged by refusals of similar applications by Council.

(d) Any submissions made in accordance with this Ac t or the Regulations The Development Application was publicly exhibited for a period of 15 days between 13 February and 27 February 2013. No submissions were received during the exhibition period. (e) The public interest The public interest is served through the detailed assessment of this Development Application under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Environmental Planning Instruments and Council Policies. Based on the above assessment, the proposed development is contrary to the public interest as the proposal does not comply with LEP 2011 and Council’s policies, with a significant variation being sought by the applicant that is inconsistent with the development pattern of the immediate locality. SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS

Section 94 Contributions are payable for the proposal. In the event the application is approved, S.94 Contributions totalling $3,469.00 would be payable, and are calculated as follows:






Calculations District Open Space $1,213.00 District Community Facilities (Halls) $743.00 District Community Facilities (Libraries) $198.00 District Community Facilities (Bushfire) $55.00 District Roads – Urban Areas $925.00 Studies (Plan Preparation) $70.00 Plan Administration $265.00 Total S94 Contribution - Subdivision $3,469.00

INTERNAL REFERRALS

The Development Application was referred to the following Council officers for comment: Consultant Development Engineer No objection raised to the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions of consent in the event the application is approved. EXTERNAL REFERRALS

The Development Application was not required to be referred to any external agencies for comment. CONCLUSION

The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and all relevant instruments and policies. The application seeks signficant varation to Council’s development standards with regard to the minimum allotment size and the width of a proposed lot at the building line. Variation to the specified standards is not supported under Clause 4.6 of the LEP 2011 in this instance for the following reasons:

• The significant nature of the variations;

• The cumulative impacts associated with supporting significant variations under the current environmental planning instrument and relevant development control plan;

• The proposal does not promote or co-ordinate the orderly and economic use of the land; and

• There are no sufficient planning grounds to support the proposal.






Accordingly, Development Application No 8/2013/37/1 is recommended for refusal due to the reasons contained at the end of this report.

ENCLOSURES

1 Proposed Plan of Subdivision 0 Pages






REASONS FOR REFUSAL:

1. The proposal does not comply with the minimum requirements for subdivision

specified by Clause 4.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot Size of the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density

Residential zone as specified under the Land Use Table of the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

3. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Cessnock Development Control Plan

2010 Part D.1: Subdivision Guidelines, Section 1.7.1 ‘Specific Requirements for R2 & R3 Residential Subdivision’ resulting in the creation of two (2) undersized lots which are inappropriate in terms of their size and dimensions (Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

4. The proposed development is considered to have unacceptable cumulative impacts

on the locality as the proposal does not promote or co-ordinate the orderly and economic use of the land (Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

5. The subject site is not considered suitable for the proposed subdivision as the

accumulation of identified non-compliances indicates that the parcel of land cannot reasonably accommodate associated residential development and therefore the proposal will prejudice appropriate future, subsequent use of the site (Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

6. The proposal is not considered to be in the public interest as it will set an undesirable

precedent and undermine the planning objectives of the immediate locality (Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).






SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 8/2012/267/1 PROPOSING THE SUBDIVISION OF ONE (1) LOT INTO THREE (3) LOTS AT 15 O'CONNORS ROAD, NULKABA

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Development Services Manager - Janine McCarthy

APPLICATION NUMBER:

8/2012/267/1

PROPOSAL: Subdivision of one (1) lot into three (3) lots

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:

Lot 1951, DP 1046778

PROPERTY ADDRESS:

15 O’Connors Road, Nulkaba

ZONE: RU5 - Village

OWNER: Mrs J Murray

APPLICANT: Mrs J Murray

RECOMMENDATION That: 1. Council determine Development Application No. 8/ 2012/267/1 proposing the

subdivision of one (1) lot into three (3) lots at L ot 1951, DP1046778, 15 O'Connors Road, Nulkaba, by refusing to grant conse nt pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 19 79 for the reasons detailed in this report. Specifically, Council has no power to grant consent to Development Application No. 8/2012/267/1, as the Di rector-General has not provided certification to Council that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the provision of designated state public i nfrastructure, and no Development Control Plan is in force for the land t he subject of the application.

2. Council notify in writing the persons who made a submission with regard to the

proposed development, of Council’s decision.

REASON FOR REFERRAL Development Application No. 8/2012/267/1 is being r eferred to Council for determination as the application has been called-up to a Council meeting following the issuing of a notice of intention to r efuse by the Development Services Manager.






PROGRESS SINCE COUNCIL’S MEETING OF 6 FEBRUARY 2013

At its meeting of 6 February 2013, Council considered Development Application 8/2012/267/1 proposing the subdivision of one (1) lot into three (3) lots at 15 O’Connors Road, Nulkaba. The application was recommended for refusal because the Director-General had not provided certification to Council that satisfactory arrangements had been made for the provision of designated State Public Infrastructure, and no Development Control Plan was in force for the land the subject of the application in accordance with Clauses 6.1 and 6.3 of Cessnock Local Environmental Plan (CLEP) 2011. Without compliance with these clauses of CLEP 2011, Council has no power to issue development consent. At its meeting of 6 February 2013, Council resolved as follows: ‘That the Report be DEFERRED for a period of three (3) months so that meaningful discussion can take place between the proponent, Mr Gary Warnes and Council Officers’. Following Council’s meeting of 6 February 2013, the applicant’s representative advised Council officers that he intended to progress the application by preparing a Development Control Plan covering the site, as well as satisfying the Director General in respect to the provision of designated State Public Infrastructure by entering into a Voluntary Planning Agreement with the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure, and amending the application to a staged development application. The proponent has indicated that a draft Development Control Plan will be provided to Council, but at the time of writing this report, a copy had not been received. It should also be noted that Council staff have repeatedly offered to meet with the proponent and their representatives to discuss the application in accordance with Council’s resolution, but to date, the offer has been declined. Whilst there have been statements from the proponent with regard to staging the application and preparing a Development Control Plan, at this time Council does not have any firm details of how the proponent intends to progress the application. For the application to be progressed in a favourable manner, Council will need to adopt a Development Control Plan. This will lead to delays in relation to the determination of the application as it will add considerable time, i.e., months, to the processing time of the application due to the requirement for any DCP to be placed on public exhibition and referred to Council on a number of occasions for consideration and adoption. It is noted that the application has been with Council for 12 months and the information sought by Council was originally requested 7 months ago. There has been no timely resolution to the outstanding issues. In this regard, it is considered appropriate to determine the current development application, and once the applicant has addressed Clauses 6.1 and 6.3 of CLEP 2011, they can opt to lodge a new development application with Council for determination.






EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council is in receipt of Development Application No. 8/2012/267/1 proposing the subdivision of one (1) lot into three (3) lots at 15 O'Connors Road, Nulkaba. The Development Application has been assessed against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000, relevant Environmental Planning Instruments and Council Policies. The outcome of this assessment is detailed further in this report. The Development Application was publicly exhibited and one (1) submission was received. The issue and concerns raised in the submission are addressed in the following report. Based on the assessement, it is recommended that the Development Application be refused subject to the reasons for refusal detailed in this report. LOCATION MAP






AERIAL







The subject site is commonly known as 15 O'Connors Road, Nulkaba, and is legally described as Lot 1951, Deposited Plan 1046778. The subject site is located on the south-western corner of O’Connors Road and Pinchen Street, Nulkaba. The site has a frontage of 64.81m to O’Connors Road, a 38.2m frontage to Pinchen Street, and an overall site area of 3106m2. The subject site is currently vacant and sparsely vegetated with trees mainly adjacent to the street frontages, with the deeper areas of the site clear of vegetation. The surrounding properties are characterised by low density residential development. HISTORY

The history of the subject Development Application is summarised in the following table: Date Action 15 May 2012 The application was submitted. 31 May 2012 to 15 June 2012

The application was notified. The application was also referred to the RFS and internally within Council at the time that the notification letters were sent.

15 June 2012 A submission was received from an adjoining owner. 13 July 2012 Council’s Development Engineer finalised referral comments. 17 August 2012 The Rural Fire Service provided General Terms of Approval. 28 September 2012 The application was reassigned to a different case officer. 9 October 2012 A letter was sent to the applicant advising that Council cannot approve

the application due to prohibitions contained under sections 6.1 and 6.3 of the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011.

20 December 2012 Memo sent to Councillors in respect to progress of application. 21 November 2012 The application was reassigned to a different case officer. An email was

sent to the applicant advising that the application was reassigned and requesting confirmation of the applicant’s intentions in respect to the application.

26 November 2012 A further email was sent to the applicant requesting that the intentions of the applicant be provided in respect to the application.

26 November 2012 Applicant advised that the owner is seeking legal advice. 7 December 2012 An email was sent to the applicant reiterating that Council is not in a

position to approve the application due to prohibitions in the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011. The email also stated that the case officer was willing to meet the applicant, owner and a newly appointed Planning Consultant acting on behalf of the owner, to discuss the issues. The email requested a response by 7 January 2013.






11 January 2013 In response to a progress request made by a Planning Consultant acting on behalf of the owner, the case officer advised that the application will be determined on the basis of information submitted to date, unless withdrawn.

15 January 2013 Assessment of the application completed. 23 January 2013 ‘Notice of Intent to Refuse’ memo issued to Councillors. 25 January 2013 Application called-up to a Council meeting by 3 Councillors. 6 February 2013 Application considered by Council at its meeting, whereby it was resolved

as follows: ‘That the Report be DEFERRED for a period of three (3) months so that meaningful discussion can take place between the proponent, Mr Gary Warnes and Council Officers’.

19 February 2013 Letter sent to applicant, owner and proponent advising of Council resolution with offer to meet with proponent to discuss application.

28 February 2013 Proponent requested to provide an agenda for meeting with Council staff. Proponent responds by email declining to meet with staff stating that at this time, a meeting is not required and stating that owner is in the process of preparing a Voluntary Planning Agreement. Proponent also states that he is preparing a draft Development Control Plan (DCP) and that it is intended to amend the application to make it a staged application under Section 83C of the Act.

4 March 2013 Council staff advise that there may be scope to deal with the application as a staged development, with Stage 1 being a 'concept' and Stage 2 being the 3 lots subdivision (subject to a separate consent). Stage 2 in this case would only proceed after the DCP has been adopted and State Infrastructure Arrangements have been made.

6 March 2013 Proponent responds stating that he hopes that Stage 2 in this case would be approved simultaneously with the proposed DCP being adopted.

5 April 2013 Email sent to proponent advising it is 2 months since Council’s resolution and that Council does not have details of the manner in which it is intended to address Clauses 6.1(2) and 6.3(2) of CLEP 2011 and that time to act on this matter is limited in accordance with Council’s resolution. Proponent responds stating that the owner is obtaining legal advice in respect to the preparation of a Voluntary Planning Agreement, a Development Control Plan is being prepared and that the applicant requests an extension to the period of time for the application to be determined.

10 April 2013 Applicant advised that the application is expected to be presented to Council for determination on 15 May 2013 in accordance with the Council resolution which specifies a period of three (3) months.






19 April 2013 Council received an email from a solicitor acting for the owner, stating that he made application on behalf of the applicant to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (Newcastle), on 15 March 2013, by way of a letter of offer to begin the formulation of a Voluntary Planning Agreement, and that it is expected that a draft Development Control Plan will be submitted to Council on 26 April 2013. The solicitor also requests that in the event that the information has not been submitted, that Council further defer the final consideration of the development application.

1 May 2013 Proponent advised assessment officer that a draft DCP has been prepared and is currently being reviewed by their solicitor. No copy of the draft DCP has been lodged with Council at this stage.

DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Development Application No. 8/2012/267/1 seeks approval for subdivision of one (1) lot into three (3) lots. Specifically the proposed development involves: • The creation of a corner Lot 1 with a frontage of 27.35m to O’Connors Road and

38.2m to Pinchen Street. The overall sitearea of Lot 1 is to be 1,264m2. • Lot 2 is to have an 18.77m frontage to O’Connors Road, a depth of 51.77m2, a width

of 18.66m and an area of 888 m2. • Lot 3 is to have an 18.m frontage to O’Connors Road, a depth of 54.45m2, a width of

18.0m and an area of 955m2. There is a1.5m wide easement along and within the eastern boundary of Lot 3 for the purpose of stormwater drainage.

ASSESSMENT

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 – Se ction 79(C)(1) In determining a Development Application, the consent authority is to take into consideration the following matters as are of relevance in the assessment of the Development Application on the subject property: (a)(i) The Provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument The Environmental Planning Instruments that relate to the proposed development are:

1. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land 2. Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011






An assessment of the proposed development under the Environmental Planning Instruments is provided below: 1. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Rem ediation of Land Clause 7(1) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land is relevant to the assessment of this Development Application. Clause 7(1) requires that consent not be granted until Council has considered whether the land is contaminated. If the land is contaminated, the Council needs to be satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purposes for which the development is proposed to be carried out. The site is vacant and was created by a previous subdivision approval, for the purpose of being developed for housing. Matters of the site suitability for residential occupation have been previously considered. During inspection of the premises there was no observation of evidence of contamination. On this basis, it is considered that the site is suitable for further residential intensification and subsequent occupation. 2. Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 Permissibility The subject site is zoned RU5 - Village under the provisions of the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011. Clause 2.6 of LEP 2011 states as follows:

‘(1) Land to which this Plan applies may be subdivided, but only with consent’. Under Section 4B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, subdivision is defined as:

The division of land into two (2) or more parts that, after the division, would be obviously adapted for separate occupation, use or disposition.

The proposed development is consistent with the above definition. Subdivision is a permissible form of development on the subject site, with consent. Objectives The objectives of the RU5 - Village are as follows:

• To provide for a range of land uses, services and facilities that are associated with a rural village.

• To ensure that development is compatible with the amenity, functioning and scale of a rural village.

There is no dedicated land use associated with the development, however the proposed subdivision creates opportunities for three separate dwellings to ultimately be constructed on the subject site. The scale of the development (size of proposed lots) is in accordance with






the minimum lot size, and the development is therefore considered compatible with the amenity, functioning and scale of the Nulkaba Village. Relevant Clauses The Development Application was assessed against the following relevant clauses of Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011: • Clause 2.6 – Subdivision—consent requirements Pursuant to Clause 2.6 of Cessnock LEP 2011, all land which is not considered ‘deferred matter’ may be subdivided only with development consent. In granting consent, Council must also be satisfied that subdivision would not result in an existing principal and secondary dwelling being situated on separate lots unless the size of resulting lots satisfies relevant development standard. As the site is vacant, the subdivision is consistent with this clause. • Clause 4.1 – Minimum subdivision lot size The relevant minimum lot size for the site, as prescribed by Cessnock LEP 2011, is 750m². The 750m² minimum lot size may only be achieved if the site is serviced by reticulated water and sewerage. The proposed allotments exceed 880m² and the applicant proposes to connect to sewer and water, therefore all proposed lots comply with this minimum area requirement. • Clause 6.1 – Arrangements for designated State public infrastructure Part 6 – Urban Release Areas, applies to this application. Of relevance is Clause 6.1 (2) which prevents Council from issuing consent unless arrangements are in place for State public infrastructure contributions. The provision states:

“Despite all other provisions, development consent must not be granted for the subdivision of land in an urban release area if the subdivision would create a lot smaller than the minimum lot size permitted on the land immediately before the relevant date, unless the Director-General has certified in writing to the consent authority that satisfactory arrangements have been made to contribute to the provision of designated State public infrastructure in relation to that lot.”

Under Council's previous Local Environmental Plan the subject site was zoned 1(c) and was restricted, ‘in the case of an allotment to be connected to a reticulated water supply - 4,000 square metres’. Given that the site is presently 3106m2 (i.e., below the previous minimum lot size specified under Cessnock LEP 1989), and that the application proposes to further subdivide the lot into three (3) smaller lots, the Director-General’s certification is needed. Council has requested the applicant to provide evidence of the Director-Generals certification but to date no response has been received on this matter. For this reason, Council has no authority to issue development consent to the proposal.






• Clause 6.3 – Development control plan In accordance with Clause 6.3(2) of the Local Environmental Plan 2011, consent must not be granted on land in an urban release area unless a development control plan that includes matter such as staging, transport movement hierarchy and landscaping strategy.

“6.3 Development control plan (2) Development consent must not be granted for development on land in an urban release area unless a development control plan that provides for the matters specified in subclause (3) has been prepared for the land. (3) The development control plan must provide for all of the following:

(a) a staging plan for the timely and efficient release of urban land making provision for necessary infrastructure and sequencing, (b) an overall transport movement hierarchy showing the major circulation routes and connections to achieve a simple and safe movement system for private vehicles, public transport, pedestrians and cyclists, (c) an overall landscaping strategy for the protection and enhancement of riparian areas and remnant vegetation, including visually prominent locations, and detailed landscaping requirements for both the public and private domain, (d) a network of passive and active recreational areas, (e) stormwater and water quality management controls, (f) amelioration of natural and environmental hazards, including bush fire, flooding and site contamination and, in relation to natural hazards, the safe occupation of, and the evacuation from, any land so affected, (g) detailed urban design controls for significant development sites, (h) measures to encourage higher density living around transport, open space and service nodes, (i) measures to accommodate and control appropriate neighbourhood commercial and retail uses, (j) suitably located public facilities and services, including provision for appropriate traffic management facilities and parking.”

Council has asked the applicant to respond to this matter but to date, no response has been received. It is important that a development application does not pre-empt the finalisation of a development control plan, or indeed any policy, because it is important that the design follows or responds to the development control plan. It is noted that, at their meeting of 12 December 2012, Council resolved to place Draft Development Control Plan Chapter 1x: Valley View Urban Release Area on public exhibition between 9 January and 26 March 2013. The intent of the Draft Development Control Plan is to address the provisions contained within Clause 6.3 of Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 by providing guidelines for the development of land at the Valley View Urban Release Area in the suburb of Nulkaba. It is confirmed that the development site is not contained within the boundary of the area the subject of the Development Control Plan. Therefore, no Development Control Plan exists that satisfactorily addresses the requirements of Clause 6.3(2).






(a)(ii) The Provisions of any Development Control P lan Cessnock Development Control Plan 2010 The following is an assessment of the proposal’s compliance with the numerical standards in the relevant section of Cessnock Development Control Plan 2010. Discussion of any variations of the standards is provided after the compliance table. 1.5 RU5 Village Subdivision + Check Schedules 3, 4 and 5

Compliance Comments

1.5.1 Lot Size Minimum width = 18m at building line Minimum depth = 20m Access handle maximum length = 60m Access handle minimum width = 3.5m Access handle min width = 5m (shared) No more than 5 lots share access way No more than 1m cut or fill

Yes All proposed lots exceed minimum width and depth. There is no access handle proposed or required for this subdivision to proceed. There is no cut or fill associated with this development.

1.5.2 Access way Minimum sealed width = 3m No more than 5 lots serviced Maximum grade of 25% Minimum width for 2 lots = 5m Minimum width for 3-5 lots = 2m per lot Located on south side If busy road cars to enter/leave forwards Reversing more 50m then turning bay

Not applicable The development does not propose or require a new accessway.

1.5.3 Effluent Disposal Report Required? Reticulated Sewerage Treatment System

Not applicable The proposed lots are to be serviced by Hunter Water Sewer, on-site effluent disposal is not required.

1.5.4 Heritage Refer to Chapter Heritage

Not applicable The site does not contain any heritage items and does not adjoin a heritage site.

1.5.5 Local Street Design Less than 10 lots = 13m road width 10-200 lots = 18m road width 200-400+ lots = 20m road width

Not applicable The development does not propose or require a new street.

1.5.6 Pedestrians and Cyclists Footpath required

Not applicable Proposed subdivision does not create new roads.

1.5.7 Solar Access 80% of lots to have 5 star solar access

Not applicable Solar access requirements do not apply to subdivisions

1.5.8 Stormwater and Drainage Inter allotment Drainage Easement required Soil and Water Management Plan

Complies The development does not require any new easements to be created. In this regard, an existing drainage easement that services a property to the south is shown on the plans and will therefore be maintained.






1.5.9 Utility Services Written evidence from service providers Underground power

Complies This matter could be addressed via consent conditions.

The proposal complies with all relevant provisions contained within the current Development Control Plan. (a)(iia) The Provision of any Planning Agreement th at has been entered into under Section 94F, or any draft Planning Agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under Section 93F No such agreement has been proposed as part of this application. (a)(iii) The Regulations There are no matters prescribed by the Regulations that apply to this development. (b) The likely impacts of the development, includin g environmental impacts on

both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts on the locality

As demonstrated by the above assessment, the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant impact on both the natural and built environments, and the social and economic conditions of the locality. (c) The suitability of the site Due to an absence of the required arrangements for state infrastructure contributions and because a suitable development control plan is not in place, the site is considered to be unsuitable for the development. (d) Any submissions made in accordance with this Ac t or the Regulations The Development Application was publicly exhibited for a period of 16 days. The exhibition period was from the 31 May 2012 to 15 June 2012. One submission was received during the exhibition period. The submission presents one concern being that the drainage works required under a previous subdivision approval, have not been undertaken and that this results in flooding across the objector’s property that prevents access to his property. Comment: The subject site was created from the subdivision of Lot 195 DP 755252 under Development Application 150/595/21 (5/1995/21/1). The two lot subdivision of Lot 195 was approved by Council, inspected and a subdivision certificate was issued. The case officer has noted that the road construction works observed during a site inspection are generally consistent with the terms of the consent, that is Pinchen Street has gravel construction, O’Connors Road is bitumen sealed, with kerb and gutter. It is evident that the required drainage works have been undertaken and for this reason the ground of the objection is not supported.






(e) The public interest The public interest is served through the detailed assessment of this Development Application under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Environmental Planning Instruments and Council Policies. Based on the above assessment, the proposed development is contrary to the public interest. SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS

Section 94 Contributions are payable for the proposal. In the event the application is approved, a Section 94 contributions totalling $6,938.00 would be payable, calculated as follows:

CONTRIBUTION TYPE $ District Open Space 2,426.00 District Community Facilities (Halls) 1,486.00 District Community Facilities (Libraries) 396.00 District Community Facilities (Bushfire) 110.00 District Roads – Urban Areas 1,850.00 Studies (Plan Preparation) 140.00 Plan Administration 530.00

INTERNAL REFERRALS

The Development Application was referred to the following Council officers for comment: Officer Comment Development Engineer

The Development Application was assessed and is considered satisfactory subject to the Council’s standard conditions being imposed on the notice of determination.

Ecologist Development Assessment

The Development Application was assessed and is considered satisfactory on the basis that no vegetation is to be cleared.

EXTERNAL REFERRALS

The Development Application was referred to the following external agencies for comment: Agency Comment Rural Fire Service

The Development Application was referred to the Rural Fire Service (RFS). The RFS have responded stating that the application is acceptable and providing General Terms of Approval.






CONCLUSION

The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and all relevant instruments and polices. Accordingly, Development Application No 8/2012/267/1 is recommended for refusal as Council has no power to issue development consent as the Director-General has not provided certification to Council that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the provision of designated state public infrastructure, and no Development Control Plan is in force for the land the subject of the application.

ENCLOSURES

1 Subdivision Plan 0

Pages 2 Submission 0

Pages 3 Submission - This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2)

(j) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with Council Policy. 0 Pages






REASONS FOR REFUSAL: 1. The applicant has not provided sufficient information for Council to determine the

development. Specifically, the following information remains outstanding:

1.1 Details of arrangements regarding the provision of State public infrastructure contributions in accordance with Clause 6.1 (2) of the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011, and

1.2 Details of the manner in which the application may be approved having regard to the absence of a development control plan, as required in accordance with Clause 6.3(2) of the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011.

[Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979]

2. Council has no authority to issue development consent, as this would be contrary to

Clauses 6.1(2) and 6.3(2) of the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011

[Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979].






SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 8/2011/317/1 - TEN (10) RESIDENTIAL UNITS


APPLICATION NUMBER:

8/2011/317/1

PROPOSAL: Multiple Dwelling Housing Comprising Ten (10) Residential Units


Lot A, DP 932669, Part Lot 1, DP 115115, Part Lot 2, DP 115115

PROPERTY ADDRESS:

14 Gillies Street, Kurri Kurri, Part of 12 Gillies Street, Kurri Kurri & Part of 10 Gillies Street, Kurri Kurri

ZONE: R2 – Low Density Residential

OWNER: Mr N Robinson, Mrs KL Schofield and Ms Y Strods

APPLICANT: Mr AJ Murphy

RECOMMENDATION That: 1. Council determine Development Application No. 8/ 2011/317/1 for multiple

dwelling housing development comprising ten (10) re sidential units on Lot A, DP 932669, Part Lot 1, DP 115115, Part Lot 2, DP 11 5115, 14 Gillies Street, Kurri Kurri, Part of 12 Gillies Street, Kurri Kurri and P art of 10 Gillies Street, Kurri Kurri, pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, by the granting of consent subject to the conditions contained in this report.



REASON FOR REFERRAL Council previously considered a report on this appl ication at its meeting held on 12 December 2012. The report recommended refusal of t he application on merit grounds. Council resolved to defer the matter to a llow the applicant and Council staff to further consult having regard to outstanding mat ters, and to re-exhibit the proposal.






Amended plans and details were lodged by the applic ant following Council’s resolution, and the application has been re-exhibit ed. Accordingly, the application is referred to Council for consideration/determination .

PROGRESS SINCE COUNCIL’S MEETING OF 12 DECEMBER 201 2

Development Application 8/2011/317/1 was referred to Council for determination at its meeting held on 12 December 2012, whereby it was resolved as follows: ‘That the report be DEFERRED to allow the applicant and staff to further consult in regard to outstanding matters and also renotify adjoining owners as the plans have now changed’. Following the Council meeting, the applicant lodged amended plans for consideration. Such plans were re-exhibited by Council, and no submissions were received. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council is in receipt of Development Application No 8/2011/317/1 seeking approval for a multiple dwelling housing development comprising ten (10) residential units, on the subject land. The Development Application has been assessed against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000, relevant Environmental Planning Instruments and Council Policies. The outcome of this assessment is detailed further in this report. The Development Application has been publicly exhibited on two (2) occasions. On the first occasion, the application proposed the construction of 12 residential units, and two (2) submissions were received objecting to the proposed development. On the second occasion, an amended application proposing the construction of 10 residential units was exhibited, and no submissions were received. As outlined in this report, the proposal has been reduced from 12 to 10 residential units, and the outstanding issue pertaining to waste collection has been resolved. It is therefore recommended that the Development Application be approved subject to the conditions contained in this report.






LOCATION MAP






AERIAL







The subject site is located on the southern urban fringe of the township of Kurri Kurri,. The land comprises three (3) allotments being 14 Gillies Street and part of 10 – 12 Gillies Street, and is located on the western side of the street. The land has a 20 metre frontage to Gillies Street and widens to 40 metres at the rear. The site has a total area of approximately 2,800 square metres and contains one weatherboard dwelling and a few scattered trees. The majority of the land is essentially vacant. The surrounding residential properties are characterised by older style single dwellings on large allotments of land. HISTORY

The following table provides a detailed history of the processing of the application: Date Action 27 May 2011

Application lodged for multiple dwelling housing comprising twelve (12) residential units.

6 June 2011

Application notified from 6 June to 21 June 2011 – 2 objections received. Application referred to Council’s Engineers, Building Officers and NSW Rural Fire Service for comment.

22 June 2011

Engineering referral received advising inadequate parking provided and further information required on stormwater drainage.

23 June 2011

Applicant requested to lodge amended plans and additional information regarding parking and stormwater drainage.

13 July 2011

NSW Rural Fire Service respond with standard conditions.

19 July 2011

Council’s Building Officer referral received requesting further information relating to compliance with Council’s requirements for access and mobility (adaptable housing for disabled people).

23 August 2011

Planning assessment completed and applicant requested to lodge additional information and amended plans with respect to parking, vehicle manoeuvring, drainage, disabled access, landscaping, garbage collection, solar access, objector issues and streetscape appeal.

17 January 2012

E-mail sent to applicant giving 14 days to lodge the additional information requested five (5) months ago.

14 March 2012

Amended plans lodged (seven (7) months after initial request).






23 April 2012

Applicant advised that following a planning assessment of amended plans, the development still fails to comply with Council’s DCP for Urban Housing for reasons relating to inadequate private open space areas, vehicle manoeuvring, solar access to living areas, garbage collection and external finishes. Additional information is again requested within 21 days otherwise application to be determined by refusal.

19 July 2012

Amended site plan and concept plans lodged three (3) months after request. Development reduced from 12 units to 11 units.

9 August 2012

Applicant advised that the recently lodged amended plans still fail to comply with Council’s requirements for private open space and vehicle manoeuvring. Further, the scale of the plans is inadequate and too conceptual to enable detailed assessment of the visual appearance of the development.

20 August 2012

Applicant lodged amended plans. Development reduced from 11 units to 10 units.

10 September 2012

Applicant advised that the amended plans have been referred to Council’s Development Engineers to ensure vehicle manoeuvring on-site is adequate.

8 October 2012

Final planning assessment undertaken on amended plans and again the applicant is advised that the plans are not satisfactory with regard to the small scale of the plans and lack of detail (including existing and finished ground levels), restricted vehicle manoeuvring, lack of information regarding bin storage and garbage collection, lack of information regarding accessible units, lack of landscaping plans, lack of detail for internal courtyard fencing and no updated Statement of Environmental Effects.

24 October 2012

Amended plans received from applicant to enable preliminary review.

15 November 2012

Applicant again advised that the latest amended plans are still unsatisfactory and given the length of time the application has been before Council, the application is to be determined on the basis of the information submitted.

23 November 2012

DAU report prepared recommending refusal.

27 November 2012 DAU considers the matter and supports recommendation for refusal. Recommendation subsequently supported by the Development Services Manager and a fax is sent to all Councillors advising of this decision and providing three (3) days in which to call the application up to Council for its determination.

30 November 2012 Call-up received from three Councillors requesting that the application be referred to the next available meeting of Council for consideration.






12 December 2012

The application was considered by Council, whereby it was resolved as follows: ‘That the report be DEFERRED to allow the applicant and staff to further consult in regard to outstanding matters and also renotify adjoining owners as the plans have now changed’.

20 February 2013

The applicant lodged amended plans and additional information.

1 March 2013

The amended plans and information were referred to Council’s Consultant Development Engineer and Building Officer for comment.

12 March 2013

The amended plans were re-notified to adjoining owners from 12 March to 26 March 2013. No submissions were received.

29 April 2013

Engineering assessment completed and conditions provided (including a deferred commencement condition for inter-allotment drainage easement).

29 April 2013

Assessment finalised.


The application proposes the construction of multiple dwelling housing on the subject land comprising eight (8) single storey two bedroom dwellings and two (2) double storey three bedroom dwellings, and associated landscaping and parking. The buildings are proposed to be constructed in a painted insulated panelling system with colourbond roofs.

ASSESSMENT

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 – Se ction 79(C)(1) In determining a Development Application, the consent authority is to take into consideration the following matters as are of relevance in the assessment of the Development Application on the subject property:






S.79C(1)(a)(i) The Provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument The Environmental Planning Instruments that relate to the proposed development are:

1. State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 2. State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land 3. Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 1989 4. Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011

An assessment of the proposed development under these Environmental Planning Instruments is provided below: 1. State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Su stainability Index: BASIX)

2004 The Development Application was accompanied with a satisfactory BASIX Certificate in accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy. 2. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Rem ediation of Land Clause 7(1) of SEPP 55 requires that consent not be granted until Council has considered whether the land is contaminated. If the land is contaminated, the Council needs to be satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out. In this instance, the subject site has been used for residential purposes for its extended history and it is unlikely that there are any contaminants present that would require remediation in order to make the site suitable for its proposed use. 3. Cessnock Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1989 Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 1989 was in force at the time of lodgement of the application. Clause 1.8A of Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 is a Savings Provision which prescribes that the application must be determined as if Cessnock LEP 2011 had not commenced. The development application was lodged on 27 May 2011, and therefore the application has been considered under Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 1989, with consideration given to Cessnock LEP 2011 in accordance with the adopted Savings Provision. An assessment of the proposal against the provisions of Cessnock LEP 1989, is provided below: Permissibility The subject site is zoned 2(a) Residential under Cessnock LEP 1989. Multiple dwelling housing is defined as: Three or more dwellings, whether or not attached, on a single lot of land, each with private open space at or near ground level, consisting of development commonly referred to as






medium density residential development such as villas and townhouses, but does not include residential flat buildings. The proposed development is consistent with this definition, and is a permissible form of development in the 2(a) Residential zone, with consent. Objectives The objectives of the 2(a) Residential Zone are as follows:

(a) primarily to provide for low density residential development, (b) to enable residential flat buildings which are compatible with single dwelling

development, (c) to provide for other forms of development which may appropriately be located in a

residential zone, and (d) to ensure non-residential development is of a type, scale and character which will

maintain residential amenity. It is considered that the development satisfies the objectives of the 2(a) zone in that the proposal represents a low to medium density residential development (reflected by a low floor space ratio of only 0.3:1). Further, the majority of the dwellings are single-storey which reflects the nature of the surrounding residential environment. Relevant Clauses

• Clause 32 – Land subject to bushfire This clause requires Council not to grant consent to any development on land affected by bushfire until it has made an assessment of the nature and degree of the hazard relative to the appropriate measures available to reduce the hazard. The land is partly affected by bushfire and accordingly the applicant has lodged a bushfire assessment which was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service for a 79BA assessment. The NSW RFS have issued standard conditions of consent which have been included on the draft determination notice. 4. Cessnock Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011 Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 was made on 23 December 2011 and came into force at that time. Clause 1.8A of Cessnock LEP 2011 states as follows: ‘if a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had not commenced’. In consideration of Clause 1.8A, whilst Cessnock LEP 1989 is the relevant Environmental Planning Instrument in force at the time of determining this application, the effect of the






savings provision (Clause 1.8A), is to treat LEP 2011 as a Draft Environmental Planning Instrument, and give consideration and weighting to it accordingly. In consideration of the above, the following assessment is provided against the provisions of Cessnock LEP 2011: Permissibility and Objectives Land use permissibility The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011. The proposed development is defined as multiple dwelling housing under Cessnock LEP 2011 which provides the following: Three (3) or more dwelling (whether attached or detached) on one (1) lot of land (not being an individual lot in a strata plan or community title scheme) each with access at ground level, bit does not include a residential flat building. Under the R2 Low Density Residential Zone the construction of multiple dwellings is prohibited. The highest density of residential development on a parcel of land within this zone is a dual occupancy (which would equate to a total of six dwellings on the three sites). Permissibility and weighting of Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011: As evidenced in case law: Capuano v Port Macquarie-Hastings Council [2011] NSWLEC 1043, the imminence of the gazettal of a Draft Local Environmental Plan (Draft LEP) is paramount in determining the weighting of the Draft LEP to an application. The case law provides ‘tests’ for which assessors can consider in determining the weight to be provided between a Draft LEP and a development application. The tests to consider include:

1. “Whether the Draft LEP is imminent and certain and if so, what weight should the Draft LEP be given”.

This test is no longer relevant, as at the time of determining the application, Cessnock LEP 2011 has been gazetted. This results in the Plan being duly considered.

2. “How is the proposed development characterised under the Draft LEP and whether

the proposed use is prohibited or permissible” Under the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011, the proposed use is a prohibited land use attributable to the R2 Low Density Residential zoning of this site.

3. “Whether the proposal undermines the expressed future planning objectives for the area in the Draft LEP”

The Objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone are as follows:

• ‘To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment’






It was argued in the previous report to Council that the proposed ten (10) unit multiple dwelling development was not consistent with the “low density” objectives for the site. This argument was established through the close proximity of rural land to the south (and the site’s location on the urban fringe), coupled with the fact that the development was not able to achieve compliance with several of Council’s requirements with regards to garbage collection, vehicle manoeuvring, adaptable housing and streetscape appeal. The most recently lodged amended plans have now demonstrated compliance with Council’s requirements (as addressed further in the report), and whilst the site is located in close proximity to rural land to the south, it is also located only 30 metres away from the R3 medium density zone across the road. In re-consideration of the amended plans and the subsequent compliance with Council’s DCP, the floor space ratio of the development is only 0.3:1 which is not considered an over-development of the site. Further, the site could be subdivided to create four (4) residential allotments with the possibility of a dual occupancy being established on each allotment (each with a permitted floor space ratio of up to 0.5:1). This would result in a total of eight (8) dwellings, with each potentially containing three bedrooms. This could potentially generate more traffic, parking and noise than the current proposal, as the majority of dwellings proposed are only two bedrooms. Having regard for the above, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of a low density residential environment.

• ‘To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents’

The proposed development seeks the continuation of the established residential use and therefore this objective does not apply. S.79C (a)(ii) The Provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument (that is or has been the subject of public consultation u nder this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Direc tor-General has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrumen t has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved)). No draft Environmental Planning Instruments are relevant to the application. S.79C (a)(iii) The Provisions of any Development Control Plan Cessnock Development Control Plan 2010 The following is an assessment of the proposal’s compliance with the relevant standards in the Development Control Plan. Discussion of any variations of the standards is provided after the compliance table.






Chapter C.1 - Parking and Access In accordance with Provision 1.4 of this chapter, “car parks should be designed to meet the requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1 (Off Street Car Parking) for design and layout and Council’s Engineering Requirements for Development”. The development requires the provision of fifteen (15) on-site parking spaces (which includes three (3) visitor parking spaces). All fifteen (15) spaces have been adequately provided on-site and while the swept vehicle paths appear somewhat tight for the B99 percentile, Council has approved of similar developments complying with the B85 percentile and in this instance, the development complies with this standard. Chapter C.5 – Waste Management and Minimisation The applicant has now satisfied the provisions of this chapter of Council’s DCP and in particular, has chosen to utilise the provisions allowing reduced garbage bin numbers for multi-unit development. A total of 10 bins will be provided on site (instead of the standard 20 bins), and will be contained within two (2) separate bin storage areas provided at the front of the site and towards the rear of the site adjacent to Unit 10. This will address the issue of the site’s narrow frontage to Gillies Street to ensure adequate street presentation and minimise impacts on the neighbourhood. A condition of consent has been imposed on the draft determination notice requiring that bins be removed from the street within 24 hours of collection and returned to the enclosure areas on site. Chapter C. 6 - Access and Mobility In accordance with the provisions of this chapter, all multi dwelling housing development is required to construct every fourth unit (or additional fourth unit) to comply with Australian standard 4299 – Adaptable Housing. As ten (10) units are proposed, the applicant is required to design two (2) units to comply with Council’s access and mobility requirements. The applicant has identified unit numbers 8 and 9 as complying with Council’s access and mobility requirements Chapter D.2 - Urban Housing The application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Urban Housing chapter of Council’s DCP 2010. A summary of the key areas of assessment consideration are contained below: Provision Requirement Compliance

� - Streetscape & Front Setbacks

Front Setbacks Front setbacks to be consistent with setbacks in the locality

Complies: A 7m front setback is provided to the first unit. The bin storage and mailbox structure is located within the front setback but is a small scale structure and has been designed and landscaped so as not to dominate the streetscape.






Streetscape Character

New development is to enhance and make a positive contribution to the character of existing streetscapes

Complies. The development presents well to the street with an attractive colour palate and landscaping to further enhance its street appeal.

� - Useable Open Space

Area Minimum area requirement: 2 beds – 50sqm 3 beds – 70sqm

Complies: The private open space of each unit satisfies the minimum requirement: U1 = 75sqm U2 = 52sqm U3 = 52sqm U4 = 52sqm U5 = 72sqm U6 = 80sqm U7 = 95sqm U8 = 85 sqm U9 = 80 sqm U10 = 95 sqm

Dimension A minimum useable area with 4m x 4m dimensions to be provided

Complies: Each private open space has an area of 4m x 4m.

Connection Ground level & directly accessible from living area

Complies: All accessed via dining/living room.

Screening for privacy

1.8 metre screening Complies: Provided.

2.4.2 - External Appearance Existing character The provision of good

design which provides continuity of character between local building forms and new development

Complies: The applicant has demonstrated through coloured streetscape perspectives, a colour/material schedule and 3D perspectives, that the development will provide continuity of character between local building forms and new development.

2.4.3 - Building Height and Scale Building height 7.2m max height Complies: Buildings comply with maximum

height requirement (maximum height of 2 storey units is 6.8 metres)






2.4.4 - Side and rear setbacks Side and rear setbacks

1m min for walls up to 3m in height

Complies: Minimum 1.0m setback is provided to ground floor and 1.6m to first floor.

2.4.5 - Energy Conservation Air flow to window Windows to be at least

1m from any facing building

Complies.

Living room windows

Min 3 hours of sunlight to north facing windows of living areas between 9-3 on June 21st

Complies: Shadow diagrams provided to demonstrate compliance.

Sunlight to open space

Not reduce sunlight below 2 hours to adjacent dwelling living areas that face north

Complies: Shadow diagrams provided to demonstrate compliance.

2.4.6 - Views and Privacy Privacy for living room windows

Direct views screened in privacy sensitive zone (9m ground 12m above ground)

Complies.

Private open space Direct views to private open space within 12m radius screened

Complies.

Bedroom windows 3m line of sight from bedroom windows to parking areas, streets and shared driveways

Complies: – While the front bedrooms of Units 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are located within 3 metres of the shared driveway and parking areas, the applicant has designed privacy screens to be placed in front of these windows consisting of timber slats within powder coated frames. The building elevations show that these screens have been integrated well into the development and will assist with maintaining privacy for these bedroom areas, notwithstanding the numerical provisions of this component of the DCP. The objectives of this provision is considered satisfied.

Acoustic privacy-shared walls

Shared walls and floors noise insulated

Complies: Insulation required under BCA. Will comply.






2.4.7 - Fencing and Walls Front fencing Where private open

space is in front of the dwelling, privacy fencing shall have openings which make it not less than 50% transparent and shall be designed to use compatible materials to that used in attractive buildings in the locality.

Complies.

2.4.8 - Car Parking Minimum number of spaces

1 space per 2 beds 2 spaces per 3 beds 1 visitor space for first 3 units, and 1 for each five units or part thereafter.

Complies: 15 spaces provided.

Turning Min 6.5m reversing area for garage

Complies: The vehicular parking complies with AS 2890.1. All vehicles are able to manoeuvre out of the respective garage areas and visitor spaces in accordance with this standard.

Manoeuvring All vehicles to enter and exit from parking spaces in a forward motion.

Complies:

Visual appearance of driveway

The visual dominance of driveways should be minimised by: the use of irregular alignment; minimizing width; selection of materials and landscaping

Complies: Amended plans show the deletion of the large hard stand area at the front of the site for garbage truck manoeuvring.

2.5.2 – Landscape Design Landscaping

Landscaping shall enhance appearance and amenity of the development, enhance

Complies: A satisfactory landscape plan has been lodged.






acoustic and visual privacy and relate to the scale of the development.

2.5.4 – Security, Site Facilities and Services Garbage Disposal

To ensure garbage disposal is designed to be conveniently reached and require minimal maintenance, and to ensure these facilities are visually attractive and blend with the streetscape.

Complies: See previous discussion on garbage disposal under Chapter C.5 – Waste Management and Minimisation.

S.79C(a)(iiia) The Provision of any Planning Agreem ent that has been entered into under Section 94F, or any draft Planning Agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under Section 93F No planning agreement relates to the site or proposed development. S.79C(a)(iv) The Regulations

There are no matters prescribed by the Regulations that apply to this development. S.79C(1)(b) The Likely Impacts of The Development As demonstrated by the above assessment, the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant impact on both the natural and built environments. It is considered that the proposed development will have a positive social and economic impact in terms of providing affordable housing and construction jobs in the area. S.79C(1)(c) The Suitability of the Site for Develop ment The site is considered suitable for the proposed development given its size, location and context. There are no inherent site constraints in terms of contamination, geotechnical or other hazards that would otherwise inhibit the development being approved. S.79C(1)(d) Any Submissions During the initial exhibition period in June 2011 (which proposed 12 units), two (2) submissions were received raising several concerns about the development. The amended plans for 10 units were re-exhibited in March 2013 with no submissions being received.






The following is a summary of the concerns raised during the initial notification period for 12 units: Cut and Fill and Stormwater Drainage Concern was raised with the stability of the site with regard to cut and fill levels relative to adjoining properties and associated drainage impacts on adjoining land. The applicant has since provided amended plans and details showing existing and finished ground levels (including retaining walls) and Council’s Consultant Development Engineer has assessed the proposal and raised no objection to the design subject to standard consent conditions. A deferred commencement consent has been imposed on the draft determination notice to enable the applicant to obtain a drainage easement over a downstream property to ensure satisfactory stormwater discharge to a controlled point. Overlooking from Second Storey Bedrooms Units 6 and 7 are located at the rear of the site (in the north-western corner) and will be of two storey construction (with two bedrooms and a bathroom located at the first level). Only one (1) of these bedrooms in each unit will potentially overlook the neighbouring property and currently, there are no active private open space areas or living areas located on this part of the land to create a significant overlooking impact. Noise Impacts Issue has been raised regarding the impact of noise from the development on adjacent residents. The proposed development is residential and the noise generated will be typical of a residential environment which is consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. Loss of Value Objection has been raised to the development on the grounds that the nature of the development (possibly being for rental accommodation) will attract socially undesirable tenants and result in the loss of value of surrounding properties. There is no evidence to suggest that the development (whether it be for rental or permanent accommodation) will result in the loss of value of surrounding residential properties. Stormwater Drainage and Kerb and Guttering Issue has been raised about the existing stormwater drainage problems in Gillies Street and if the development will be required to provide kerb and gutter to Gillies Street. The subject land does not drain to Gillies Street (but to the south towards Mulbring Street), and a deferred commencement condition has been imposed on the draft determination notice requiring the applicant to create an inter-allotment drainage easement through a downstream property to enable stormwater discharge to Mulbring Street. There is currently no kerb and gutter in the locality and existing drainage issues along Gillies Street (and the future provision of kerb and gutter) will be in accordance with Council’s works programme for the locality (and not reliant on the subject development).






Will the Development Accommodate Over 55’s? The development has not been lodged as an “over 55’s development” under State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. S.79C(e) The Public Interest

The public interest is served through the detailed assessment of this Development Application under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Environmental Planning Instruments and Council Policies. The Development Application is not considered to be contrary to the public interest. SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS

In the event of the application being approved, the following contributions are payable in accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan for Residential Development (the contributions have been levied on 1 additional three bedroom dwelling and 8 additional two bedroom dwellings: Calculations District Open Space $8,329.00 District Community Facilities (Halls) $5,090.00 District Community Facilities (Libraries) $1,365.00 District Community Facilities (Bushfire) $388.00 District Roads – Urban Areas $6,348.00 District Roads – Rural Areas $0.00 Local Roads $0.00 Local Drainage $0.00 Studies (Plan Preparation) $475.00 Plan Administration $1,820.00 Unformed/Partially formed Roads $0.00 Total S94 Contribution - Residential $23,815.00






INTERNAL REFERRALS

The Development Application was referred to the following Council Officers: Development Engineer Council’s Development Engineers are now satisfied with the latest design and have recommended the imposition of standard conditions, including a deferred commencement condition relating to the creation of an inter-allotment drainage easement over an adjoining allotment to discharge into Mulbring Street. Building Officer Council’s Building Officer provided comment on the original plans in relation to compliance with Council’s DCP 2010 (Chapter C.6 – Access and Mobility) and requested additional information. This information has now been provided to the satisfaction of Council. Manager of Environment and Waste The application was referred to Council’s Manager of Environment and Waste to comment on waste management and garbage collection. No objections have been raised to the current development proposal subject to standard conditions relating to garbage collection as previously mentioned in the report. EXTERNAL REFERRALS

The Development Application was referred to the following external agencies: NSW Rural Fire Service The application was referred to the Rural Fire Service for comment and assessment under Section 79BA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and standard conditions have been provided.

CONCLUSION

The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and all relevant instruments and policies. Overall, and on the basis of the most recent amendments lodged with Council, the proposed development is considered suitable for the site. On this basis, Development Application 8/2011/317/1 is recommended for approval subject to the conditions listed in this report.






ENCLOSURES

1 Development Plans 6

Pages 2 Submissions 2

Pages 3 Confidential Enclosures - This matter is considered to be confidential under

Section 10A(2) (j) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with Council Policy. 2 Pages






CONDITIONS OF CONSENT

SCHEDULE 1

Deferred Commencement Condition 1. The following deferred commencement condition must be complied with to the

satisfaction of Council within six (6) months of the date of determination of the development consent:

a) The applicant shall submit documentary evidence that the property benefits

from a drainage easement (1.5 metres wide) over a downstream property to enable stormwater drainage from the site through to Mulbring Street. Full details shall also be lodged with Council for approval on the required overland flow paths over downstream properties. This consent will not operate until Council is satisfied that this condition has been satisfied. Reason To ensure that provision is made for stormwater drainage from the site in a proper manner that protects adjoining properties

Advice 1. Should variation be required to extend the period for compliance with the prescribed

condition of the deferred commencement (Schedule 1) consent, an application pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 to modify the condition is to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the expiration of the prescribed period

2. Following compliance with the condition listed in Schedule 1 Council will issue

Operative Development Consent.






SCHEDULE 2

Conditions of Approval The following conditions of consent including any other conditions that may arise from resolution of the matters listed in the above condition, will be included in an operational Development Consent. The operational Development Consent will be issued by Council after the applicant provides sufficient information to satisfy Council in relation to the conditions of the deferred commencement consent. TERMS OF CONSENT General 1. The erection of a building in accordance with this development consent shall not be

commenced until:- (a) detailed plans and specifications of the building verifying compliance with the Building Code of Australia have been endorsed with a construction certificate by:- (i) the Cessnock City Council; or (ii) an accredited certifier, and (b) the person having the benefit of the development consent:- (i) has appointed a principal certifying authority, (being Cessnock City Council or an accredited certifier) and (ii) has notified Council of the appointment, and (c) the person having the benefit of the development consent has given at least 2 days notice to the Council of their intention to commence erection of the building. Reason To clarify and advise the applicant that a Construction Certificate must be issued prior to works commencing as required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).

2. The proposed development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details

set out on the application form, the Statement of Environmental Effects and the plans prepared by Enzhuo Studio dated 14.2.2013 (Sheet No’s DA01 – DA06) Job Reference 0654, and any other information submitted in support of the application, except as modified by the conditions of this consent. Note: Any proposal to modify the terms or conditions of this consent, whilst still maintaining substantially the same development to that approved, will require the submission of a formal application under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for Council’s consideration. If amendments to the design






result in the development not remaining substantially the same as that approved by this consent, a new development Application will have to be submitted to Council. Reason To confirm and clarify the terms of Council's approval.

3. All building work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the

Building Code of Australia (BCA). Reason This is a prescribed condition under Section 80A(11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

4. Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not

be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which the work relates:- a) in the case of work for which a principal contractor has been appointed: (i) has been informed in writing of the name and licence number of the principal contractor, and (ii) where required has submitted an insurance certificate with the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act, b) in the case of work to be done by an owner-builder: (i) has been informed in writing of the name of the owner-builder, and (ii) if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit under that Act, has submitted a copy of the owner builder permit. If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information notified under subclause 1 of this condition becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development has been given written notice of the updated information. Reason This is a prescribed condition under Section 80A(11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

Building Construction 5. The excavated and/or filled areas of the site are to be stabilised and drained to

prevent scouring onto adjacent private or public property. The finished ground around the perimeter of the building is to be graded to prevent ponding of water and to ensure the free flow of water away from the building and adjoining properties.






Reason To reduce the risk of environmental and building damage.

6. Excavations or filling against boundaries are to be adequately retained by retaining

walls. Reason To reduce the risk of damage to adjoining properties.

Access, Carparking & Loading Arrangements 7. All driveways, access corridors and car parking areas are to be designed in

accordance with AS2890.1 & 2 - Parking Facilities. The car parking areas shall be constructed with reinforced concrete, graded and drained in accordance with Council’s ‘Engineering Requirements for Development’. All access crossings and driveways shall be maintained in good order for the life of the development. Reason To ensure that a safe adequate all-weather access is available to the development.

8. Appropriate and permanent signage shall be erected clearly indicating the location of

the visitor parking bays and signage shall also be erected indicating that the turning bay along the rear (western) boundary of the site is to be used for vehicle maneuvering only (no parking permitted). Reason To encourage the use of the proposed on-site car parking facilities and thereby minimise kerbside parking in the adjacent public road as a result of the proposed development.

Bushfire Management 9. The following bushfire mitigation measures shall be provided to assist in protecting

the property in the event of bushfire: a) Water, electricity and gas are to comply with Section 4.1.3 of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’. b) New construction shall comply with Section 5 (BAL 12.5) Australian Standard AS 3959-2009 ‘Construction of Buildings in Bush Fire Prone Areas’ and Section A3.7 Addendum Appendix 3 of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’. c) Landscaping to the site is to comply with the principles of Appendix 5 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’. Reason To ensure appropriate bushfire mitigation measures are in place in the event of bushfire.






Bin Collection 10. A maximum of ten (10) garbage bins shall be provided on-site to service the

development each with a capacity of 240 litres. Five (5) of these bins will be for recycled waste. These bins shall be kept in the two separate on-site enclosures (as shown on the development plans) and presented to Gillies Street for collection by Council’s garbage service. All bins shall be removed from the street within 24 hours of collection and returned to the bin storage areas located within the site. The bin storage areas shall be regularly cleaned to minimise odour impacts. Reason To ensure the satisfactory removal of waste from the property and prevention of associated amenity impacts.

PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE General 11. The registered proprietors of the land shall provide evidence of satisfactory

arrangements having been made with an electricity supply authority, telecommunications provider, gas provider and the Hunter Water Corporation Ltd. in regard to any cross overs and driveways above existing installations and proposed connections prior to the release of the Construction Certificate for the development. Reason To ensure that adequate electricity supply is provided and that the interests of the energy supply authority are protected.

Fees, Development Contributions, Monetary Bonds, Dedication of Land 12. A monetary contribution is to be paid to Council, pursuant to Section 94 of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 towards the provision of public amenities and public services in the contribution types below.

Calculations District Open Space $8,329.00 District Community Facilities (Halls) $5,090.00 District Community Facilities (Libraries) $1,365.00 District Community Facilities (Bushfire) $388.00 District Roads – Urban Areas $6,348.00 District Roads – Rural Areas $0.00 Local Roads $0.00 Local Drainage $0.00 Studies (Plan Preparation) $475.00 Plan Administration $1,820.00 Unformed/Partially formed Roads $0.00 Total S94 Contribution - Residential $23,815.00






At this time the total contribution required is $23,815 and is to be paid prior to the release of the Construction Certificate. NOTE: a) A copy of the Residential Section 94 Contributions Plan may be inspected at Council’s Customer Services Section, Administrative Building, Vincent Street, Cessnock or can be accessed on Council’s Website: www.cessnock.nsw.gov.au b) The amount of contribution payable under this condition has been calculated at the date of consent. In accordance with the provisions of the Contributions Plan, this amount shall be indexed at the time of actual payment in accordance with the Consumer Price Index – All Groups – Sydney. Indexation of contributions for payment occurs quarterly, on the first working day of December, March, June and September. Reason To assist the Council in meeting the expected increased demand for public facilities and services arising as a consequence of the proposed development, and to ensure that the real value of contributions is not deflated by price movements.






Stormwater Drainage 13. The registered proprietor of the land is to provide a stormwater detention facility within

the boundaries of the site to reduce the peak stormwater discharge from the developed lot to that of the peak stormwater discharged from the undeveloped lot for all storm events from the 1 in 1 year to the 1 in 100 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) storm event. A detailed drainage design shall be prepared for the disposal of roof and surface water from the site, including any natural runoff currently entering the property. Details of on-site storage and the method of controlled release from the site and connection to an approved drainage system shall be provided and approved by the P.C.A in accordance with Council’s ‘Engineering Requirements for Development’. The detailed plans, specifications and copies of the calculations, including existing and proposed surface levels, sub-catchments and conduit sizing appropriate for the development prepared by an engineer suitably qualified and experienced in the field of hydrology and hydraulics. Full details shall be submitted to and approved by the P.C.A. prior to release of the Construction Certificate. Construction shall be completed prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate. Reason To ensure that the development is adequately drained and will not increase the flood hazard or flood damage to other properties or adversely affect flood behaviour.

DURING CONSTRUCTION General 14. The registered proprietor of the land shall be responsible for all costs incurred in the

necessary relocation of any services affected by the required construction works. Council and other service authorities should be contacted for specific requirements prior to commencement of any works. Reason To ensure that any required alterations to utility infrastructure are undertaken to acceptable standards at the developer’s cost.

15. If the soil conditions require it:-

a) retaining walls associated with the erection or demolition of a building or other approved methods of preventing movement of the soil must be provided, and b) adequate provision must be made for drainage. Reason To ensure that the development, when constructed, will comply with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.






16. A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any site on which building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out: a) showing the name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority for the work, and 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. Any such sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out, however must be removed when the work has been completed. Reason This is a prescribed condition under Section 80A(11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

17. Toilet facilities are to be provided prior to works commencing, at or in the vicinity of

the work site on which work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is being carried out, at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site. Each toilet provided must be a sewage management facility approved by the NSW Department of Health and/or Council and operate in an environmentally responsible manner, free of nuisance or offence, and be appropriately serviced. Reasons To ensure that suitable and environmentally sustainable toilet facilities are provided for all persons employed or visiting the site. To ensure that the development, when constructed, will comply with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

18. A container of at least one (1) cubic metre capacity shall be provided and maintained

from the commencement of operations until the completion of the building for the reception and storage of waste generated by the construction of the building and associated waste. Reason To ensure that waste generated by the building works is contained and does not pollute the surrounding environment.

19. Construction, demolition and associated work shall be carried out only between the

times stated as follows:- Mondays to Fridays 7.00a.m. to 6.00p.m. Saturdays 8.00a.m. to 1.00p.m. Sundays & Public Holidays No construction work to take place.






Reason To ensure that the environmental quality of adjoining land is not adversely affected, such as by the generation of excessive noise levels.

Building Construction 20. All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building

must be executed safely and in accordance with the appropriate professional standards. Reason To ensure that all excavations on the site are maintained in a safe condition.

21. All excavations associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be

properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property. Reason To ensure that all excavations on the site are maintained in a safe condition.

Site Works 22. The control of erosion and the prevention of silt discharge into drainage systems and

waterways will be necessary in accordance with Council’s “Engineering Requirements for Development”, Department of Conservation and Land Management's 'Urban Erosion and Sediment Control’ requirements and the Department of Housing ‘Soil and Water Management for Urban Developments’. Erosion control measures are to be implemented prior to the commencement of any earthworks and shall be maintained until satisfactory completion and restoration of site earthworks, including revegetation of all exposed areas. Reason To ensure protection of the environment by minimising erosion and sediment.

23. Any alterations to existing surface levels on the site shall be undertaken in such a

manner as to ensure that no additional surface water is drained onto or impounded on adjoining properties. Reason To ensure that such alterations to surface levels do not disrupt existing stormwater flows in the vicinity.

Scheduling of Inspections 24. The applicant is to advise Council at least 48 hours prior to commencement of any

construction works within the road reserve together with the approved contractor's name and address. Reason To enable orderly scheduling of inspections.






PRIOR TO ISSUE OF OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE General 25. Occupation or use of premises for the purposes approved by this consent shall not

commence until all conditions of this consent have been complied with and the Occupation Certificate has been issued. Reason To ensure compliance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and Council's terms of consent.

26. Evidence shall be submitted to Council that the registered proprietors of the land on

whose behalf the application was made have complied with the requirements of Section 50 of the Hunter Water Board (Corporation) Act 1991. Such evidence shall be submitted the P.C.A. prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate. Reason To ensure compliance with the Hunter Water Corporation requirements for the supply of water and sewerage to the new dwellings created.

Access, Carparking & Loading Arrangements 27. The Registered Proprietors of the land shall construct a 5.5 metre bitumen sealed

access crossing from the edge of the road formation in Gillies Street to the property boundary in accordance with Council’s ‘Engineering Requirements for Development’ (available at Council’s offices) and AS 2890.1. A Section 138 Roads Act approval is required from Council prior to any construction commencing within the road reserve. The access crossing is required to be constructed prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate for the building. Construction of the crossing will require inspections to be undertaken by Council and the applicant shall pay Council Engineering site supervision fees in accordance with Council’s current fees and charges, prior to the inspections being undertaken. The initial fee will facilitate approval of the application and 1 construction inspection (steel and formwork inspection). A final inspection will be required upon completion of the driveway and restoration of all disturbed footway areas (a separate fee will be required to be paid when the final inspection is booked). However, should further inspections become necessary as a result of unsatisfactory or defective works; additional inspection fees will be charged ($200.00 per inspection). The applicant is to advise Council at least 48 hours prior to inspections of works within the footpath and/or road reserve. Reason To ensure the provision of safe, adequately defined and properly constructed means of vehicular access from the road to the development.






29. The Registered Proprietors of the land shall construct a reinforced concrete internal

driveway 5.5m wide with integral kerb, from the property boundary, in accordance with Council’s ‘Engineering Requirements for Development’ (available at Council’s offices) and AS 2890.1. Construction shall be completed prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate. Reason To ensure that adequate and safe access is available to the development.

30. All redundant vehicular accesses shall be removed and the footpath, road shoulders

and kerb and gutter, where applicable, restored to match existing conditions at no cost to Council prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate. Reason To ensure that vehicular access to the development occurs efficiently and safely in accordance with approved plans and unnecessary accesses are restored at no cost to Council.

Site Works 31. All retaining walls and associated drainage shall be installed and completed prior to

use or occupation of the building. Reason To ensure that filling placed on land does not affect natural drainage.

Landscaping 32. All landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the approved landscape plan

on Sheet No. DA03. All landscaping shall be completed prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate and shall be maintained in good condition for the life of the development. Reason To ensure all landscaping is undertaken to a high standard prior to occupation of the development.

Drainage and Flooding 33. The registered proprietor of the land shall submit a report and a works-as-executed

(WAE) drawing of the stormwater detention basin(s) and stormwater drainage system. The WAE drawings shall be prepared by a registered surveyor and shall indicate the following as applicable: (i) invert levels of tanks, pits, pipes and orifice plates (ii) surface levels of pits and surrounding ground levels (iii) levels of spillways and surrounding kerb (iv) floor levels of buildings, including garages (v) top of kerb levels at the front of the lot (vi) dimensions of stormwater basins and extent of inundation






(vii) calculation of actual detention storage volume provided details and grading of the swale drain The plan shall be accompanied by a report from the designer stating the conformance or otherwise of the as constructed basins in relation to the approved design. The WAE plan and report shall be submitted to and approved by the P.C.A. prior to Occupation Certificate. Reason To ensure the stormwater detention system has been constructed in accordance with the design plans.

34. All drainage works required to be undertaken in accordance with this consent shall be

completed prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate. Reason To ensure that on site stormwater runoff is properly collected and conveyed to an appropriate drainage facility.

35. The registered proprietor of the land shall prepare a Plan of Management for the on-

site stormwater detention facilities within the development. The Plan of Management shall set out all design and operational parameters for the detention facilities including design levels, hydrology and hydraulics, inspection and maintenance requirements and time intervals for such inspection and maintenance. The plan shall be submitted to and approved by the P.C.A. for approval prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate. Reason To ensure the on-going maintenance and operation of the on-site stormwater detention facilities in accordance with the approved design.

Development contributions, monetary bonds and dedication of land 36. Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the registered proprietors of the land

shall, at their costs and expense, enter into a positive covenant over all of the land comprised in the development providing as follows:- a) Covenanting with the Council (the prescribed Authority) to at all times at their costs maintain, repair and keep the on-site stormwater detention facilities in a good and safe condition and state of repair in accordance with the approved design to the reasonable satisfaction at all times of the said Council having due regard to the Plan of Management for the operation and maintenance of the on-site stormwater detention facilities, and b) Providing that the liability under the said Covenant will jointly and severally bind the registered proprietors of the proposed dwellings, and c) Providing that the Cessnock City Council (the prescribed Authority) will be the person entitled to release or modify the Covenant.






All costs associated with the Covenant, including any legal costs payable by Council, are to be paid by the owner on whose behalf the applicant has lodged the application. Reason To ensure that on-site stormwater detention facilities are maintained to an appropriate standard.






SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 8/2012/570/1 - SUBDIVISION OF TWO (2) LOTS INTO FOUR (4) LOTS


APPLICATION NUMBER:

8/2012/570/1

PROPOSAL: Subdivision of two (2) lots into four (4) lots


Lots 1 and 2, DP 7802

PROPERTY ADDRESS:

441 – 443 Wollombi Road, Bellbird

ZONE: R2 Low Density Residential

OWNER: Mr N W Johnston

APPLICANT: Mr N W Johnston

RECOMMENDATION That: 1. Council determine Development Application No. 8/ 2012/570/1 for the

subdivision of Lots 1 & 2, DP 7802, 441 – 443 Wollo mbi Road Bellbird, into four (4) lots, pursuant to Section 80 of the Environment al Planning and Assessment Act 1979, by refusing to grant consent subject to t he reasons for refusal contained in this report.



REASON FOR REFERRAL Development Application No. 8/2012/570/1 is being r eferred to Council for determination because it is recommended that the ap plication be refused, and the refusal is considered to be merits based.






PROGRESS SINCE COUNCIL’S MEETING OF 1 MAY 2013

Development Application 8/2012/570/1 seeking approval for the subdivision of two (2) lots into four (4) lots, was considered by Council at its meeting of 1 May 2013 whereby it was resolved as follows: ‘That the report be DEFERRED as it formed an address earlier in the meeting and a site inspection be carried out’. A site inspection was carried out on 14 May 2013. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council is in receipt of Development Application 8/2012/570/1 seeking approval for the subdivision of two (2) lots into four (4) lots. The Development Application has been assessed against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000, relevant Environmental Planning Instruments and Council Policies. The outcome of this assessment is detailed further in this report. The Development Application was publicly exhibited with two (2) submissions received raising concerns in relation to the proposal. Based on the assessment, it is recommended that the Development Application be refused subject to reasons for refusal detailed in this report; most critically, that the site is flood affected and flood free access is not available to the property.






LOCATION MAP






AERIAL







The subject site is commonly known as 441 – 443 Wollombi Road, Bellbird, and is legally described as Lots 1 and 2 in Deposited Plan 780231. The subject site is located on the eastern side of Wollombi Road and contains two allotments of land totalling approximately 3,144 square metres in area. The land has a frontage of 65.8 metres to Wollombi Road and a depth of approximately 70 metres. The site adjoins rural land to the south and east and residential land to the north and west. The Austar Coal haulage railway line is located approximately 15 metres from the south-eastern corner of the site. The subject site is currently vacant and clear of vegetation. The surrounding properties are partially characterised by older style, single storey dwellings on large residential holdings. There are two multi-unit developments constructed immediately to the north of the property at 437 and 439 Wollombi Road. The site is identified in Councils Black Creek Flood Study (adopted by Council in March 2012), as being flood affected. Based on Council’s flood mapping available from the Black Creek Flood Study, the 1 in 100 year (1% Annual Exceedance Probability) flood levels for the existing 2 properties in question are 95.92m AHD for Lot 1 and 95.94m AHD for Lot 2. The most recent levels provided for assessment indicate a minimum depth of approximately 1.7m across the site road reserve frontage with approximately 1.3m depth at the rear. The Flood Study indicates that the site cannot achieve flood free access.






The map below indicates the extent of the 1:100 year flood event over the subject site: -

DP7802DP7802

61

60

DP7802

DP7802

64

DP7802

63

DP7802

62

DP7802DP7802

10

11

DP335519

A

DP7802

9

DP7802

65

DP780

2

7DP7

802

6

DP780

25DP7802

DP7802

1

DP7802

2

DP1126411

3

4

DP6264

DP6264

1/G

DP

78028

DP6264

4/G

3/G

DP6

264

2/G

DP6264

6/G

DP6264

15/G

DP6264

5/G

DP6264

16/G

DP6264

11/G

7

DP700349100

DP6264

7/G

DP758082

8/3

DP758082

9/3

2

DP8686561

3

2

DP7

4122

0

21/G

DP6264

22/G

DP6264

DP6264

20/G

DP6264

19/G

DP6264

DP758082

PT10/3

TTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIII

EEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOO

NNNNNNNNNSSSSSSSSS

TTTTTTTTT

AAAAAAAAA

SSSSSSSSS

TTTTTTTTT

MMMMMMMMM

WWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOO

RRRRRRRRRCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG

LLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM

BBBBBBBBBIIIIIIIII RRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDD

SUBJECT LAND

Black Creek Flood Study 2010Black Creek Flood Study 2010Black Creek Flood Study 2010Black Creek Flood Study 2010Black Creek Flood Study 2010Black Creek Flood Study 2010Black Creek Flood Study 2010Black Creek Flood Study 2010Black Creek Flood Study 2010Black Creek Flood Study 2010

Relevant development consents issued within the direct locality include: - � DA 8/2010/492/1 – Two additional dwellings to create multi dwelling development at

437 Wollombi Road, Bellbird (which is located 30 metres to the north of the subject land) approved on 23 September 2010.

� DA 8/2006/358/1 – Three additional dwellings to create multi dwelling development at

439 Wollombi Road, Bellbird (which adjoins the subject land to the north) approved on 15 August 2006.

No development applications in the locality of the subject site have been determined since the Black Creek Flood Study was adopted by Council in March 2012.






HISTORY

Previous Development Applications considered and determined on the subject site are summarised as follows:

DA Description of Development

Determination

8/2004/140/1

14 residential units

Approved 8 December 2004

(never commenced)

8/2005/1269/1

4 lot residential subdivision

Withdrawn 26 December 2006

8/2007/337/1

4 lot residential subdivision

Surrendered 31 March 2009 The history of the subject Development Application is summarised in the following table: Date Action 24 August 2012

Discussions held with the applicant in relation to the applicant’s intention to lodge a Development Application for a 4 lot subdivision of the subject land. The applicant was advised of flooding and drainage issues associated with the site.

23 October 2012

Application lodged.

9 November 2012

Application referred to Council’s Consultant Development Engineers for assessment.

13 November 2012

Application notified for 2 weeks until 28 November 2012. Two (2) objections received.

18 December 2012

Engineering assessment completed which recommends the application not be approved due to the flood affectation of the site.

16 January 2013

Applicant advised by Council that the site is flood affected and the subdivision cannot be supported.

23 January 2013

The applicant requests clarification on flood affectation of the site.






31 January 2013

The applicant was advised in writing that a preliminary planning assessment of the proposal had been finalised with the following additional issues identified:

• Heritage impacts on adjoining listed heritage item • Acoustic impacts from the adjacent coal haulage railway line.

14 February 2013

Meeting held at Council with the applicant and Council’s Engineer to discuss the flooding issues affecting the site. Council’s Infrastructure Planning Engineer advised he would review the Black Creek 2010 Flood Study to validate its accuracy (at the site), at the request of the applicant.

27 March 2013

Applicant advised that Council’s flooding consultants have reviewed Council’s adopted Black Creek Flood Study 2010 and are satisfied with the accuracy of the document. The applicant is advised by Council officers that the flood data is accurate, and is provided with the opportunity to withdraw the application as the subdivision cannot be supported due to flooding impacts.

15 April 2013

Meeting held with applicant whereby the applicant is advised that, because the application has not been withdraw, it will be referred to Council’s meeting of 1 May 2013 for consideration.

16 April 2013

Council report prepared recommending refusal of the development application, finalised.

1 May 2013

Application considered by Council, whereby it was resolved as follows: ‘That the report be DEFERRED as it formed an address earlier in the meeting and a site inspection be carried out’.

14 May 2013

Meeting held with applicant, Council officers and the Mayor. Site inspection carried out.

15 May 2013

Application referred to Council for consideration.







Development Application No 8/2012/570/1 seeks approval for the subdivision of two (2) lots into four (4) lots, as follows: • Proposed Lot 11 – 600 square metres with a 23 metre frontage to Wollombi Road. • Proposed Lot 12 – 600 square metres with a 19 metre frontage to Wollombi Road. • Proposed Lot 13 – 613 square metres with a 19 metre frontage to Wollombi Road. • Proposed Lot 14 – 1,338 square metre battle-axe block with access to Wollombi Road.






ASSESSMENT

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 – Se ction 79(C)(1) In determining a Development Application, the consent authority is to take into consideration the following matters as are of relevance in the assessment of the Development Application on the subject property: Section 79(C)(1)(a)(i) The Provisions of any Enviro nmental Planning Instrument The Environmental Planning Instruments that relate to the proposed development are:

1. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land; and 2. Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011.

An assessment of the proposed development under the Environmental Planning Instruments is provided below: 1. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Rem ediation of Land Clause 7(1) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land is relevant to the assessment of this Development Application. Clause 7(1) requires that consent not be granted until Council has considered whether the land is contaminated. If the land is contaminated, the Council needs to be satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purposes for which the development is proposed to be carried out. In this instance, the subject site has been vacant for a considerable period of time and there are no signs of contamination or records of previous contaminating uses. It is therefore unlikely that there are any contaminants present that would require remediation in order to make the site suitable for its proposed use. 2. Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 Permissibility The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011. The proposed development is defined as a subdivision under the provisions of Clause 4B(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as follows:

Subdivision of land means the division of land into two or more parts that, after the division, would be obviously adapted for separate occupation, use or disposition.

Pursuant to the provisions of Clause 2.6 of the Cessnock LEP 2011, land may only be subdivided with development consent.






The development satisfies the above definition, as the development comprises the subdivision of two (2) lots into four (4) lots and the subdivision of land is permissible within the R2 Low Density Residential zone. Objectives The objectives of the R2 Medium Density Residential are as follows: • To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential

environment.

• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

The proposed development is considered consistent with the objectives of the zone. Relevant Clauses The Development Application was assessed against the following relevant clauses of the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011: � Clause 4.1 – Minimum subdivision lot size The minimum lot size map specifies a minimum lot size of 450 m2 and 600 m2 (battle-axe lots). All four (4) allotments exceed the minimum area standard requirement, as outlined previously in this report. � Clause 5.10(5) – Heritage Assessment Clause 5.10(5) of the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan requires the consent authority to consider the need for a heritage management document to be prepared to assess the extent of impact the carrying out of work may have on heritage items within the vicinity of a development site. This clause reads as follows:

The consent authority may, before granting consent to any development:

(a) on land on which a heritage item is located, or (b) on land that is within a heritage conservation area, or (c) on land that is within the vicinity of land referred to in paragraph (a) or (b),

require a heritage management document to be prepared that assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area concerned.

The subject site is adjoined to the south and east by the following heritage items as listed in Council’s LEP 2011:

• South Maitland Railway System (Item No: I212) – Local Significance • Collieries of the South Maitland Coalfields/Greta Coal Measures (Item No:

I215) - Local Significance






In this instance it is not considered necessary for the lodgement of a heritage management document to assess the impact of the subdivision on the surrounding heritage items given the items are essentially large holdings of rural land (essentially vacant, apart from the railway line). The proposed subdivision does not propose any buildings or structures at this stage and the shape and size of the proposed allotments are typical of adjoining residential parcels, and will not significantly impact on the heritage qualities of adjoining land. On this basis, Council officers did not request submission of a heritage management document. � Clause 7.2 – Earthworks Clause 7.2 of the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan requires the consent authority to consider a number of matters before granting consent for earthworks. The considerations contained in subclause (3) are:

(a) the likely disruption of, or any detrimental effect on, existing drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality of the development,

(b) the effect of the proposed development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land,

(c) the quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both, (d) the effect of the proposed development on the existing and likely amenity of

adjoining properties, (e) the source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material, (f) the likelihood of disturbing relics, (g) the proximity to, and potential for adverse impacts on, any waterway, drinking

water catchment or environmentally sensitive area, (h) any measures proposed to minimise or mitigate the impacts referred to in

paragraph (g). Most of the considerations can be addressed by conditions, such as requiring sediment and erosion control measures to be implemented, or ensuring controlled fill is utilised. � Clause 7.3 – Flood Planning Clause 7.3 of the Cessnock LEP 2011 reads as follows:

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to minimise the flood risk to life and property associated with the use of land,

(b) to allow development on land that is compatible with the land’s flood hazard, taking into account projected changes as a result of climate change,

(c) to avoid significant adverse impacts on flood behaviour and the environment.

(2) This clause applies to land at or below the flood planning level. (3) Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this

clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development:

(a) is compatible with the flood hazard of the land, and






(b) is not likely to significantly adversely affect flood behaviour resulting in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and

(c) incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life from flood, and (d) is not likely to significantly adversely affect the environment or cause

avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses, and

(e) is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding.

(4) A word or expression used in this clause has the same meaning as it has in the

Floodplain Development Manual (ISBN 0 7347 5476 0), published in 2005 by the NSW Government, unless it is otherwise defined in this clause.

(5) In this clause, flood planning level means the level of a 1:100 ARI (average

recurrent interval) flood event plus 0.5 metre freeboard. The aim of this clause is to maintain existing flood regimes and flow conveyance capacity and enable safe occupation of land in a flood event. To grant consent to the development, Council must be satisfied that the development will not adversely affect flood behaviour, alter flow distributions and velocities and enable safe occupation and evacuation. The site is identified in Council’s Black Creek flood study as being flood affected to a height of 95.92m AHD for existing Lot 1 and 95.94m AHD for existing Lot 2. The most recent levels provided for assessment indicate a minimum depth of 1.7m across the site road reserve frontage with approximately 1.3m depth at the rear of proposed Lots 11, 12 and 13. Clause 7.3 - Flood Planning precludes any intensification of development under the LEP as the proposed development would increase risk to life/property on the site and would result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a result of flooding. “Walk out” evacuation would not be possible from the site at times of peak flooding. In part, subclause 3 states:

“Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding”.

The subject land is located in an area that is significantly impacted by flooding and the proposed subdivision is considered likely to have a detrimental impact on the natural and built environment as a result of the proposed intensification of residential development. The site is considered to be unsuitable for the development as it is flood affected, and the intensification of residential development through subdivision on flood prone land is not supported. Clause 7.3 of the Cessnock LEP 2011 precludes any intensification of development. Section 79(C)(1)(a)(ii) The Provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument No draft Environmental Planning Instruments are relevant to the application.






Section 79(C)(1)(a)(iii) The Provisions of any Deve lopment Control Plan Cessnock Development Control Plan 2010 Chapter D.1 – Subdivision Guidelines The following table provides a detailed assessment of the proposals compliance with Council’s subdivision guidelines contained within its DCP: Section 1.7 Residential Subdivision

REQUIREMENTS COMMENT

1.7.1 Lot Size & Shape Shall have a width at the building line of 18m and a depth of 20m

Access handles shall have a maximum length of 60m, minimum width of 3.5m and a minimum shared access corridor width of 5m.

No more than 5 lots off an access handle.

Environmentally significant vegetation shall be retained.

Complies

1.7.2 Accessway (handle) Design

Minimum sealed width of 3m

No more than 5 lots off an access handle.

Maximum grade 25%.

Minimum width:

• 1 Lot minimum width of 3.5m

Complies

1.7.3 Heritage Heritage items to be retained.

Subdivision to be sympathetic to minimise impact on heritage items on subject and adjoining lands.

Subdivisions shall be sympathetically designed to ensure that the existing heritage value of the streetscape and character of the area is maintained

Complies The subdivision will not significantly impact on the adjoining listed heritage items – see previous discussions under clause 5.10(5) of the CLEP 2011.

1.7.4 Local Street Design Refer to engineering comments N/A

1.7.5 Pedestrians & Cyclists

Refer to engineering comments N/A

1.7.6 Solar Access and Lot Orientation

Applications to consider lot orientation

Acceptable lot orientation proposed.

1.7.7 Stormwater Management

Stormwater to be detained on-site. Complies The development is






designed to permit stormwater to drain to the street.

1.7.8 Utility Services All lots shall have adequate provision of utility services.

Complies Reticulated water and sewer are available, as are electricity and telephone services.

Chapter C.4 – Land Use Conflict and Buffer Zones This chapter of Council’s DCP defines separation distances and other methods of reducing conflict between opposing land uses. This chapter of the DCP is relevant to the subject development application due to the location of a coal haulage railway line located within 15 metres of the south-eastern boundary of the site. Railway lines are considered to be a Category C development which is defined as a use which impacts by way of noise, dust vibration, odour or waste production and can range from causing nuisance or discomfort to humans, to being a risk to health and well-being. In accordance with this chapter of Council’s DCP, a minimum buffer distance of 100 metres is recommended between any new residential development and existing rail line. Further, compliance with the following guidelines is also recommended:

• Compliance with State Rail guidelines for development in proximity to rail lines.

• Compliance with the State Rail guideline entitled “Rail Related Noise and Vibration” and the “Department of Planning - 'Development Near Railway Corridors and Busy Roads - Interim Guideline”.

• Buffer zones are recommended by State Rail where possible, with an acoustic

report required to determine the actual buffer depending on conditions and topography, etc.

The entire site is located within 100 metres of the railway line and the applicant was advised that, in the event he was planning on pursuing the proposed subdivision, he would be required to lodge an acoustic report to address the impact of the railway line on future residential development of the site. It is confirmed that an acoustic report was not lodged in support of the application. Section 79(C)(1)(a)(iiia) The Provision of any Plan ning Agreement that has been entered into under Section 94F, or any draft Planni ng Agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under Section 93F No such agreement has been proposed as part of this application.






Section 79(C)(1)(a)(iv) The Regulations There are no matters prescribed by the Regulations that apply to this development. Section 79(C)(1)(b) The likely impacts of the devel opment, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts on the locality As demonstrated by the above assessment, the proposed development is likely to have a significant impact on both the natural and built environments, and the social and economic conditions of the locality. Further intensification of residential development through subdivision is considered unacceptable taking into account the flood affectation of the site. Section 79(C)(1)(c) The suitability of the site As demonstrated by the above assessment, the site is considered to be unsuitable for the development as it is flood affected and the intensification of residential development through subdivision of flood prone is not supported. The NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2005 does not support the intensification of development through subdivision in a floodplain as it elevates risks associated with loss to life and property. Section 79(C)(1)(d) Any submissions made in accorda nce with this Act or the Regulations The Development Application was publicly exhibited for a period of 15 days between 13 November 2012 and 28 November 2012 with two (2) submissions received raising the following concerns:

• The impact of the adjacent coal haulage railway line on the future residential occupants of the site and compliance with Council’s DCP for Land Use Conflict and Buffer Zones; and

• Impact of stormwater flow on adjacent properties. As previously discussed, in the event the applicant wished to pursue the proposed subdivision, he was advised that he would be required to lodge an acoustic report to address the issue of noise and vibration from the adjacent railway line. However, due to the extent of flooding over the site, precluding intensification of development on the land, the applicant did not prepare or lodge an acoustic report. The issue of stormwater flow would normally be addressed through appropriate conditions of consent and the installation of stormwater drainage. However, due to the extent of flood affectation of the site, it was inappropriate that the application proceed through to detailed design stage. Section 79(C)(1)(e) The public interest The public interest is served through the detailed assessment of this Development Application under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Environmental Planning Instruments and Council Policies. Based on the above assessment, it Is considered that the proposed development is contrary to the public interest.






SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS

In the event the application is approved, Section 94 Contributions would be payable for the proposal, as follows: Calculations District Open Space $2,426.00

Local Open Space (Land & Works) $0.00 District Community Facilities (Halls) $1,486.00 District Community Facilities (Libraries) $396.00 District Community Facilities (Bushfire) $110.00 District Roads – Urban Areas $1,850.00 District Roads – Rural Areas $0.00 Local Roads $0.00 Local Drainage $0.00 Flood Mitigation - Nulkaba $0.00 Studies (Plan Preparation) $140.00 Flood Study - Abermain South $0.00 Plan Administration $530.00 Total S94 Contribution - Subdivision $6,938.00

INTERNAL REFERRALS

The Development Application was referred to the following Council officers for comment: • Council’s Consultant Development Engineer Council’s Consultant Development Engineer did not support the proposed subdivision due to the severe flood affectation of the land (flood levels provided previously in this report) and implications to life, property and rescue services. Walk out evacuation would not be possible from the site at times of peak flooding due to a flooding depth of 1.7 metres at the front of the site and roadway. • Council’s Infrastructure Planning Engineer

The applicant questioned the accuracy of flood levels in Council’s adopted Black Creek Flood Study 2010 and as such, Council’s Infrastructure Planning Engineer contacted






Council’s Flooding Consultants who are presently completing a Flood Risk Management Study and Plan for the Black Creek Catchment, which includes the area of Bellbird. These consultants have verified the accuracy of flood levels contained within Council’s adopted Flood Study for Black Creek. EXTERNAL REFERRALS

The Development Application was not required to be referred to any external agencies for comment. RISK IMPLICATIONS

Local Government Act 1993 – Sections 731 & 733 The following information is provided for information purposes: The subject land has been identified as being flood prone. The impact of flooding is the principle issue in the planning assessment warranting refusal of the application. Section 731 of the Local Government Act 1993 states as follows:

‘A matter or thing done by the Minister, the Director-General, a council, a Councillor, a member of a committee of the council or an employee of the council or any person acting under the direction of the Minister, the Director-General, the councillor a committee of the council does not, if the matter or thing was done in good faith for the purpose of executing this or any other Act, and for and on behalf of the Minister, the Director-General, the council or a committee of the council, subject a Councillor, a member, an employee or a person so acting personally to any action, liability, claim or demand:

In part, Section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993 states as follows:

(1) A council does not incur any liability in respect of:

(a) any advice furnished in good faith by the council relating to the likelihood of any land being flooded or the nature or extent of any such flooding, or

(b) anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the council in so far as

it relates to the likelihood of land being flooded or the nature or extent of any such flooding.

Amongst other things, Section 733 of the Act applies to the assessment and determination of development applications.






CONCLUSION

The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and all relevant instruments and policies. The subject site is flood prone and located within a floodway, and as such, is considered to be unsuitable for the development. The intensification of development through subdivision in a floodplain elevates risks associated with loss to life and property. Accordingly, Development Application No. 8/2012/570/1 is recommended for refusal due to the reasons contained in this report.

ENCLOSURES

1 Submissions 2

Pages 2 Subdivision Plan 1

Page 3 Confidential Enclosures - This matter is considered to be confidential under the

report contains alleged contraventions of any code of conduct requirements applicable under section 440

2 Pages






REASONS FOR REFUSAL: 1. Insufficient information has been submitted to assess acoustic impacts resulting from

the existing noise source on the proposed residential lots. 2. The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 7.3 of the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan

2011 (Flood Planning) (Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

3. The site is considered unsuitable for the development as it will intensify residential

development within the floodplain (Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

4. The proposed development is not in the public interest (Section 79C(1)(e) of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).




Strategy and Sustainability


SUBJECT: SUBMISSION TO NSW GOVERNMENT DRAFT STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (MINING, PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES) AMENDMENT (COAL SEAM GAS EXCLUSION ZONES)

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Executive Manager - Natural En vironment Planning - Ian Turnbull

SUMMARY The NSW Government called for submissions on proposed amendments to the NSW State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) (hereafter referred to as the Mining SEPP). Council staff have made two submissions on this draft amendment and this report seeks Council’s endorsement of the submissions.

RECOMMENDATION That Council endorse the submissions to the NSW Dep artment of Planning & Infrastructure on the draft State Environmental Pla nning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment.

BACKGROUND The NSW Government is amending the Mining SEPP in order to incorporate exclusions from Mining and Coal Seam Gas extraction in a number of defined areas in NSW. These areas include within 2km of urban zones and within the Critical Industry Clusters as identified in Strategic Land Use Plans such as the Upper Hunter. REPORT/PROPOSAL The Government sought comments on the proposed amendments and also nominations from Council for land zoned R5 (Large Lot Residential) to be considered under the “urban” criteria. The department identified that R5 land across the state in some cases could be considered urban and in other cases not. In response they developed a set of criteria for which areas zoned R5 could be assessed against and sought for Council to undertake an assessment and nominate those that they deemed as compliant for the Department to make a determination for inclusion into the SEPP. Staff undertook this assessment and deemed that all of the land within the Cessnock Local Government Area (LGA) met the criteria and should be nominated for inclusion in the SEPP. In addition, a submission was made on Council’s behalf reaffirming its desire to have Coal Seam Gas excluded from certain areas of the LGA including the Vineyards District and Wollombi Valley. Due to the timing of the public exhibition deadline, the submission was made without Council endorsement.






OPTIONS Option 1 – Council endorse the submissions. This option is preferred as the submissions reflect previous resolutions of the Council.

Option 2 – Council amend the unendorsed submission.

Option 3 – Council not endorse the submission. CONSULTATION Strategic Land Use Planning Staff. STRATEGIC LINKS a. Delivery Program N/A b. Other Plans N/A IMPLICATIONS a. Policy and Procedural Implications Nil b. Financial Implications Nil c. Legislative Implications N/A d. Risk Implications Nil e. Other Implications Nil CONCLUSION The submissions to the NSW Government reflect Council’s past resolutions and the desires of the community in relation to the expansion of the Coal Seam Gas industry within the Local Government Area.






ENCLOSURES

1 Submission 1 - Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Coal Seam Gas Exclusion Zones) 2013

1 Page

2 Submission 2 - Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Coal Seam Gas Exclusion Zones) 2013

1 Page






SUBJECT: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF COAL SEAM GAS EXTRACTION

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Executive Manager - Natural En vironment Planning - Ian Turnbull

SUMMARY Council has been approached to participate in a collaborative investment project being undertaken by Environmental Evidence Australia. The project will see the undertaking of four systematic reviews that will investigate and characterize the potential impacts of Coal Seam Gas extraction. This report will provide information and make recommendation to Council on its potential participation in the project.

RECOMMENDATION That Council forward the proposal from Environmenta l Evidence Australia to Hunter Councils Incorporated for their consideration and r ecommendation for investment.

BACKGROUND Environmental Evidence Australia recently wrote to Council seeking investment in its collaborative project to investigate the environmental effects of Coal Seam Gas (CSG) extraction. The project was initiated by the Border Rivers Catchment Management Authority and will provide a comprehensive review of the best available evidence for the key impact areas relating to CSG extraction. These areas are; the biophysical impacts of drilling, the biophysical impacts of hydraulic fracturing, the biophysical impacts of water disposal on site and the social impacts of CSG developments. The project methodology is outlined in Enclosure 1. The project has been scoped by Environmental Evidence Australia and a project plan outlined and costed. To date $70,000 of the $129,000 budget for the project has been secured, all of the current funds pledged are from other Catchment Management Authorities in NSW (Including the Hunter Central Rivers). REPORT/PROPOSAL The value of this study to clarify the impacts of CSG extraction from an evidence base is acknowledged. The information would provide justification for Council to state a position in relation to the industry based upon fact. The information which will be forthcoming from this study will be of use for each of the Council’s in the Hunter who have CSG activities either existing or proposed. It is therefore recommended that this matter be referred to the Hunter Councils Incorporated for consideration.






OPTIONS There are a number of options available to Council in this instance;

1. Fund the project directly. Council has not allocated in its 2013/14 budget any funding for a project such as this.

Any allocation would need to be undertaken as part of a quarterly review process.

2. Not fund the project. Council has indicated that one of the primary concerns with Coal Seam Gas is the

lack of understanding of the impacts of the activity. This project will address this issue.

3. Adopt the recommendation. Hunter Councils Incorporated have illustrated an interest in CSG in the past through

its resolution to initiate a technical working group on CSG. CONSULTATION Group Leader Strategy and Sustainability. STRATEGIC LINKS a. Delivery Program N/A b. Other Plans Nil IMPLICATIONS a. Policy and Procedural Implications N/A b. Financial Implications A financial contribution from Cessnock Council is optional. Environmental Evidence Australia have not specified a amount it is seeking for the project. The project will not commence however until they have reached their target. c. Legislative Implications N/A d. Risk Implications Nil






e. Other Implications Nil CONCLUSION The lack of true evidence of the impacts of Coal Seam Gas activities has been a key determinant in the past resolutions of Cessnock Council. This project would provide evidence by which Council may make a more considered decision and provide valuable information to the community, not only within the LGA but the broader Hunter region. It is appropriate that Council’s within the region collectively fund the evidence gathering and its analysis.

ENCLOSURES

1 Systematic Review of the Potential Impacts of Coal Seam Gas Extraction - Environmental Evidence Australia - This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (di) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

26 Pages






SUBJECT: CESSNOCK PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE - SCREENING OF FILMS

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Integrated Planning & Strategi c Property Manager - Bronwyn Rumbel

SUMMARY This report canvasses the possibility of screening films at the Cessnock Performing Arts Centre on a semi-regular basis.

RECOMMENDATION That Council receive the report and note the inform ation.

BACKGROUND At its meeting on 20 March 2013 Council considered Notice of Motion BN7/2013 from Councillor Campbell and resolved:

“That a report be presented to Council on the possibility of screening films at the Cessnock Performing Arts Centre on a semi-regular basis.”

REPORT/PROPOSAL The Performing Arts Centre was opened in November 2008 and since that time has built a reputation as a cultural facility providing quality arts events and performance experiences for the community. Film Screenings at the Performing Arts Centre Free film screenings have been part of the Performing Arts Centre’s program since 2010 and contribute to achieving the objectives in the community strategic plan, Cessnock 2020, of promoting social connections and fostering an articulate and creative community. Films are generally scheduled to coincide with designated State and National community celebrations such as Remembrance Day, Seniors’ Week, NAIDOC Week, and Harmony Day and are generally sourced from organisations that provide films either free-of-charge or at a token cost. These events are often presented in partnership with community organisations that have limited or no resources to contribute to advertising and promotion. While attendance figures have varied, overall they could be considered poor (although they may be improved with a larger advertising spend). The next film to be screened at the Performing Arts Centre will be “The Sapphires”, presented in partnership with the Samaritans Neighbourhood Centre, as a NAIDOC Week event at 2.00pm on 12 July 2013.






Current technical capacity for film screenings The Performing Arts Centre does not have a ‘screen’ nor a ‘commercial’ film quality projector. To date, films have been projected on to the cyclorama at the rear of the stage. The cyclorama is a sharks-tooth netting material designed to reflect light in a live performance context and because of its weave it does not reflect the light at 100%. The Centre uses a 3,000 lumens data projector for theatre performances and conference presentations and, although not ideal, it can also be used to project films. This projector does not have sufficient brightness or resolution to provide exceptionally clear high definition images. Requirements to provide high standard film screenin gs The following additional equipment would be required to provide high standard film screenings at the Performing Arts Centre:

Item Estimated Cost

High definition screen $40,000 Data processing/DCI 5K projector* $98,000 Sound processing/amplification $10,000 Speaker system $70,000 Surround sound system $9,000 Installation costs $6,000 Total $233,000

* This is an entirely different type of screening system than is currently in use at the Performing Arts Centre. This commercial film screening projector has an in-built hard-drives and audio processors.

Films would also incur the following operating costs per screening:

Item Estimated Cost

Installation and dismantling process * $448 Projectionist $120 Cleaning $140 Ushers $240 Advertising $360 Licensing ** $700 Total $2,008

* The venue will need to be set up and dismantled (in particular the screen and sound system) for each series of cinema screenings.

** The licensing fee is set by the copyright owner and takes into consideration: the venue equipment, number of seats, number of screenings and the relationship to other cinema centres. It should also be noted that applying for a licence to screen a film does not automatically mean that it will be granted.

Alternative Film Screening Venues The alternatives for local film enthusiasts include a cinema complex at Maitland and a drive-in theatre at Heddon Greta.






In addition, there are a number of free outdoor cinemas operating locally including Newcastle Permanent’s Cinema Under the Stars, and Peden’s Hotel which operates as NSW Big Screens using an outdoor screen. OPTIONS Option 1 – Further investigate the potential for screening of films at the Performing Arts Centre. Not recommended. Option 2 – Do not proceed with the concept of screening films at the Performing Arts Centre. Recommended. The Performing Arts Centre is 28 kilometres from the nearest cinema complex which offers a range of films on different days and times and fulfils audience expectations of a contemporary cinema experience. Many local residents travel to major commercial centres such as Maitland, Charlestown and Glendale to, not only take in a film, but to also take advantage of the other services and shopping experiences offered at these centres. CONSULTATION The Performing Arts Centre Coordinator prepared the initial draft of this report. STRATEGIC LINKS a. Delivery Program The Cessnock Performing Arts Centre is a valuable piece of social infrastructure supporting the community’s desired outcome of: A connected, safe and creative community. IMPLICATIONS a. Policy and Procedural Implications N/A b. Financial Implications There would be additional one-off capital costs estimated at $233,000 plus ongoing additional operational costs estimated at $2,008 per screening that have not been included in the draft 2013-14 budget. c. Legislative Implications N/A d. Risk Implications N/A






e. Other Implications Any film screenings at the Performing Arts Centre would need to be scheduled around the advertised program and may prohibit the centre from taking advantage of commercial touring productions that often request blocks of dates to be penciled into the calendar pending the finalization of tours. CONCLUSION It is recommended that Council receive and note the report and not progress with the screening of films at the Performing Arts Centre.

ENCLOSURES

There are no enclosures for this report






SUBJECT: PLANNING PROPOSAL - ROSE HILL, MILLFIELD

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Strategic Landuse Planning Man ager - Peter Mann

APPLICATION NUMBER: 18/2011/6/1

PROPOSAL: ROSE HILL, MILLFIELD

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:

LOT 12, DP 1181682

PROPERTY ADDRESS: MILLFIELD ROAD, MILLFIELD

ZONE (CURRENT): RU2 RURAL LANDSCAPE

ZONE (PROPOSED): R5 LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL

OWNER: FAME COVE THREE PTY LTD

APPLICANT: HARDIE HOLDINGS

SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of a planning proposal known as “Rose Hill” located at Millfield Road and Eleventh Ave, Millfield. The planning proposal is for a maximum of 100 lots and proposes to rezone land from RU2 Rural Landscape with a minimum lot size of 40 hectares to R5 Large Lot Residential with a minimum lot size of 4,000m².

RECOMMENDATION That Council:

1. Forward a Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under s.56 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 seeking a gateway determination to:

a) rezone the subject site from RU2 Rural Landscape to R5 Large Lot Residential; and

b) amend the Minimum Lot Size Map for the subject s ite from 40 hectares to 4,000m².

2. Require the applicant to update the following st udies as a minimum to

specifically address the Planning Proposal:

a) Ecological Inventory; b) Flora & Fauna Assessment; c) Archaeological Survey and Constraints Study;






d) Traffic and Accessibility Assessment; e) Environmental Site Assessment; f) Preliminary Geotechnical and Hydro-geological St udy; and g) Flooding, Drainage and Stormwater Management.

BACKGROUND The subject site is part of a previous rezoning proposal known as Sanctuary Villages. In January 2006, a request to the Minister for Planning requested that the Sanctuary Villages planning proposal be considered as a State Significant Site and Part 3A Major Project under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Consideration of the planning proposal was deferred pending review and finalisation of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy (October 2006) and discussions with the Department of Planning (now known as the Department of Planning and Infrastructure) and the Department of Environment and Conservation (now known as Office of Environment and Heritage) regarding a suitable environmental offset scheme on 22 December 2006. The planning proposal was reported to Council on 5 July 2006 (Report No. 88/2006) as being inconsistent with the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy and requiring a Deed of Agreement with the NSW Government outlining over 12,000 hectares of conservation land dedication in return for the recognition of the development potential of 3280 hectares in an Environmental Land Offset Scheme across the Lower Hunter. On 18 June 2007, the Minister for Planning agreed to consider land adjacent to “Sanctuary Villages” as a State Significant Site for listing in Schedule 3 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Projects 2005) and was placed on exhibition from 3 September 2008 until 6 October 2008. In October 2009 the Planning Assessment Commission of New South Wales recommended approval based on a merit assessment of a Concept Plan and Stage 1 Project Plan for the “Sanctuary Villages” development. Subsequent legal opinion and advice from the Department of Planning in December 2009 advised that the Minister for Planning had no power to determine the application as a result of the decision in the Land and Environment Court (Gwandalan Summerland Point Action Group Inc v Minister for Planning 2009). The Part 3A application was subsequently discontinued. REPORT/PROPOSAL The purpose of this report is to consider a planning proposal for part of Lot 12 DP 1181682 (part of former Sanctuary Villages site) located at Millfield Road and Eleventh Ave, Millfield to rezone the land from RU2 Rural Landscape with a minimum lot size of 40 hectares to R5 Large Lot Residential with a minimum lot size of 4,000 m². Figure 1 below illustrates the location of the subject site (outlined in heavy solid line labelled “SITE”) and former Sanctuary Villages site (outlined in heavy dashed line labelled “SANCTUARY VILLAGES”).






Figure 1: Subject Site The Site The site is located more than 12 vehicle kilometres from Cessnock Central Business District, encompassing approximately 56 hectares of land bounded by Millfield Road to the north-west, large lot residential development to the north, a natural lagoon to the south-west, and rural lands to the east, west and south. The subject site is irregular in shape with a frontage of approximately 650 meters to Millfield Road and 20 meters to Eleventh Avenue. The land is predominately cleared with a small cluster of trees towards the centre of the site and a strip of trees along the Millfield Road Boundary. A Development Application (DA 8/2004/370) has been approved for a 20 lot subdivision adjoining the northern boundary of the subject site. The subject site is also located within close proximity to two urban release areas identified in the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 Urban Release Area Map. One of the urban release areas “CC5” is located directly adjacent to the subject site on the northern side of Millfield Road and is expected to accommodate approximately 125 lots, whilst the other






urban release area “Mount View Road” is located less than 1km to the north-east of the subject site and is expected to accommodate approximately 280 lots. The Proposal The proposal involves amending the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 zoning and minimum lot size provisions for the subject land. Currently zoned RU2 Rural Landscape with a minimum lot size provision of 40ha, the planning proposal proposes to rezone the land to R5 Large Lot Residential with a minimum lot size provision of 4,000 m². Included in the planning proposal is a Proposed Zone Plan illustrating an indicative subdivision pattern accommodating 98 lots (refer Figure 2 below).

Figure 2: Proposed Zone Plan The planning proposal is supported by the following documentation: • Ecological Inventory prepared by Harper Somers O’Sullivan dated July 2005; • Flora & Fauna Assessment & Seven Part Test of Significance prepared by

Environmental Assessments dated July 2011; • Archaeological Survey and Constraints Study prepared by Myall Coast

Archaeological Services dated July 2005; • Traffic and Accessibility Assessment prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff dated May

2008; • Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff dated May 2008 • Preliminary Geotechnical and Hydro-geological Study prepared by Parsons

Brinckerhoff dated May 2008; • Flooding, Drainage and Stormwater Management prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff

dated May 2008;






• Proposed Rural Residential Subdivision Flood Level Comparison drawing prepared by GCA Engineering Solutions dated January 2012; and

• Bushfire Assessment prepared by Firebird Ecosultants dated July 2011 Strategic Context Lower Hunter Regional Strategy The Lower Hunter Regional Strategy was prepared by the New South Wales Government and identifies the subject land as a proposed urban area. The Strategy specifies that New Release Areas are to be based on Neighbourhood Planning Principles and are to accommodate a lot yield of approximately 12 dwellings per hectare. The inclusion of the subject site as a New Release Area in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy was predicated on the Part 3A application known as “Sanctuary Villages” accommodating 700 dwellings at Paxton and Millfield. As described in the background of this report, the Part 3A project was discontinued. Although the subject site is identified in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy as a New Urban Area, it is noted that the planning proposal is inconsistent with the Strategy. More specifically, the planning proposal does not meet the requirements of the Neighbourhood Planning Principles or targeted density yield of 12 dwellings per hectare stipulated by the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy for new urban areas. The Lower Hunter Regional Strategy is currently under review by the New South Wales Government. It is considered that inconsistencies of the planning proposal with the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy are justified in terms that the proposal is a logical connection of the large lot residential precinct of Paxton with the large lot residential precinct of Millfield; the objectives of the proposed R5 Large Lot Residential zoning include requirement that ensure the large residential lots do not hinder the proper and orderly development of urban areas in the future; and the planning proposal contributes to the character, economy and social fabric of the area. Additional to the large lot residential development adjacent to the subject site is low density residential development. It is considered that extending the existing low density residential development pattern across the subject site would place exceeding demand on existing infrastructure and services, however extending the large lot residential development pattern across the subject site, with minor infrastructure upgrades, is considered by the supporting studies to be able to be accommodated by existing infrastructure and services. Finally, the planning proposal provides a transitional arrangement for the longer term vision of urban density housing proposed by the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy, making efficient use of the existing infrastructure available to the area, and maintaining the future potential of the subject site to meet housing targets identified in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy. Cessnock City Wide Settlement Strategy Following the release of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy in 2006, the Cessnock City Wide Settlement Strategy 2003 was reviewed to coordinate with the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy forming what is now known as the Cessnock City Wide Settlement Strategy 2010. The Cessnock City Wide Settlement Strategy identifies land referred to as Sanctuary Villages as a New Release Area having potential for increased development opportunities. Rezoning






of Sanctuary Villages is required by the City Wide Settlement Strategy to have site specific studies supporting the rezoning process. This planning proposal encompasses land that forms part of the Sanctuary Villages land and provides studies supporting the rezoning process. Consistency with State Environmental Planning Polic ies There are no existing or draft State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) that prohibit or restrict the proposed development as outlined in this Planning Proposal. An assessment of relevant SEPPs against the Planning Proposal is provided in the table below. Table 1: Relevant State Environmental Planning Poli cies (SEPPs) SEPP Relevance Consistency and Implications

SEPP 1 - Development Standards

The SEPP makes development standards more flexible. It allows councils to approve a development proposal that does not comply with a set standard where this can be shown to be unreasonable or unnecessary.

This SEPP does not apply to Cessnock Local Government Area following the gazettal of the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011.

SEPP 4 - Development without Consent and Miscellaneous Complying Development

The SEPP allows relatively simple or minor changes of land or building use and certain types of development without the need for formal development applications. The types of development covered in the policy are outlined in the policy.

Nothing in this planning proposal affects the aims and provisions of this SEPP.

SEPP 6 - Number of Storeys in a Building

The SEPP clarifies the reference to storey, floors and levels.


SEPP No. 14 - Coastal Wetlands

Ensures coastal wetlands are preserved and protected for environmental and economic reasons.

Not Applicable

SEPP 15 - Rural Land Sharing Communities

The SEPP provides for multiple occupancy development, with council consent, in rural and non-urban zones, subject to a list of criteria in the policy.

Not Applicable

SEPP No. 19 - Bushland in Urban Areas

Protects bushland in public open space zones and reservations, and to ensure that bush preservation is given a high priority when local environmental plans for urban development are prepared.

Not Applicable

SEPP 21 -Caravan Parks

The SEPP provides for development for caravan parks.

Not Applicable

SEPP 22 - Shops and commercial premises

The SEPP provides for the change of use of commercial premises.

Not Applicable

SEPP 30 - Intensive Agriculture

The SEPP provides considerations for consent for intensive agriculture.

Not Applicable






SEPP 32 - Urban Consolidation (Redevelopment of Urban Land)

The SEPP makes provision for the re-development of urban land suitable for multi-unit housing and related development.

Not Applicable

SEPP 33 - Hazardous & Offensive Development

The SEPP provides considerations for consent for hazardous & offensive development.

Not Applicable

SEPP 36 - Manufactured Homes Estates

The SEPP makes provision to encourage manufactured homes estates through permitting this use where caravan parks are permitted and allowing subdivision.

Not Applicable

SEPP 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

This SEPP applies to land across NSW that is greater than 1 hectare and is not a National Park or Forestry Reserve. The SEPP encourages the conservation and management of natural vegetation areas that provide habitat for koalas to ensure permanent free-living populations will be maintained over their present range.

SEPP 44 encourages the conservation and management of natural vegetation areas that provide habitat for koalas to ensure the permanent free-living populations will be maintained over their present range. Under SEPP 44, potential koala habitat is defined as areas of native vegetation where the trees listed in Schedule 2 of the SEPP constitute at least 15% of the total number of trees in the upper or lower strata of the tree component. An ecological assessment was prepared for the wider study area of the “Sanctuary Villages” project. The area subject to this proposal has no endangered species, given its predominantly cleared nature and current use as grazing land. The area contains only a small patch of remnant trees. Consequently the site as a whole does not constitute ‘Potential Koala Habitat’. As such no further provisions of the policy would apply to the site.

SEPP 50 - Canal Estates

The SEPP bans new canal estates from the date of gazettal, to ensure coastal and aquatic environments are not affected by these developments.

Not Applicable

SEPP 55 - Remediation of Land

This SEPP applies to land across NSW and states that land must not be developed if it is unsuitable for a proposed use because of contamination

The objective of this Policy is to provide a state wide approach to the remediation of contaminated land. Clause 6 of the policy is applicable to the consideration of contamination and remediation in relation to rezoning proposals. Council is required to consider whether there is the






possibility that the land may be contaminated due to past land uses, and if so, whether the land is suitable for its proposed use in its current or remediate state. A preliminary environmental assessment indicates that the majority of the site would not contain contamination likely to impact on potential future residential usage. No further assessment is considered to be required prior to rezoning the land for large lot residential purposes.

SEPP 60 – Exempt and Complying Development

The SEPP provides exempt and complying development codes that have State-wide application, identifying, in the General Exempt Development Code, types of development that are of minimal environmental impact that may be carried out without the need for development consent; and, in the General Housing Code, types of complying development that may be carried out in accordance with a complying development certificate.


SEPP 62 - Sustainable Aquaculture

The SEPP relates to development for aquaculture and to development arising from the rezoning of land and is of relevance for site specific rezoning proposals.

Not Applicable

SEPP 64 - Advertising and Signage

The SEPP aims to ensure that outdoor advertising is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, provides effective communication in suitable locations and is of high quality design and finish.


SEPP 65 - Design Quality of Residential Development

The SEPP relates to residential flat development across the state through the application of a series of design principles. Provides for the establishment of Design Review Panels to provide independent expert advice to councils on the merit of residential flat development.

Not Applicable

SEPP Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004

The SEPP provides for the implementation of BASIX throughout the State.

The provisions of this SEPP will be considered in the assessment of any future residential development upon the site.

SEPP Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability 2004

The SEPP aims to encourage provision of housing for seniors, including residential care facilities. The SEPP provides development standards.

The provisions of this SEPP will be considered in the assessment of any future residential development upon the site.






SEPP Major Development 2005

The SEPP defines certain developments that are major projects to be assessed under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and determined by the Minister for Planning. It also provides planning provisions for State significant sites. In addition, the SEPP identifies the council consent authority functions that may be carried out by Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPPs) and classes of regional development to be determined by JRPPs.

Not Applicable

SEPP Infrastructure 2007

The SEPP provides a consistent approach for infrastructure and the provision of services across NSW, and to support greater efficiency in the location of infrastructure and service facilities.

The provisions of this SEPP require development applications for subdivisions creating greater than 200 lots to be referred to the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) for comment. This proposal is for up to 100 lots, therefore does not trigger referral with RMS.

SEPP Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries 2007

The SEPP aims to provide proper management of mineral, petroleum and extractive material resources and ESD.

Not Applicable

SEPP Temporary Structures 2007

The SEPP provides for the erection of temporary structures and the use of places of public entertainment while protecting public safety and local amenity.

Not Applicable

SEPP Rural Lands 2008

The SEPP aims to facilitate economic use and development of rural lands, reduce land use conflicts and provides development principles.

Not Applicable

SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009

The SEPP provides for an increase in the supply and diversity of affordable rental and social housing in NSW.


SEPP State and Regional Development 2011

The SEPP aims to identify development and infrastructure that is State significant and confer functions on the Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPPs) to determine development applications.

Not Applicable

Ministerial Section 117 Directions Section 117(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 enables the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure to issue directions that Council must address when preparing planning proposals to amend a Local Environmental Plan. Relevant Section 117 Directions to this planning proposal are:






a) Rural Zones; b) Environment Protection Zones; c) Heritage Conservation; d) Residential Zones; e) Caravan Parks and Manufactured Home Estates; f) Home Occupations; g) Integrating Land Use and Transport; h) Acid Sulphate Soils; i) Mine Subsidence and Unstable Land; j) Flood Prone Land; k) Planning for Bushfire Protection; l) Implementation of Regional Strategies; m) Approval and Referral Requirements; and n) Site Specific Provisions Further comments are provided in Table 2 below. Directions not included in Table 2 are considered not to be applicable to the planning proposal. Table 2: Section 117 Directions Direction Comment 1.2 Rural Zones The objective of this direction is to protect the agricultural production value of rural land.

This direction states (in part) that a draft Local Environmental Plan shall not rezone land from a rural zone to a residential, business, industrial, village or tourist zone. The subject site is identified for future urban development in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy and, as such, is considered to be consistent with this direction.

2.1 Environment Protection Zones The objective of this direction is to protect and conserve environmentally sensitive areas.

The planning proposal is considered to be consistent with this direction as the subject site is significantly denuded of vegetation.

2.3 Heritage Conservation The objective of this direction is to conserve items, areas, objects and places of environmental heritage significance and indigenous heritage significance.

An Aboriginal scar tree is located on the subject site. The scar tree is registered on the certificate of title via a positive covenant and will remain protected. Therefore the planning proposal is considered to be consistent with this direction.

3.1 Residential Zones The objective of this direction is to establish a range of housing types that make efficient and effective use of existing infrastructure and services whilst minimising the impact on the environment and resource lands.

This direction states that a planning proposal must: contain a requirement that residential development is not permitted until land is adequately serviced (or arrangements satisfactory to the council, or other appropriate authority, have been made to service it).

Utilities and Infrastructure The planning proposal proposes to be serviced by reticulated water, electricity, telecommunication and reticulated sewer via a pressure sewer system. Details pertaining to the pressure sewer system are proposed to be resolved through the planning proposal process in consultation with Council and Hunter Water. It is acknowledged that the planning proposal complies






Direction Comment with Hunter Water’s requirements under the Water & Sewer Design Manual – Section 6 – Alternative Sewer Systems as a development suitable for investigation. Recreational Infrastructure The subject site is currently serviced by an existing local playing field. It is considered that with further embellishment, the planning proposal would make efficient and effective use of this infrastructure. Recreational infrastructure upgrades could be accommodated through developer contributions either via a Voluntary Planning Agreement or Section 94 Contributions Plan. The planning proposal is considered to be consistent with this direction.

3.2 Caravan Parks and Manufactured Home Estates

The objective of this direction is to provide for a variety of housing types including opportunities for caravan parks and manufactured home estates.

The planning proposal seeks to zone the land from RU2 Rural Landscape to R5 Large Lot Residential. Caravan Parks are a permitted land use in the RU2 zoning and prohibited in the R5 zoning. It is considered that the proposed change in land use is inconsistent with the direction. However, the inconsistency is justified by the identification of the subject site in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy as a future urban release area for residential development.

3.3 Home Occupations The objective of this direction is to encourage the carrying out of low-impact small businesses in dwelling houses.

Home occupations are permitted without consent in the proposed R5 Large Lot Residential Zone. The planning proposal is considered to be consistent with this direction.

3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport The objective of this direction is to ensure that urban development achieves improved access to housing, jobs and services through a variety of means including walking, cycling and public transport, minimises the reliance on private vehicle use, and supports the efficient and viable operation of public transport.

A Traffic Assessment was undertaken for the site by Parsons Brinckerhoff for the wider “Sanctuary Villages” development. The assessment concluded that Millfield’s surrounding roads will continue to operate at satisfactory levels up to and including 100 lots. The traffic assessment was undertaken in May 2008 and does not take into account the cumulative affect of two urban release areas located within 1 kilometre of the subject site and identified in the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011. A new Traffic Assessment will need to be undertaken that is specific to the development proposal and considers the cumulative effect of nearby urban release areas.

4.1 Acid Sulphate Soils The objective of this direction is to avoid significant adverse environmental impacts from the use of land that has a probability of containing acid sulphate soils.

The area is characterized by undulating hills with elevations ranging from 110m – 140m AHD. The soil types present on the site, the mapped soil pH levels (5.5 – 5.6) and the depth of the water table suggests that acid sulphate soils are unlikely to develop as a result of the development.

4.2 Mine Subsidence and Unstable Land The area is not located within a Mine Subsidence






Direction Comment The objective of this direction is to prevent damage to life, property and the environment on land identified as unstable or potentially subject to mine subsidence.

District, and there are currently no known plans to dedicate this area as a district.

4.3 Flood Prone Land The objective of this direction is to ensure that development of flood prone land is consistent with the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy and the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005, and to ensure that the provisions of a Local Environmental Plan on flood prone land is commensurate with flood hazard.

Flood modelling by Parsons Brinckerhoff indicates that the majority of the proposed development site is free of the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability, except for minor drainage lines within the site. Further detailed analysis and assessment of constraints, including the placement of any fill, will be required before final designs at the development application stage.

4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection The objective of this direction is to protect life, property and the environment from bush fire hazards, by discouraging the establishment of incompatible land uses in bush fire prone areas and implementing sound management of bush fire prone areas.

The majority of the site is not mapped as bush fire prone land. A bush fire assessment has been undertaken and concludes the site can be developed to meet requirements of the Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006. The proposal will need to comply with the provisions of Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines and the Rural Fires Act 1997.

5.1 Implementation of Regional Strategies

The objective of this direction is to give legal effect to the vision, land use strategy, policies, outcomes and actions contained in regional strategies.

The planning proposal is inconsistent with the Neighbourhood Planning Principles and dwelling density requirements of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy. Deviation of the planning proposal from the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy is justified in terms that the proposal is a logical connection of the large lot residential precinct of Paxton with the large lot residential precinct of Millfield; and the planning proposal contributes to the character, economy and social fabric of the area. Furthermore, the planning proposal provides a transitional arrangement for the longer term vision of urban density housing proposed by the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy, and makes efficient use of existing infrastructure available to the area.

6.1 Approval and Referral Requirements The objective of this direction is to ensure that Local Environmental Plan provisions encourage the efficient and appropriate assessment of development.

The planning proposal does not include concurrence, consultation or referral provisions and does not identify any development as designated development. The planning proposal is considered to be consistent with this direction.

6.3 Site Specific Provisions The objective of this direction is to discourage unnecessarily restrictive site specific planning controls.

The planning proposal is to enable urban development of up to 100 large lot residential allotments, however the proposal of a 4,000m² minimum lot size enables up to 128 lots. Furthermore, the planning proposal is not consistent with the density yield of 12 dwellings per hectare intended by the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy.






Direction Comment It is considered that site specific planning controls are required to: a) Restrict development to a maximum of 100 lots in

order to be consistent with the planning proposal; and

b) Encourage a subdivision pattern that will not jeopordise the intended purpose of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy in achieving a density yield of 12 dwellings per hectare on the subject site at future time

A site specific chapter in Council’s Development Control Plan will need to be prepared to support the amendment to the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011. The site specific provisions are considered necessary in supporting the planning proposal.

Key issues for consideration: The key issues considered in the assessment of this planning proposal are: 1. Planning Proposal Inconsistencies; 2. Split Zone Lots; 3. Traffic, Transport and Accessibility; 4. Recreation and Community Facilities; 5. Minimum Lot Size; 6. Subdivision Pattern; and 7. Supporting studies. Comments regarding the key issues are provided following: Planning Proposal Inconsistencies There are two inconsistencies in the planning proposal relating to the site boundary and development yield that are considered to be pertinent in the analysis of the proposal. Comments regarding these inconsistencies are provided following: Site Boundary As illustrated in Figure 3 below, a portion of the proposed site overlaps with land zoned E2 Environmental Conservation under the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011. This land also maintains a minimum lot size provision of 80 ha. The planning proposal does not recognise the E2 zoned land as part of the rezoning proposal as Shown in Figure 3 below. It is therefore considered that the planning proposal excludes the land zoned E2 Environmental Conservation and does not apply to it. Should the Planning Proposal be supported by Council, the boundary of the proposal will be adjusted to include only land within the subject site currently zoned RU2 Rural Landscape before progressing the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for Gateway Determination.






Figure 3: Land Use Zoning Map - Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 Development Yield The planning proposal is for a maximum of 100 lots with a minimum lot size of 4,000m². The approximate area of the subject site is 56ha. Depending on resolved subdivision patterns, and allowing for 2.5km of roadway, the subject site has the potential to produce a yield of approximately 128 lots. Development of the subject land beyond 100 lots will trigger the requirement for traffic infrastructure upgrades and will not comply with Hunter Water’s guidelines for pressure sewer systems stipulated by the Water & Sewer Design Manual – Section 6 – Alternative Sewer Systems. A site specific chapter to the Cessnock Development Control Plan 2010 will be required to be prepared to restrict the subdivision layout to a maximum of 100 lots. Split Zone Lots The resultant zoning and minimum lot size proposed by the planning proposal requires the subdivision of land containing more than one zone, namely RU2 Rural Landscape and E2 Environmental Conservation. Under the current Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011, subdivision for the intended purpose of the planning proposal is not permissible. The issue of subdivision in split zone lots affects the whole of Cessnock Local Government Area. It is therefore considered prudent that this matter be resolved as part of Council’s house keeping amendments to the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011. An upcoming report to Council on the Stage 3 house keeping amendments to Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 will address this issue. This however does not prevent the planning proposal progressing to the Gateway at this time. It is noted that subdivision will not be able to occur until the split zone lot amendments are made to the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011, or a boundary realignment is undertaken with the intent of removing E2 Environmental Conservation zoned land from the subject lot.






Supporting Studies Many of the studies provided by the applicant in support of the planning proposal were recycled form the Sanctuary Village proposal previously reported to Council. While aspects of these generally apply to the subject Planning Proposal, certain studies and investigations need to be updated or clarified in a form that specifically addresses the land subject of this planning proposal. This will ensure that all detailed technical issues are clearly addressed and documentation is transparent for the purpose of public exhibition. These studies can be updated as required after the submission of the planning proposal to the Gateway. It is required that the following studies be updated following the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s Gateway Determination: • Ecological Inventory prepared by Harper Somers O’Sullivan dated July 2005; • Flora & Fauna Assessment & Seven Part Test of Significance prepared by

Environmental Assessments dated July 2011; • Archaeological Survey and Constraints Study prepared by Myall Coast

Archaeological Services dated July 2005; • Traffic and Accessibility Assessment prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff dated May

2008; • Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff dated May 2008 • Preliminary Geotechnical and Hydro-geological Study prepared by Parsons

Brinckerhoff dated May 2008; and • Flooding, Drainage and Stormwater Management prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff

dated May 2008. Traffic, Transport and Accessibility The Traffic and Accessibility Assessment prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff dated May 2008 covered the broader Sanctuary Villages area. The assessment refers to the Rose Hill (Millfield Precinct) area specifically and states that up to 100 lots can be accommodated by the current intersection arrangements at the northern end of Millfield Road. The assessment continues to recommend that: • Road works and/or intersection upgrades may be required when more than 100 lots

are developed in the Millfield Precinct. Additional analysis should be undertaken at the time of future project applications for the future stages of development.

The Traffic and Accessibility Assessment dated May 2008 is considered to be outdated and is provided in isolation from two Urban Release Areas identified in the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011. Referred to as Mount View Road and Millfield CC5 (refer Figure 4 below), the two urban release areas are located within 1km of the subject site and are expected to accommodate an additional 405 lots. The cumulative impact on infrastructure produced by the proposal in combination with the two urban release areas has not been considered in the planning proposal. A new Traffic and Accessibility Assessment will need to be undertaken that is specific to the proposed development and considers the cumulative effect of the Mount View Road and CC5 urban release areas identified in the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011.






Figure 4: Urban Release Area Map - Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 Recreation and Community Facilities The cumulative impact of the planning proposal and nearby urban release areas in the Millfield precinct will require the need to upgrade existing recreational and community facilities servicing Millfield to meet current standards. Minimum Lot Size The Lower Hunter Regional Strategy anticipates the average density yield within new urban release areas to achieve a density of 12 dwellings per hectare. With a proposed yield of 100 lots over 56ha, the planning proposal is expected to produce a yield of approximately 1.8 dwellings per hectare. Subdivision Pattern It is considered that the indicative subdivision provided at Figure 2 will not be the final subdivision pattern. However, concern is raised regarding the ability for further subdivision in the future in relation to achieving the urban density of 12 dwellings per hectare intended for urban release areas by the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy. In particular, the road layout






illustrated in Figure 7 below sterilises the subject site from achieving a 12 dwellings per hectare density.

Figure 7: Minimum Lot Size Map - Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 To prevent sterilising the subject site from an urban density envisaged by the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy, a Development Control Plan is required guiding a subdivision pattern that is conducive to a future density of approximately 12 dwellings per hectare. OPTIONS The Council has the following options. 1. Progress the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for

’Gateway’ determination under s.56 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as recommended by this report.

2. Not proceed with the Planning Proposal for the following reasons:

---------------------- ----------------------

(To be provided by Council). CONSULTATION • Manager Strategic Asset Planning • Executive Manager Natural Environment Planning • Group Leader Strategy and Sustainability






STRATEGIC LINKS a. Delivery Program N/A b. Other Plans The inconsistencies of the Planning Proposal with the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy are justified in the body of this report. The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with relevant State Environmental Planning Policies and Section 117 Ministerial Directions. Further detail pertaining to the State Environmental Planning Policies and Section 117 Ministerial Directions are provided in the body of this report. IMPLICATIONS a. Policy and Procedural Implications The subject site is identified as an urban release area in both the Cessnock City Wide Settlement Strategy 2010 and the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy. b. Financial Implications The Planning Proposal is considered to be a Category C rezoning application and attracts a fee of $34,875.00. c. Legislative Implications Councils are required to exercise their plan-making functions under Divisions 4 and 5 of Part 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in accordance with the relevant Section 117 Ministerial Directions. The planning proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant Section 117 Ministerial Directions. d. Risk Implications NIL e. Other Implications Nil CONCLUSION Inconsistencies of the Planning Proposal with the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy are considered to be justified in terms that the Planning Proposal provides a transitional arrangement for land identified as a New Release Area in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy, makes efficient and effective use of existing infrastructure and is considered to be a logical connection of the large lot residential precinct of Paxton with the large lot residential precinct of Millfield.






The planning proposal presented for Councils consideration represents a transitional development arrangement that suites the character of the subject site’s location, while maintaining the provision for future housing at urban density. Provided the development is managed through a suitably formulated development control plan to maintain future subdivision potential, the proposal is considered satisfactory for progressing to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for Gateway Determination. In this regard, the proposal: a. offers Council flexibility in considering future development of the land; b. is consistent with being able to meet housing densities identified in the LHRS at a

future date; and c. allows for possible policy changes under the new Lower Hunter Regional Strategy to

be prepared in 2013. Therefore, the proposal to rezone the subject land from RU2 Rural Landscape to R5 Large Lot Residential, and amend the Minimum Lot Size from 40 hectares to 4,000m² under the Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 is considered satisfactory as it is identified in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy as a New Release Area and strategically justified in terms of the inconsistencies with the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy. Should Council determine to support the proposal, a planning proposal will be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for Gateway Determination. The Gateway Determination is likely to contain conditions that will need to be satisfied before exhibition can commence. Once the planning proposal is exhibited for public comment it will be reported back to Council for determination.

ENCLOSURES







SUBJECT: HUNTLEE STAGE 1 PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTIONS

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Group Leader Strategy & Sustai nability - Louise Gee

SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to consider a proposed offer made by LWP Property Group Pty Ltd towards infrastructure contributions in relation to Huntlee Stage 1 Subdivision and Infrastructure Works, with the intention of entering into a Planning Agreement between Cessnock City Council and LWP Property Group Pty Ltd.

RECOMMENDATION That Council:

• Continue negotiations with LWP Property Group Pty L td with the intention of entering into a Planning Agreement that minimises o r nullifies Council’s risks;

• Engage a Quantity Surveyor to assess the financial risk to Council; and

• Seek to amend the Huntlee Development Control Plan Minimum Lot Size controls with the Department of Planning and Infras tructure to reflect the intent of the approved Huntlee Stage 1 Subdivision and Inf rastructure Works.

BACKGROUND Following the Huntlee New Town Site (Huntlee) being declared a potential State Significant Site on 16 August 2010, the Minister for Planning gazetted an amendment to Schedule 3 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 on 31 December 2010 to include Huntlee. Subsequently, an application under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 was lodged with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure on 28 October 2010 seeking approval for Stage 1 of Huntlee, known as the Stage 1 Project Application. Despite the repeal of Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Stage 1 Project Application was assessed under transitional provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 before recently being approved by the Planning Assessment Commission on 24 April 2013. Totalling 355.8 hectares, the approved subdivision and infrastructure works for Huntlee Stage 1 encompasses: • Subdivision to create 1,473 residential allotments, 14 super lots, 1 allotment for a

primary school; landscaped areas, drainage, public open space and recreation areas; • Associated bulk earthworks; and • Infrastructure including roads, drainage works and utility services provision.






Previous Draft Planning Agreement Council considered a Draft Planning Agreement for Huntlee New Town Stage 1 local infrastructure at its Ordinary Meeting of 17 June 2009 (Report No. EE31/2009). Council resolved that:

1. Council not accept the Planning Agreement (Version 5 dated 20 April 2009) and

continue to negotiate with the proponent on the final content and make up of the Planning Agreement document as required by the Part 3A approval.

2. That Council inform the Minister for Planning of their decision in this matter. 3. That Council inform the proponent of their decision in this matter.

REPORT/PROPOSAL The purpose of this report is to consider a proposed offer made by LWP Property Group Pty Ltd towards infrastructure contributions in relation to Huntlee Stage 1 Subdivision and Infrastructure Works, with the intention of entering into a Planning Agreement between Cessnock City Council and LWP Property Group Pty Ltd. In assessing the offer made to Council this report will first consider, in relation to local contributions for Huntlee Stage 1, the current state of affairs stipulated by the Planning Assessment Commission’s recent approval. The report will then provide comments in relation to the offer made to Council by LWP Property Group as it stands identifying any risks to Council associated with the offer and describing the options available to Council. Current State of Local Contributions Before considering the offer made to Council, it is considered necessary to understand the current state of affairs in relation to local contributions. Conditions E3, E4 and E5 of the Planning Assessment Commission’s Conditions of Approval for Huntlee Stage 1 Project Application state the following:

E3. Dedication of Local Open Space, Roads and Drain age Allotments Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate for each substage: a) The areas of local open space shown as local and district parks on

'Public Realm Open Space Provision' plan within the 'Huntlee Landscape Concept Report' (Hassell Aug 2012) as to be amended in line with "Huntlee- Stage 1 Concept Master Plan dwg UD4-401 01.02.13" (Roberts Day Feb 2013) are to be dedicated to Council, free of cost.

b) The areas of land required for drainage within the relevant substage and as shown in relevant plans within Appendix A of the PPR as to be amended in line with "Huntlee- Stage 1 Concept Master Plan dwg UD4-401 01.02.13" (Roberts Day Feb 2013) are to be dedicated to Council, free of cost.

c) The areas of land required for local roads within the relevant substage and as shown on Plan "121129 Overall Lot Plan_1 to 3000" (Roberts Day Dec 2012) as to be amended in line with "Huntlee- Stage 1 Concept Master Plan dwg UD4-401 01.02.13" (Roberts Day Feb 2013) are to be dedicated to Council, free of cost.






d) All landscaping and embellishment of local open space shall be completed prior to dedication to Council and maintained to the satisfaction of Council by the proponent for a period of 5 years after dedication.

e) All proposed works and construction of drainage infrastructure, and local road reserves within the relevant substage shall be completed prior to dedication to Council and maintained to the satisfaction of Council by the proponent for a period of 5 years after dedication.

E4. Local Contributions In addition to the dedication of roads, open space and drainage, the following contributions set out in the following list must be paid to the relevant Council, or provided as works in kind, in accordance with the provisions of Section 94 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979:

• 0.5 ha of land for a Neighbourhood Centre.

• Provision of a Neighbourhood Centre Building, or a cash contribution of $1,250,000

• 0.9 ha of land for a Multi Function Centre

• Provision of Stage 1 of the Multi Function Centre, or a cash contribution of $5,000,000

• Cash contribution of $66,000 towards a Cemetery Wall and the Branxton Swimming Pool at Miller Park.

E5. Alternative Local Contributions Arrangements Should the Applicant and Council agree to alternative local developer contributions arrangements or items (e.g. through a Planning Agreement), these may replace the contributions specified in conditions E3 and E4 only with the agreement of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate.

Matters for Consideration The key matters considered in assessing the current status of local contributions are: 1. Minimum Lot Size Controls; 2. Condition E3 a); 3. Condition E4; 4. Additional Contributions; 5. Embellishment of Open Space; 6. Dedication of Open Space; and 7. Road Upgrades within North Rothbury. Comments regarding these key matters are provided following:






Minimum Lot Size Controls The Draft Huntlee Development Control Plan, exhibited by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure from 30 January 2013 to 1 March 2013, contains controls in relation to the minimum lot size permissible within Huntlee Stage 1. These controls enable a higher density residential development than that provided by the Huntlee Stage 1 approval. To date, all local infrastructure projections have been calculated based on the yield expected by the Huntlee Stage 1 approval. Any increase to this yield would present a financial risk to Council. Therefore, the potential for higher density development presented by the Huntlee Development Control Plan’s Minimum Lot Size controls also presents a potential risk to Council in terms of financing infrastructure and ensuring that the community of Huntlee has sufficient community infrastructure provisions. The issue of risk to Council presented by the minimum lot size controls within the Huntlee Development Control Plan has been raised with both the proponents LWP Property Group, and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure during Council’s various submissions to the Draft Huntlee Development Control Plan. A workshopped solution to the satisfaction of Council has been proposed by LWP Property Group and submitted to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure as an amendment to the Draft Huntlee Development Control Plan. It is noted that submissions to the Draft Huntlee Development Control Plan are currently being reviewed by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure before adoption. It is also noted that the Planning Assessment Commission’s Determination Report for Huntlee Stage 1 dated 24 April 2013 recommended further discussion take place between the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and relevant Councils (Cessnock and Singleton) on the Draft Huntlee Development Control Plan with the aim of achieving consistency with Councils’ policies. Condition E3 a) Condition E3 a) listed above refers to areas of local open space shown as local and district parks on the 'Public Realm Open Space Provision' plan within the 'Huntlee Landscape Concept Report' (refer Figure 1 below) as being dedicated to Council, free of cost. It is noted that the Public Realm Open Space Provision plan does not specifically refer to land identified as local or district parks, however it is considered that the intention of condition E3 a) is to dedicate land identified in the Public Realm Open Space Provision plan as “Local sports ground”, “Local playground” and “District park / playground”. It is unclear whether this also includes “Urban Parks” and / or “Riparian Parks”. Should Council not pursue an alternative local contribution arrangement in accordance with condition E5 listed above, it is recommended that legal advice be sought as to the extent of land identified for dedication to Council, free of cost. Specific concern is raised over the dedication of land referred to as Riparian Park in Figure 1 below. Further details regarding the concerns surrounding the Riparian Park’s (also referred to as Core Riparian Zones) is provided in the body of this report.






Figure 1: Public Realm Open Space Provision (Huntlee Landscape Concept Report – August 2012, HA SSELL p.10)






Condition E4 The scheduled items in the Planning Assessment Commission’s approved Condition E4 above correlates directly with Appendix M of the Huntlee Stage 1 Subdivision and Infrastructure Works Preferred Project Report submitted to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (the Department) in October 2012. Council have been in continued negotiation with LWP Property Group prior to, and following, the lodgement of the Preferred Project Report, and have made considerable improvements during these negotiations subsequent to the understanding that the offer made in Appendix M of the Preferred Project Report would not adequately service the local community. At a workshop held between Council and LWP Property Group on 4 February 2013, it was agreed that the schedule provided at Enclosure 2 would provide the basis for the level of community infrastructure provided for in Stage 1 of Huntlee. It is also noted that the cash contribution of $1,250,000 offered for the provision of a Neighbourhood Centre Building is the same figure offered under the Draft Huntlee New Town – Stage 1 Planning Agreement dated 20 April 2009 (refer Enclosure 3). The contribution value of $1,250,000 dated April 2009 is, in accordance with the Australian Bureau of Statistics Consumer Price Index, equivalent to the value of $1,381,081 in October 2012. Therefore, the cash contribution of $1,250,000 offered in October 2012 is considered to be a reduction of $131,081 off the cash contribution offered in April 2009. The same principle applies to all monetary contributions offered in the Draft Planning Agreement in April 2009 that have not had their figures indexed. Additional Contributions There are no conditions relevant to Huntlee Stage 1 that prevents Council from obtaining contributions under any Section 94 Plan currently applying to the land. Council’s Residential Section 94 Contributions Plan applies to the whole of Cessnock Local Government Area and attracts a contribution towards infrastructure such as open space, recreational and sporting facilities, community facilities, roads, bridges and traffic management. Subject to further legal advice, contributions required under Council’s Residential Section 94 Contributions Plan would be claimable from any development approved within Stage 1 of Huntlee. Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council reserves the right to make a Section 94 Plan. Should Council wish to pursue the making of an additional Section 94 Plan for Stage 1 of Huntlee, it is recommended that legal advice be sought. Embellishment of Open Space It is noted that condition E3 d) listed above requires the embellishment of open space; however the standard of which the space is to be embellished is not specified by the conditions. Dedication of Open Space Condition E3 a) listed above requires the dedication of local open space land referenced by the 'Public Realm Open Space Provision' plan within the 'Huntlee Landscape Concept






Report' (refer Figure 1 above). The maintenance of this land, as specified by condition E3 d), requires the proponent to maintain the land to Council’s satisfaction for a period of 5 years after dedication. Following the 5 year period, Council will be required to maintain the land in perpetuity. A preliminary analysis of Council’s rate structure identifies that Council’s financial capacity of maintaining open space land is restricted to the provision of sports fields and playgrounds consistent with the adopted guidelines provided by Council’s Recreation and Open Space Strategic Plan. The provision of open space beyond that required by Council’s guidelines presents a financial risk to Council in maintaining the land. Road Upgrades within North Rothbury Council have identified between $1,480,000 and $3,136,000 of road upgrades required within the North Rothbury area as a result of the Huntlee Stage 1 development. These infrastructure upgrades have not been recognised in the conditions of approval for Huntlee Stage 1 issued by the Planning Assessment Commission. Risk to Council The risks to Council involved in accepting the current state of local contributions offered by the Huntlee Stage 1 approved conditions of consent include the following: a.) The Minimum Lot Size Controls stipulated by the Huntlee Development Control Plan

present a very high level of financial risk to Council in the event that Huntlee Stage 1 is developed at the density currently permissible by the controls;

b.) Pending a review from a Quantity Surveyor, the monetary contributions identified in condition E4 of the Huntlee Stage 1 approval is considered to be insufficient;

c.) Additional local infrastructure beyond that listed in the conditions of consent is required to service the expected Huntlee Stage 1 population. Unless funding is sought via an alternate contributions arrangement under condition E5 of the consent, Council will be obligated to source funding for the outstanding infrastructure, including the following: � Apportioned contributions towards District and Regional Sports Grounds; � Condition E4 does not stipulate the standard required for the embellishment of

sports fields and playgrounds; � Acquisition and embellishment of additional sports fields; and � Pending further analysis, apportioned contributions towards the Multi Function

Centre. d.) The dedication of open space beyond that required by Council’s Recreation and

Open Space Strategic Plan presents ongoing financial risk to Council in maintaining the land in perpetuity.

Should Council resolve in the future to provide infrastructure that is in addition to that provided by the consent for Huntlee Stage 1, Council may be required to obtain land at inflated prices in order to accommodate that infrastructure. Furthermore, the strategic location of the land required will be dependant on land availability.






Current Offer of Local Contributions The offer made to Council on 27 March 2013 follows a series of workshops and meetings (including Huntlee Advisory Committee meetings) held between Cessnock City Council and LWP Property Group. This offer involves a Schedule of Contributions (monetary and works-in-kind), accompanied by a series of drawings provided as Enclosure 1 to this report. Matters for Consideration The key matters considered in the assessment of the offer of local contributions made to Council by LWP Property Group are: 1. Minimum Lot Size Controls; 2. Cultural Centre; 3. Monetary Contributions; 4. Monetary Contributions towards Local Roads within North Rothbury; 5. Miller Park and Branxton Aquatic Centre Contributions; 6. Building Areas; 7. Dedication of Land for Buildings; 8. Dedication of Core Riparian Zones; and 9. Maintenance of Public Open Space. Comments regarding these key matters are provided following: Minimum Lot Size Controls It is noted that the risks to Council presented by the Huntlee Development Control Plan’s minimum lot size controls, as previously explained in the body of this report, remain a risk under the offer made to Council for local contributions. It is strongly recommended that the issues surrounding potential development yield within the whole of Huntlee New Town site, more specifically Stage 1, be resolved prior to the forming of any Planning Agreement concerning local infrastructure contributions. Cultural Centre The offer presented to Council does not include provision for a Cultural Centre. A commonly used standard for Cultural Centres is one for every 30,000 population. The total population expected by the development of Huntlee is approximately 21,000 people, of which 6,500 people are expected to be accommodated within Stage 1. It is noted that previous offers made to Council regarding local contributions have included a Cultural Centre and that the schedule of contributions negotiated during the workshop held on 4 February 2013 between Cessnock City Council and LWP Property Group also included a Cultural Centre. It is recommended that the offer made to Council be revised to include an apportioned monetary contribution towards a Cultural Centre building of an appropriate size to suit its needs. Sufficient land is provided to accommodate the building in the offer of land dedicated to Council for the purpose of the Community Hub.






Monetary Contributions As previously explained in the body of this report, the monetary contributions offered are considered to be a reduced value to the same offer presented to Council in the Draft Huntlee New Town – Stage 1 Planning Agreement dated 20 April 2009. More specifically, monetary contributions towards the Neighbourhood Centre Building, local roads and Government Pre-Schools / Child Care Centres have not been updated to reflect current figures. The cumulative value of these contributions equates to $3,250,000. In accordance with the Bureau of Statistics, the equivalent value brought forward from April 2009 to March 2013 is equivalent to $3,608,378. Therefore, the monetary contribution currently offered for these items is considered to be reduced by approximately $358,378 from the offer dated April 2009. It is recommended that Council engage a qualified Quantity Surveyor to review all figures within the offer made to Council. Monetary Contributions towards Local Roads within North Rothbury A sum of $800,000 is offered to Council for the upgrade of streets within North Rothbury by Council. The offer made to Council does not specify which roads in particular are to be upgraded. Council’s preliminary assessment of the road upgrades required in the North Rothbury residential area, consequent to the Huntlee Stage 1 Development, requires upgrades to Scott Street and Thomas Street as a minimum, with potential upgrades to Dai Street and Mitchell Street pending further traffic assessment. These upgrades equate to an expected cost of between $1,480,000 and $3,136,000. Therefore, it is considered that the offer of $800,000 for the upgrade of Roads within the North Rothbury area is insufficient by a sum of between $680,000 and $2,336,000. Miller Park and Branxton Aquatic Centre Contributions A monetary contribution of $100,000 is offered towards an upgrade of Miller Park ($50,000) and Branxton Aquatic Centre ($50,000). To date, no analysis on upgrades to either Miller Park or Branxton Aquatic Centre has been provided, and it is unclear on what the monetary contribution would contribute towards. In order to provide an upgrade to either Branxton Aquatic Centre or Miller Park that provides a public benefit, it is considered that Council may be required to provide additional funds. It is noted that the public benefit of this contribution is currently not understood. Under the Residential Section 94 Contribution Plan for Cessnock City Council, contributions towards the Kurri Kurri aquatic centre are charged at a rate of $139.91 (March 2013) per person. The Residential Section 94 Contribution Plan applies to all land within the Cessnock Local Government Area. The predicted population for Huntlee Stage 1 is approximately 6,566 people. At a rate of $139.91 per person, the equivalent contribution under the Residential Section 94 Plan towards aquatic needs for Huntlee Stage 1 would equate to approximately $918,649. Therefore, it is noted that the offer of $50,000 towards Branxton Aquatic Centre is considered to be approximately $868,649 less than that required under the Residential Section 94 Contribution Plan.






It is considered that a contribution rate of $139.91 per person should apply towards aquatic services for Huntlee until such time that a justifiable alternative is accepted by Council. It is noted that Council are currently undertaking an Aquatic Needs Analysis that is expected to be completed in early 2014. The Aquatic Needs Analysis will provide details on how best to service the aquatic needs of the Cessnock Local Government Area, including Huntlee. Building Areas The nominated building areas are considered to be small for the building typologies and there is no nominated building area provided for the Child Care / Government Pre-Schools. It is noted that the building areas directly reflect the cost of the associated item, and it is recommended that a schedule of areas for all buildings be requested to confirm that the nominated building areas sufficiently accommodate the building typology. Dedication of Land for Buildings It is noted that the land offered as a dedication to Council for the purpose of accommodating buildings, including the Neighbourhood Centre, Community Hub and Child Care / Government Pre-Schools, are considered to be sufficient. It is also noted that the dedication of land for the purpose of the Community Hub will sufficiently accommodate the inclusion of a Cultural Centre as originally intended for the Community Hub. Dedication of Core Riparian Zones The offer made to Council in relation to the Core Riparian Zones dedicates 11.7 hectares of land and improvements to Council 3 years after practical completion. Following this period, Council will be responsible for maintaining the Core Riparian Zones in perpetuity. As previously mentioned in the body of this report, a preliminary analysis of Council’s rate structure identifies that Council’s financial capacity of maintaining open space land is restricted to the provision of sports fields and playgrounds consistent with the adopted guidelines provided by Council’s Recreation and Open Space Strategic Plan. The provision of open space beyond that required by Council’s guidelines presents a financial risk to Council in maintaining the land. Maintenance of Public Open Space The offer made to Council in relation to the maintenance of public open space requires Huntlee Pty Ltd to maintain Core Riparian Zones, Local Parks, Town Centre Urban Squares and General Public Open Space for a period of 3 years, and District Parks for a period of 5 years from the date of practical completion, before releasing the responsibility of maintaining public open space to Council in perpetuity. It is noted that condition E3 of consent requires all landscaping and embellishment of local open space to be completed prior to dedication to Council and maintained to the satisfaction of Council by the proponent for a period of 5 years after dedication. In most cases, the condition of consent requires an additional 2 years of maintenance to that currently offered to Council.






It is recommended that Council request the offer to maintain public open space land be revised to include a maintenance period of 5 years after the dedication of the land to Council, and that the land be maintained to the satisfaction of Council. Summary of Offer The following comments are provided as a brief summary of the offer made to Council: • The Community Infrastructure Items offered do not include a Cultural Centre; • The dedication of Core Riparian Zone’s present an ongoing financial risk to Council; • With the exception of the Core Riparian Zone’s, the dedication of land to Council is

considered sufficient; • The Building Area’s stipulated by the offer are considered to be small for the building

types, and no building area is nominated for the Child Care / Government Pre-Schools;

• The monetary contribution towards road upgrades in the North Rothbury area is considered to be insufficient;

• The open space maintenance periods offered are not equivalent to the maintenance period stipulated by the Huntlee Stage 1 conditions of consent;

• The monetary contributions have not been updated from previous offers, the building areas are considered to be small, and there is lack of detail regarding the contribution to Miller Park / Branxton Aquatic Centre. As a result, the monetary contributions are considered to be insufficient; and

• As a result of the issues listed above, there are considerable financial risks to Council involved in accepting the offer, some of which are ongoing financial risks. These are outlined following.

Risk to Council The risks to Council involved in accepting the offer made to Council by LWP Property Group Pty Ltd on 27 March 2013 includes the following: a.) The Minimum Lot Size Controls stipulated by the Huntlee Development Control Plan

present a very high level of financial risk to Council in the event that Huntlee Stage 1 is developed at the density currently permissible by the controls;

b.) There is no Cultural Centre provided in the offer to Council; c.) The monetary contributions are considered to be insufficient; d.) The dedication of open space beyond that required by Council’s Recreation and

Open Space Strategic Plan presents ongoing financial risk to Council in maintaining the land in perpetuity.

OPTIONS Council may resolve to either: 1. Continue negotiations with LWP Property Group

• Continue negotiations with LWP Property Group Pty Ltd with the intention of entering into a Planning Agreement that minimises or nullifies Council’s risks;

• Engage a Quantity Surveyor to assess the financial risk to Council; and






• Seek to amend the Huntlee Development Control Plan Minimum Lot Size controls with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to reflect the intent of the approved Huntlee Stage 1 Subdivision and Infrastructure Works.

Note: Option 1 is the preferred option OR, 2. Reject the offer made to Council regarding Local Infrastructure Contributions

• Engage a Quantity Surveyor to assess the financial risk to Council; • Obtain legal advice in relation to the application of Section 94 Contributions Plan’s,

including Council’s Residential Section 94 Plan, to Huntlee Stage 1; • Reject the offer made to Council regarding Local Infrastructure Contributions; and • Seek to amend the Huntlee Development Control Plan Minimum Lot Size controls

with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to reflect the intent of the approved Huntlee Stage 1 Subdivision and Infrastructure Works.

Note: Option 2 is not recommended as the risks associated with the “current state of local contributions”, outlined in the body of this report, would remain outstanding. OR, 3. Accept the offer made to Council regarding the L ocal Infrastructure Contributions

• Engage a Quantity Surveyor to assess the financial risk to Council; • Accept the offer made to Council regarding Local Infrastructure Contributions; • Request LWP Property Group to formalise their offer in the form of a Draft Planning

Agreement; • In accordance with condition E5 of the conditions of consent issued under the

approval of Huntlee Stage 1 Subdivision and Infrastructure Works, seek agreement with the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to:

� Replace the contributions specified in conditions E3 and E4 with a Planning Agreement between Cessnock City Council and LWP Property Group.

• Accept the risks associated with the “current offer of local contributions” identified in the body of this report; and


Note: Option 3 is not recommended due to the risks associated with the “current offer of local contributions” outlined in the body of this report. OR, 4. Prepare a Section 94 Contributions Plan

• Seek legal advice as to Council’s legal implications of preparing a Section 94 Plan for Huntlee Stage 1;

• Subject to legal advice, prepare a Section 94 Contributions Plan in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to fund local infrastructure for Huntlee Stage 1; and







CONSULTATION Manager Strategic Land Use Planning Manager Strategic Asset Planning STRATEGIC LINKS a. Delivery Program N/A b. Other Plans N/A IMPLICATIONS a. Policy and Procedural Implications All options recommended to Council in the options section of this report have regard to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Regulation 2000, and require the amendment of the Huntlee Development Control Plan’s Minimum Lot Size Controls. Should Council resolve to pursue option 1 or 3 recommended in the options section of this report, Council will be required to enter into a Planning Agreement that will have policy and procedural implications for Council. Option 4 also has policy and procedural implications for Council. The extent of policy and procedural implications for options 1, 3 and 4 will be realised in the making of either the Planning Agreement or the Section 94 Plan. In accordance with condition E5 of the Huntlee Stage 1 approval, alternative local contribution arrangements to those imposed by the conditions of approval require the agreement of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate. b. Financial Implications The financial implications of the options available to Council are outlined in the body of this report. However, it is recommended that a Quantity Surveyor be engaged by Council to assess the financial risk to Council relating to each option, or Council’s preferred option. c. Legislative Implications All options recommended to Council in this report require the amendment of the Huntlee Development Control Plan’s Minimum Lot Size controls. Options 1 and 3 listed in the options section of this report require the legal making of a Planning Agreement between Cessnock City Council and LWP Property Group Pty Ltd under the Environmental Planning and






Assessment Act 1979; and option 5 requires the legal making of a Contributions Plan under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. In accordance with Chapter 3, Section 8 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council is required to engage in long-term strategic planning on behalf of the local community. d. Risk Implications The risk implications associated with the proposed offer of contributions towards local infrastructure, and the various options available to Council, are provided in the body of this report. e. Other Implications NIL CONCLUSION The proposed offer made by LWP Property Group Pty Ltd towards local infrastructure contributions, in relation to Huntlee Stage 1 Subdivision and Infrastructure Works, presents a number of financial risks to Council, including the ongoing financial risk of maintaining open space in excess of Council’s adopted standards for recreation and open space. Should Council reject the offer made by LWP Property Group and refuse to enter into a Planning Agreement, the risks associated with the Huntlee Stage 1 conditions of approval, as outlined in the body of this report, would prevail. This report recommends that Council continue to negotiate with LWP Property Group to achieve an outcome that minimises or nullifies Council’s risk in providing community infrastructure for the future community of Huntlee.

ENCLOSURES

1 LWP Property Group Proposed Schedule of Contributions and accompanying drawings - March 2013

7 Pages

2 Schedule of negotiated outcome of local infrastructure workshop held 4 February 2013

1 Page

3 Draft Huntlee New Town - Stage 1 Voluntary Planning Agreement - Version 5 dated 20 April 2009

24 Pages


Professional Management and Leadership

Report No. PM40/2013



SUBJECT: MARCH 2013 QUARTERLY REVIEW OF THE 2011-13 DELIVERY PROGRAM

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Integrated Planning & Strategi c Property Manager - Bronwyn Rumbel

SUMMARY An update on progress in respect to the principal activities detailed in Council’s Delivery Program.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council note the progress in implementing t he 2011-13 Delivery Program as at 31 March 2013.

2. That Council approve the removal of CRL-2013-005 from the 2012-13 Capital Works Program as detailed in this report.

BACKGROUND Section 404(5) of the Local Government Act 1993 requires the General Manager to provide regular progress reports to Council with respect to progress against the principal activities detailed in its Delivery Program. Progress reports must be provided at least every six months. The Quarterly Budget Review Statement required under clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 is being separately reported to Council. Council adopted the 2011-13 Delivery Program and 2011-12 Operational Plan in June 2011 and Council revised the 2011-13 Delivery Program in March 2012. The Delivery Program outlines the activities that Council will undertake to implement the strategies established by the community strategic plan, Cessnock 2020. The Delivery Program is a single point of reference for all principal activities undertaken by an elected Council during its term in office. REPORT/PROPOSAL Executive Summary March 2013 Quarter An Executive Summary has been prepared summarising the progress against Delivery Program actions and the Capital Works Program. Some highlights of the March 2013 quarter include:

• Delivered a Seniors’ Week Program of nineteen activities to 804 participants.

• Commenced a trial of a Youth Outreach Drop-In Service on Friday afternoons at Greta Arts and Sports Community Hall.






• Commenced development of a Library Strategic Plan.

• Coordinated and participated in the annual Clean Up Australia Day event in March 2013.

• Conducted Home Power Saving workshops held during February at Cessnock & Kurri Kurri libraries (60 attendees).

• Hosted Keep Australia Beautiful Litter Grant workshops for community groups in February.

• Commenced development of the Waste Strategy.

• Subsidised compost and worm farm sales exceeded 200 (as part of the Don’t Waste Your Organics program).

• Reviewed the Planet Footprint report card on Council’s energy and water consumption.

• Consulted with the community on the Community Strategic Plan and proposed special rate variation.

• Submitted special rate variation application in March. The Executive Summary March 2013 Quarter is included as Enclosure 1 for the information of Council. Delivery Program At 31 March 2013, 25 (or 28%) of initiatives were completed. Of the remaining 65 initiatives, 54 (or 60% of the total) were on track.

Status No. of Actions

% of Actions

On Track – Completed. 25 28% On Track - In Progress/Ongoing. 54 60%

On Track - Not yet commenced. 0 0% At risk – factors beyond Council’s control 2 2%

At risk – factors within Council’s control 0 0% Not achieved – factors beyond Council’s control 2 2%

Not achieved – factors within Council’s control 0 0%

Revised timeframe 7 8%

Total Actions 90 100% The following additional initiative has been allocated to the category of ‘At Risk’ during the quarter.

1.1.4.1 Undertake a City Wide Cycleway and Footpath Study No progress during the March quarter due to the inability to

recruit a replacement Strategic Recreation & Community Facilities Planner.






The following initiatives have been allocated to the category of ‘Not Achieved’ during the quarter.

1.3.2.1 Review and update the Community Road Safety Strategy. Currently recruiting for a Road Safety Officer to carry out

this work.

2.1.2.2 Review zoning for Hunter Economic Zone. This will not be achieved by June 2013 as it is more than

the zoning Issue, and will require significant consultation with State Agencies and owners.

A Grant Funding application through the Local Planning Reform Fund has been submitted to progress this action.

The following additional initiatives have been allocated to the category of ‘Revised Timeframe’ during the quarter.

3.2.5.1 Develop a masterplan for Civic Park providing links to Turner Park.

A major community park has been included in the Cessnock CBD Masterplan that was adopted by Council in December 2012. The Major Projects Committee is yet to recommend the priority and timing of this project.

5.3.3.1 Implement a new remuneration system. This initiative will be included in the 2013-17 Delivery

Program.

The initiatives proposed to be undertaken by Council as part of its Delivery Program align with the community’s objectives in the community strategic plan, Cessnock 2020. Progress against these actions have been summarised in the following table:

Connected Safe &

Creative Community

Sustainable &

Prosperous Economy

Sustainable &

Healthy Environment

Accessible Infrastructure

Services & Facilities

Civic Leadership & Effective

Governance

Total %

On Track 17 11 17 16 18 79 88%

At Risk 1 0 1 0 0 2 2%

Not

Achieved 1 1 0 0 0 2 2%

Revised

Timeframe 1 0 5 0 1 7 8%

Total 20 12 23 16 19 90 100%






Details of each action, and comments on its progress, are included in Enclosure 2 to this report. Capital Works Program The 2012-13 Capital Works Program is, overall, on track. Council did not receive Blackspot funding for 2012-13, so it is therefore proposed to remove CRL-2013-005 Traffic Safety Works – Blackspot Program TBC from the program. During the March quarter some of the works that were finalised included:

• Staged reconstruction of Lindsay Street, Cessnock

• Staged upgrade of Wilderness Road, Rothbury

• Construction of missing section of shared cycleway/footpath at Mount View High School, Cessnock

• Installation of a picnic shelter at Greta Median Park

• Installation of UV filter at Kurri Kurri Aquatic Centre

• Construction of access ramp and verandah improvements at Pokolbin Hall

• Drainage improvement works at Kurri Kurri Lawn Cemetery

• Reseal and heavy patch of Wollombi Road, Pelton

• Reseal and heavy patch of Majors Lane, Keinbah

• Reseal and heavy patch of Sawyers Gully Road, Sawyers Gully

• Playground replacement at North Rothbury Park

• Ceiling replacement and internal painting of amenities buildings at Orange St Oval Abermain and Weston Park

• External painting and repairs of Greta Council Chambers

Detailed information on the capital works program is included at Enclosure 2 . OPTIONS N/A CONSULTATION The Group Leaders and Managers provided input into the preparation of this report and its enclosures.






STRATEGIC LINKS Delivery Program This report is a crucial part of the organisation’s governance framework – providing feedback on the progress against the key plans adopted by Council. This is in line with the community’s desired outcome of: Civic Leadership and Effective Governance.” IMPLICATIONS a. Policy and Procedural Implications N/A b. Financial Implications The Quarterly Budget Review Statement is being reported separately to Council. c. Legislative Implications This report satisfies the requirements of Section 404 of the Local Government Act 1993. d. Risk Implications N/A e. Other Implications N/A CONCLUSION The review of the Delivery Program for the quarter ended 31 March 2013 is submitted for Council’s consideration.

ENCLOSURES

1 Enclosure 1 - March 2012 Quarter - Executive Summary 1 Page 2 Enclosure 2 - March 2012 Quarter - Delivery Program Progress 39 Pages




Customer Services


SUBJECT: QUARTERLY BUDGET REVIEW STATEMENTS - MARCH 2013

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Acting Financial Services Mana ger - Paul Grosbernd

SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to present the March 2013 Quarterly Budget Review Statements for Council’s consideration and adoption.

RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the variations to the income, expenditure and capital budgets as detailed in the Quarterly Budget Review Statements for March 2013.

BACKGROUND Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires a Quarterly Budget Review Statement to be prepared and submitted to Council. A separate report to Council contains information in regard to Council’s Delivery program and reporting requirements under Integrated Planning & Reporting legislation. REPORT/PROPOSAL The March budget review process has taken into account a range of cost increases including Development Services legal costs and Development Engineering contract services. Additional revenues and reductions in expenditure items have been identified to ensure the adopted budget strategy remains in tact and that an appropriate source of funding is identified for unexpected expenditure variations. The original budget included significant loan borrowings to fund a number of projects:

Purpose of Proposed Borrowing Amount Drainage improvement program $500,000 Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme - Roads $3,500,000 Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme - Bridges $1,500,000 Land Development – Vineyard Grove $1,600,000 Old Landfill site investigations $750,000 Capital works program $775,000 Total Proposed Borrowing 2012/13 $8,625,000

This review proposes that for various reasons these borrowing not be taken in this current year, with the rationale for each proposed loan detailed below. The proposed deferral or alternate funding proposed in relation to these loan borrowings aligns with the remedial actions for Council to address the “unsatisfactory” financial position as outlined in the Responsible Accounting Officer Statement.




Customer Services


Residential Land Development The review proposes the residential land development at Vineyard Grove Stage 8 be deferred until a project brief is undertaken, and a cost / benefit analysis is provided for Council’s consideration. The original budget for 2012/13 had the estimate of $2m, with funding from the reserve of $400,000 and a loan of $1.6m. At this stage the unavailability of resources in both staff time and expertise to fully undertake this project make it unlikely to be delivered in the current year. By deferring the project and developing a project brief, Council can ensure it gets a quality development and a fully costed and detailed development plan. The brief would be funded from the reserve and a further report presented to Council which would allow consideration of the options with a view to undertaking the works in 2013/14 or beyond. Old Landfill Site Investigations There is currently one site which is undergoing cleanup and a brief is being released that will outline the requirements for other rehabilitation sites. The Millfield sewerage works have been completed and $377,359 of funding remains unspent. These works were loan funded and it is proposed to utilise the unspent portion to fund the cleanup already underway and the project brief. A further report is expected to be presented to Council which will detail what works are required, provide a prioritisation and outline the required level of funding which may be needed. Drainage Improvement Program A review of the 2012/13 drainage program has revealed that loan funds of $500,000 for Whitburn Estate drainage works will not be expended this current financial year, therefore it is proposed not to borrow these funds in 2012/13. Any expenditure incurred to date has not been associated with the loan funding. The required scope of work has significantly increased over the estimated 2012/13 funding allocation. These works were to be funded on a 50/50 basis with the RMS matching Councils contribution, however the increase in the scope of works has meant that the RMS is not able to match the required funding in next years budget, but will be available in the following year. The scope of works requires detailed investigation and design on Councils behalf and will also require a Council commitment to fund the additional costs in 2014/15. Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme (LIRS) As previously advised council had applied and budgeted for a total of $5 million under the LIRS. Council was successful in its LIRS subsidy application for $1.5 million for the bridge component, with the $3.5 million road projects being deferred for consideration in future capital works programs. This means that only $1.5M is required to be borrowed under LIRS and as the works have not commenced, pending the negotiations on the scope of works, it is not recommended to borrow this amount at this time




Customer Services


Capital Roads Programs The 2012/13 budget included loan borrowings of $775,000 to supplement the capital works program. It is proposed not to borrow these funds at this time pending the finalisation of the 2012/13 capital works program and possible budget savings and alternate funding identified in the June quarterly review. General Budget Commentary After a review of the Capital Works Program, savings in the Local Road Renewal Program of $298,500 were identified, as well as savings in Pre-Construction Design of $100,000. This will still allow the completion of the Capital Works Program on time and within the design scope for the projects completed. The review also proposes some minor transfers between the various projects in the capital works program. Identified savings have been used to offset various increases over all of Council’s operations. The Quarterly Review Budget Statements are provided to Councillors at Enclosure 2 and are showing on a cash basis a surplus of $15,909. In light of past budget reviews, Councils ongoing unsatisfactory financial position and the Council adopted remedial measures to rectify this unsatisfactory financial position, the surplus is recommended for retention as a buffer against future deteriorations and to help improve Councils unrestricted cash position. The review is presented in accordance with the Division of Local Government’s reporting guidelines and, in line with these requirements, an operating statement, capital expenditure statement, cash and investment summary, reserves listing, legal expenditure summary and consultants’ expenses summary are shown for the quarter. Acting Group Leader’s Comments Council’s financial position has not been strong for a number of years. This position has been repeated in the documentation and workshops provided in relation to the draft Operational Plan for 2013/14 and are reinforced by the TCorp financial sustainability rating of Council as “moderate” with a “negative” outlook. Refer to Enclosure 1 . At the time of presenting the September 2012 Quarterly Budget Review, it was highlighted to Council that “while the September Quarterly Review had preserved the adopted balanced budget strategy, current operations continued to exert considerable pressure on our capacity to manage our financial position; the matter is of serious concern.” That position has not changed, with a similar commentary being provided at the recent December 2012 quarterly budget review. Council does have a substantial financial commitment to future capital works as outlined in the Operational Plan and previous reports to Council. The review shows a surplus on a cash basis, however in light of Councils financial position and the adopted remedial actions of past budget reviews it is recommended that the surplus be retained for purposes of improving Councils unrestricted cash position. The ability to adequately fund budget variations without impacting on the operational budget or Councils financial position is an ongoing concern. Budget commitments and associated processes will continue to undergo careful reassessment with a view to identifying opportunities for improvement.




Customer Services


TCorp Financial Assessment TCorp has assessed all NSW Councils for financial capacity and sustainability. Cessnock was rated as “moderate” in regards to financial sustainability and had a “negative” outlook. The TCorp definitions of Council’s ratings are: Financial Sustainability Rating – Moderate • A local government with an adequate capacity to meet its financial commitments in the

short to medium term and an acceptable capacity in the long term. • While it has some record of reporting minor to moderate deficits the local government

may also have recently reported a significant operating deficit. • It is likely able to address its operating deficits, manage unforeseen financial shocks and

any adverse changes in its business with moderate revenue and/or expense adjustments. The expense adjustments are likely to result in a number of changes to the range and/or quality of services affected.

• Its capacity to manager core business risks is moderate. Outlook – Negative • As a result of a foreseeable event or circumstance occurring, there is the potential for

deterioration in the local government’s capacity to meet is financial commitments (short and/or long term) and resulting change in its rating. However, it does not necessarily indicate that a rating change may be forthcoming.

The TCorp notification, ratings and definitions are attached to this report as Enclosure 1. Draft Budget The draft budget for 2013/14 if adopted will not facilitate an improvement in Councils financial position. Council’s long term financial plan also highlights that Councils cash position is expected to deteriorate over the medium term. Responsible Accounting Officer statement The responsible accounting officer is required to provide as per the requirements of Clause 203 (2) (a) & (b) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005;

(a) “a report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes that the statement indicates that the financial position of the council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure, and (b) if that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action

Council’s financial position is considered unsatisfactory based upon the projected financial position for the period ending 30th June, 2013. Remedial Action

1. Continuation of the remedial action as identified in the December 2012 Quarterly Budget Review




Customer Services


2. That Council continue the review of all expenditure commitments to identify projects or programs that can be reduced or delayed while at the same time identifying additional income opportunities.

OPTIONS 1. Receive and note the March 2013 Quarterly Review Budget Statements as

presented. 2. Amend the March 2013 Quarterly Review Budget Statements as presented, with

appropriate sources of funding identified for any changes proposed. CONSULTATION The following staff provided input into the preparation of this report and its enclosures: • Acting General Manager • Leadership Group • Managers • Senior finance staff STRATEGIC LINKS a. Delivery Program This report is a crucial part of the organisation’s governance framework – providing feedback on the progress against the budget adopted by Council. This is in line with the community’s desired outcome of: Civic Leadership and Effective Governance.” IMPLICATIONS a. Policy and Procedural Implications N/A b. Financial Implications The Quarterly Budget Review Statements are presented to Council in accordance with the adopted balanced budget strategy. The detailed review of all operational and capital budgets is a continuous process. The objective is to improve Council’s financial position. c. Legislative Implications Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires the responsible accounting officer to prepare and submit to council a budget review statement that shows revised estimates of income and expenditure for the year. d. Risk Implications N/A




Customer Services


e. Other Implications N/A CONCLUSION The Quarterly Budget Review Statements for March 2013 are submitted for Council’s consideration and adoption. ENCLOSURES

1 Financial Assessment of Cessnock City Council by TCorp - April 2013 5 Pages 2 Quarterly Budget Review Statements 10 Pages




Customer Services


SUBJECT: INVESTMENT REPORT - APRIL 2013

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Acting Financial Services Mana ger - Paul Grosbernd

SUMMARY Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires a monthly report to Council detailing all money invested under Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.

RECOMMENDATION That Council receive the report and note the inform ation.

BACKGROUND Councils’ Investment Policy, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and the Local Government Act 1993 require a report to Council detailing investments held within the investment portfolio at the end of each month. REPORT/PROPOSAL Statement by the Responsible Accounting Officer I, Robert Maginnity, as Responsible Accounting Officer, hereby certify that this report is produced in accordance with Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and that all investments have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy. General Investment Commentary Following assessment of projected cash flow requirements surplus funds are invested in accordance with Council’s investment policy. Maturing investments where possible, are reinvested with an emphasis on “cash” type investments (at call and term deposits). The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) official cash rate as at 30 April 2013 was 3.00%. Scheduled board meetings for the RBA are held on the first Tuesday of each month (excluding January) at which the official cash rate is one of the matters considered. At the May board meeting the cash rate was reduced to 2.75%. Actual investment revenues remain below budget expectations at the end of April, due a lower than anticipated interest rate level for the year. Council’s investment return has been higher than the benchmark 90 days BBSW rate, however the actual level of returns is approximately 0.25% less than budget estimates. It is expected that that the full year budget estimates will not be fully met, with a likely shortfall of between $15,000 to $20,000. Collatereralised Debt Obligation (CDO) Commentary Council’s investment portfolio contains one (1) CDO totalling $0.5 million being:




Customer Services


• Investment 1132 (Kakadu – held with JP Morgan - $500,000) affected by numerous defaults, remains a high level risk on capital return and the level of risk on interest return can now also be considered high. Matures 20 March 2014 .

A degree of uncertainty remains on this CDO, particularly in light of the continued volatility in European financial markets, which is affecting most financial markets. These concerns are based on any amount of principal loss and not complete loss of principal, although the likelihood of total loss of principal remains a possibility. With a final maturity date in 2014 and with both the Investment Policy and Ministerial Investment Order promoting retention of capital as the major consideration in regards to investments, the risk assessment in respect of a loss of capital (total or partial) has been determined as high. Although the investment continues to return quarterly interest coupons the receipt of such interest coupons cannot be guaranteed so the investment is shown with a zero interest rate in the portfolio and the associated interest risk is also considered high . Investment Portfolio Information Total cash and investments held by Council as at 30 April 2013 are:

Invest No

Financial Institution Investment Held With

Invest Type

Interest Coupon

Term

Maturity / Next

Coupon Date

Current Coupon

Rate

Life to Date

Interest Return

Par Value $'000

Commonwealth Bank Cash 1.70% 468 Commonwealth Bank At Call 3.00% 2,307

1243 AMP At Call 3.85% 500 1132z JP Morgan Australia Ltd CDO 92 20-Jun-13 0.00% 6.21% 500 1215l Illawarra Mutual BS TD 91 08-Jul-13 4.15% 4.15% 800 1225h Maitland Mutual BS TD 176 16-May-13 4.55% 4.55% 800 1227k Newcastle Permanent BS TD 91 18-Jul-13 4.20% 4.20% 600 1231i Newcastle Permanent BS TD 91 06-Jun-13 4.10% 4.10% 700 1233f Suncorp Bank TD 184 18-Sep-13 4.30% 4.30% 700 1236e Maitland Mutual BS TD 175 09-May-13 4.55% 4.55% 600 1241g Illawarra Mutual BS TD 119 11-Jun-13 4.10% 4.10% 600 1249c Suncorp Bank TD 136 18-Jul-13 4.10% 4.10% 800 1250d Maitland Mutual BS TD 90 24-Jul-13 4.20% 4.20% 500 1251c Westpac Bank TD 120 27-Jun-13 4.15% 4.15% 600 1252b National Australia Bank TD 182 19-Jun-13 4.62% 4.62% 600 1254c Westpac Bank TD 125 14-Aug-13 4.25% 4.25% 700 1255b ANZ Bank TD 105 23-May-13 4.16% 4.16% 800 1256a National Australia Bank TD 182 13-Jun-13 4.63% 4.63% 900 1257b Westpac Bank TD 132 26-Jun-13 4.15% 4.15% 800 1258b ANZ Bank TD 91 07-May-13 4.17% 4.17% 700 1259a ANZ Bank TD 153 06-May-13 4.55% 4.55% 600 1260 National Australia Bank TD 184 01-Sep-13 4.29% 4.29% 1,000

1261a Commonwealth Bank TD 35 29-May-13 4.00% 4.00% 600 TOTAL 17,175




Customer Services


The following table provides information on the level of funds held and the percentage invested with financial institutions in Council’s investment portfolio:

Financial Institution Amount

$’000 % of

Portfolio Commonwealth Bank of Australia 3,375 19.65% National Australia Bank 2,500 14.56% ANZ Bank 2,100 12.23% Westpac Bank 2,100 12.23% Maitland Mutual Building Society 1,900 11.06% Suncorp Bank 1,500 8.73% Illawarra Mutual Building Society 1,400 8.15% Newcastle Permanent Building Society 1,300 7.57% AMP Bank 500 2.91% JP Morgan Chase Bank 500 2.91% TOTAL 17,175 100.00%

The following table provides information on investment types including a risk assessment and the amount and percentage invested compared to the total investment portfolio:

Risk Assessment Amount % of Investment Type Capital Interest $’000 Portfolio

Cash/At Call Deposits Low Low 3,275 19.07% Collateralised Debt Obligation High High 500 2.91% Term Deposits Low Low 13,400 78.02% TOTAL 17,175 100.00%

The following table provides information on interest rates and earnings this year compared to last year as well as a comparison of investment balances from this year to last year:

Performance Measures This Year Last Year Portfolio Average Interest Rate (year to date) 4.20% 5.00% BBSW Average Interest Rate (year to date) * 3.21% 4.60% Actual Investment Interest Earned (year to date) $657,005 $766,262 Budget Investment Interest (year to date) $695,080 $694,482 Original Budget Investment Interest (Annual) $834,100 $874,100 Revised Budget Investment Interest (Annual) $834,100 $834,100 Investment Balances (Par Value) This Year Last Year Opening Balance as at 1 July $20,866,000 $19,044,000 Month End Current Balance $17,175,000 $16,395,000

* BBSW 90 day Bank Bill Reference Rate (performance measure as per Investment Policy)




Customer Services


The following graph compares actual interest earned to budget for this year and last year.

The following graph compares percentage interest rates for YTD average to last year’s actual YTD and current 90 days BBSW and last year’s 90 days BBSW rate.

OPTIONS N/A CONSULTATION Senior Finance Officer




Customer Services


STRATEGIC LINKS a. Delivery Program This report is linked to Council’s Delivery Program and Operational Plan. Investment returns are an integral part of funding sources for future services and community expectations within the Delivery Program. b. Other Plans N/A IMPLICATIONS a. Policy and Procedural Implications Investments are made in accordance with Investment Policy Number F12.3. b. Financial Implications Investment returns are included in Council’s Delivery Program and Operational Plan. Amendments are effected through the Quarterly Budget Review process. Investment portfolio performance is detailed within the report with comparisons to prior year and budget. A portion of the portfolio and its associated investment income is restricted as it relates to funds held from developer contributions and Domestic Waste Management and is not available for operational projects. c. Legislative Implications This report meets Council’s statutory obligations under the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and the Local Government Act 1993. d. Risk Implications Investment risks are detailed within this report. e. Other Implications There are no environmental, community, consultative or other implications to this report. CONCLUSION The report provides details on investments held at month end and meets Councils statutory and policy reporting obligations.

ENCLOSURES





Customer Services


SUBJECT: MARGIN SCHEME - POTENTIAL RECOVERY OF GST

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Acting Group Leader Customer S ervices - Robert Maginnity

SUMMARY A report seeking Council endorsement to engage a consultant to undertake a project regarding the GST opportunities in respect of Council's property transactions.

RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the engagement of Pricewaterho useCoopers (PwC) to progress the potential recovery of GST paid on property sale s by seeking alternate taxation treatment under the margin scheme.

BACKGROUND In mid 2011, Council received an approach from PwC in regards to possible savings for Council in respect of their property developments and dealings using the margin scheme. At that time, it was determined that as Councils property development portfolio was exhausted (ie all developed lots had been sold) the ability to seek sales under the margin scheme was not retrospective, so the project was shelved. Since that time PwC has been successful in seeking a retrospective adjustment to the taxation treatment of property developments, and in April 2013 another approach was made to Council detailing the proposal now before Council. At its meeting of 12 December 2012 Council resolved:

“That the engagement of consultants for any purpose at a cost above $10,000 will only occur after the consent of the elected Council. In each instance Council must be provided with a choice of at least two different consultants for the task before it will consider the matter. This motion, if adopted, will take immediate effect but will not break any current contracts.”

Council’s endorsement of the engagement of PwC is now sought in relation to the above resolution. Council does not have the necessary skills or resources in house to undertake such a project. REPORT/PROPOSAL Land sold from Councils property developments has been at an agreed price as set by Council resolution. The taxation treatment of the funds received from the purchaser has been treated as GST inclusive and 1/11th of the purchase price has been remitted to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).




Customer Services


Council had previously been approached by PwC to ascertain if Council could take advantage of the margin scheme in relation to the sales of land due to PwC being successful in assisting a Victorian Council in utilising the margin scheme. At that time the ruling from the ATO was that the changes could not be applied retrospectively. As Council had exhausted its supply of developed property, the matter was not pursued. Further developments have occurred where the ATO has allowed this taxation treatment to be retrospective, subject to a number of conditions. Recent legal developments involving a PwC represented Council in Victoria have meant that there are now a number of significant GST opportunities and possible savings for Councils in respect of their property developments and dealings using the margin scheme These opportunities, combined with the Commissioner's practice statement outlining the circumstances in which he will allow the retrospective use of the margin scheme leads to the belief that there may be an opportunity for Cessnock City Council to take advantage of these recent developments, notwithstanding it did not originally apply the margin scheme to its land transactions. Basically, the case determined that Council was "the State" for Constitutional purposes and this decision effectively gives Councils the green light to access the concessional margin scheme rules available to States and Territories for calculating GST on the disposal of certain parcels of land - providing significant savings over the normal margin scheme which involves the value of the land at 1 July 2000. These opportunities have resulted in multi-million dollar savings for a number of Councils in Victoria. The PwC proposal seeks to provide Council with the benefits from the decision as well. PwC was instrumental in assisting other Councils to achieve this outcome with outstanding results in terms of being potentially able to reduce GST payable down to between 0.5% and 1.5% of the total sale value. The proposal from PwC highlights that “the work involved in the project is not insignificant, and is outlined in the scope of our engagement letter. In terms of engaging another advisor, it is our opinion that is unlikely that any firm outside of the Big 4 would be be able to do the work. Further, PwC has the experience and advantage over the other Big 4 firms in having been involved first hand in the conception of the opportunity and, to our knowledge, the only firm to have assisted a client see it to fruition. This is a GST, legal and valuation project, with a significant amount of strategy to get the best result possible for Council, which is not easy to achieve”. There exists a 4 year window to seek the recoupment of GST paid. At the end of May 2013 the ability to some $25,000 GST paid in the May 2009 Business Activity Statement (BAS) will be lost forever. It is unlikely that any alternative provider with the appropriate expertise could be engaged within the timeframes to meet this deadline. The PwC proposal is based on actual time spent and associated expenses including the costs associated with the property valuer. To ensure that Council receives value from the exercise the PwC proposal provides that should the time costs and expenses exceed 20% of any GST recovered, the costs would be limited to the lower of the two costs (i.e. if no GST is recouped then there would be no cost to Council).




Customer Services


During the period covered by the retrospective period an approximated amount of $300,000 was paid in GST. If Council were successful in having the margin scheme applied retrospectively, then the potential recoupment would be in the vicinity of $250,000. Even with a potential maximum cost of 20% of this amount, Council would recoup around $200,000 from an alternate taxation treatment. The proposal seeks an alternate taxation treatment of the GST remitted to the ATO by Council on past property sales. There is no risk associated to the purchasers of the land parcels, as the purchase price was the agreed amount. The purchaser would need to sign a letter agreeing to Council seeking alteration of the taxation treatment to the margin scheme rather than under GST. This change affects only the transaction between Council and the ATO when the BAS was lodged and does not affect the property sale transaction between Council and the purchaser. The potential to recoup a significant amount of GST paid and the safeguards offered under the PwC proposal make this an attractive proposition for Council. The limited timeframes has meant that alternate quotes have not been sourced. It is considered that the confirmed history of PwC in recovering funds for other Councils in similar situations warrants the acceptance of the proposal. OPTIONS

1. Endorse the engagement of PwC to seek alternate taxation treatment on past property sales and potentially recoup up to $250,000 in GST paid.

2. Do nothing in regards to past property sales and potentially forfeit the opportunity to

recoup taxation paid.

3. Seek other firms to undertake the process, which will potentially delay the proposal and endanger the recoupment of the sales from the May 2009 BAS.

CONSULTATION Group Leader Strategy & Sustainability Property officer Acting Financial Services Manager STRATEGIC LINKS a. Delivery Program This report is linked to the objective of “Civic Leadership and Effective Governance”. b. Other Plans N/A




Customer Services


IMPLICATIONS a. Policy and Procedural Implications N/A b. Financial Implications Council has the opportunity to recoup a significant amount of GST paid on past transactions if successful in applying the margins scheme to property transactions, with a potential return of around $250,000 less costs. The costs associated with PWC undertaking the project are capped at 20% of any savings achieved. Any recoupment of GST would be transferred to the land development reserve for future land development opportunities. c. Legislative Implications Council has paid GST on the transactions under relevant legislation. The proposal to seek recoupment via the use of the margin scheme is covered by taxation legislation and Australian Taxation Office (ATO) rulings. d. Risk Implications If no action is taken the ability to seek recoupment of past taxation treatment of sales will be lost. If Council elects to seek recoupment and the ATO denies the claim, the agreement with PWC is on a “no win no pay basis”. Costs are capped at 20% of the actual recoupment. There is no risk to the purchasers of the property from Council, as the actions proposed merely seek an alternate taxation treatment in relation to the transaction, with Council seeking reimbursement from the ATO. e. Other Implications Nil CONCLUSION The offer from PWC provides Council an opportunity to recoup a portion of the GST paid on past property sales from a revised taxation treatment. With the agreement being capped at the lower of actual costs or 20% the risks to Council is minimal.




Customer Services


ENCLOSURES

1 Covering email - PwC - This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (di) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

6 Pages

2 Engagement Proposal - This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (di) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

12 Pages

3 Engagement Proposal 2 - This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (di) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

7 Pages


Active Participation and Community Consultation

Report No. AP11/2013

General Manager's Unit


SUBJECT: DRAFT COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY 2013 - 2017

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Communications Co-Ordinator - Rowena Scanlan

SUMMARY On 20 March 2013, Council resolved to exhibit the draft Communications and Engagement Strategy 2013 – 2017. The draft Strategy was placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days from 27 March until 24 April 2013. No submissions were received in response to the exhibition. The draft Strategy is referred to Council for adoption.

RECOMMENDATION That Council adopt the Communications and Engagemen t Strategy 2013 – 2017 .

BACKGROUND Council considered the draft Communication and Engagement Strategy 2013 at its meeting of 20 March 2013 and resolved to place the draft on exhibition to invite public comment. The draft was placed on exhibition for 28 days and no external submissions were received. One internal submission has been included in the strategy relating to the implementation of the IAP2 Toolkit and associated in house training for Council staff. Council's previous Communications Strategy adopted in 2008 was the first strategy for this Council which comprehensively addressed the communication commitment to residents and businesses within, and stakeholders of, the Cessnock local government area. Since the writing of the original Strategy, additional and alternative communication channels have evolved and developed rapidly. In addition, community expectations about access to information and use of the internet have also increased. Council is now active on the social media platforms of Twitter and Facebook, following the Council resolution of 6 July 2011. As a result, the original strategy was reviewed and updated and a new Communications and Engagement Strategy was drafted REPORT/PROPOSAL Following the 28 days public exhibition period, the Communication and Engagement Strategy 2013 (enclosed) is now presented to Council for consideration. It is recommended that Council adopt the Strategy and that staff commence implementation through the inclusion of highest priority actions into future budgets and operational plans accordingly.






OPTIONS 1. That Council adopt the Communications and Engagement Strategy 2013 – 2017.

2. That Council not adopt the Communications and Engagement Strategy 2013 – 2017. CONSULTATION Group Leader Built and Natural Environment Group Leader Community Services Leadership Group Community and Cultural Engagement Manager Integrated Planning and Strategic Property Manager Public Exhibition for 28 days resulting in no external submissions STRATEGIC LINKS a. Delivery Program This report is linked to Cessnock 2020 Objectives including: 5.2 Encouraging more community participation in decision making and specifically: 5.2.2 Develop and implement strategies to encourage and empower the community

to participate in consultation activities 5.3 Making Council more responsive to the community, and specifically: 5.3.2 Provide follow-up on decision making to keep the community engaged and

informed 5.3.3 Improve the efficiency and transparency of Council processes b. Other Plans N/A IMPLICATIONS a. Policy and Procedural Implications The development of a strategic direction for Communication and Engagement is the first step to increasing community participation in decision making as well as ways and means of how we more effectively communicative internally and externally to the Organisation. Other Council policies, plans, strategies, reports, releases, projects and plans of management should consider the principles contained in the strategy and IAP2 framework to ensure consideration is given to meaningful communicating and engagement with our Community. This report is linked to Council’s Code of Conduct, Conflict of Interest, Privacy Code of Practice, Internet Access Policy, Records Management Policy, Media Policy, Diversity, Harassment and Bullying Policy, Grievance Handling Policy. b. Financial Implications The implementation of the Strategy will have financial implications in future budgets. The Strategy, once adopted, will facilitate projects and investigations into the feasibility of projects






which will incur a cost. These costs will be known once detailed project plans are developed and implemented. c. Legislative Implications The legislative implications relate to the following: Local Government Act 1993, Privacy Act 1988 (Commonwealth), Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, Defamation Act 2005, Copyright Amendment Act 2006, Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1999, and State Records Act 1998 – 2005. d. Risk Implications There is a risk that the number of priorities ranked highly within the Strategy will compete within the resources available to Council and as such may take some time to implement. e. Other Implications N/A CONCLUSION Following Council's resolution from the meeting of 20 March 2013, the draft Communications and Engagement Strategy 2013 – 2017 was placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days between 27 March and 24 April 2013. No submissions were received. The Strategy is now referred to Council for consideration and is recommended for adoption.

ENCLOSURES

1 Draft Communications and Engagement Strategy 2013 - 2017 0 Pages




Community Services


SUBJECT: KURRI KURRI AQUATIC CENTRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - MINUTES WEDNESDAY 1 MAY 2013

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Recreation & Community Facilit ies Co-Ordinator - Nathan Eveleigh

Acting Group Leader Community Services - Nicole Be nson

RECOMMENDATION That the Minutes of the Kurri Kurri Aquatic Centre Advisory Committee of 1 May 2013 be adopted as a resolution of the Ordinary Council.

A meeting of the Kurri Kurri Aquatic Centre Advisory Committee was held at the Kurri Kurri Aquatic Centre on 1 May 2013, commencing at 10.00am, and reports as follows. PRESENT: The Mayor, Councillor Bob Pynsent (In the Chair)

IN ATTENDANCE: Nathan Eveleigh (Cessnock City Council)

Ross Farnham (Kurri Kurri HS P&C, Kurri Kurri Men’s Shed, Kurri Kurri Legacy) Kerry Hallett (Hunter Region BEC & Kurri Kurri Business Chamber) Phillip Hawke (Y Valley Aquatic Swim Club) Kate Weldon (YMCA of Sydney)

1. APOLOGIES

Councillor Graham Smith Cheryl-Ann Leggatt (Community Representative) Kate Grigor (YMCA of Sydney – KKAC Manager)

2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES RECOMMENDED: That the Minutes of the former Kurri Kurri Aquatic Centre Advisory Committee meeting held on 21 January 2010, as circulated, be endorsed by Council. 3. CONFIRMATION OF TERMS OF REFERENCE RECOMMENDED: That the draft Terms of Reference for the Kurri Kurri Aquatic Centre Advisory Committee, as circulated, be adopted. MOVED: Ross Farnham SECONDED: Phillip Hawke CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST Nil 5. BUSINESS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES Nil




Community Services


6. DEFERRED BUSINESS Nil 7. LISTED MATTERS a. Future Management and Operation of the centre The committee was informed that Council, at its 18 July 2012 meeting resolved to extend the YMCA of Sydney’s management agreement from 1 September 2012 to 31 August 2014 with some modified conditions. Council, around this time next year, will go out to tender for the ongoing management and operation of the Kurri Kurri Aquatic Centre. b. 48 Week Learn to Swim Program The YMCA of Sydney wrote to Council in November 2012 to requesting a change to their Learn to Swim program from a school term basis to a 48 week continual basis. The aim of the 48 week Learn to Swim program is: • to streamline the re-enrolment process; • to ensure better learning outcomes for program participants through continuous

learning; • to provide better value to families through membership based enrolments; and • to provide permanent employment opportunities to YMCA staff. The YMCA have confirmed that the impact on other pool users is predicted to be minimal and that there is no change to the fee structure. It is hoped that the 48 week program will commence on 1 July 2013, alternatively, it will commence on 1 January 2014. RECOMMENDED: That the 48 week Learn to Swim Program be implemented at the Kurri

Kurri Aquatic Centre by the YMCA of Sydney from 1 July 2013. MOVED: Kerry Hallett SECONDED: Ross Farnham CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 8. CORRESPONDENCE Email from Cheryl-Ann Leggatt advising of her inability to attend the meeting and that she is pleased to see that the Kurri Kurri Aquatic Centre Advisory Committee has been re-formed and hopes that the Committee can assist in seeing the centre continue to move forward in the positive manner it has to date. 9. GENERAL BUSINESS Aquatic Needs Analysis




Community Services


The committee was informed that a brief is currently being prepared by Council officers to be sent to suitably qualified consultants to prepare to prepare an Aquatics Needs Analysis for the Cessnock Local Government Area (LGA). The Aquatics Needs Analysis will involve assessing Council’s existing facilities, carrying out public consultation and surveying the local community, schools, and aquatic facility user groups and providing recommendations for the future provision of aquatic facilities in the Cessnock Local Government Area. It is anticipated that the brief will go out prior to 30 June 2013. Staff Parking The issue of staff safety after closing the centre at night and getting to their cars was raised. Outcome of the discussion was that Council will investigate options to sign-post two staff car spaces near the front doors. Pool Temperature The question of pool temperature was asked and who was responsible for maintaining the temperature. The outcome of discussion was that the modified management agreement states that the 25m pool water temperature be maintained at 27 degrees Celsius +/- 1 degree. It was brought down from 29 degrees Celsius due to the growing difficulty with trying to maintain pool temperature at 29 degrees Celsius +/- 1 degree. The temperatures of the pool are monitored regularly to ensure the temperatures of the pools are maintained in accordance with the management agreement. Lighting There are several lights not working in the pool hall. The committee was informed that Council is currently preparing a grant application to replace the current pool hall lighting with more energy efficient LED fittings and fixtures. The outcome of the discussion was that Council will follow up on the maintenance request and advise of likely timeframe to have the lighting replaced. Next Meeting Next meeting is to be held once the consultant has been appointed to complete the Aquatic Needs Analysis and is ready to carry out consultation with the Kurri Kurri Aquatic Centre Advisory Committee. This will form an agenda item and will be an opportunity to discuss the future needs of the Kurri Kurri Aquatic Centre. The Meeting Was Declared Closed at 10.25am.

ENCLOSURES



Notices Of Motion

Report No. BN12/2013



NOTICES OF MOTION No. BN12/2013 SUBJECT: DIRECT DEBIT FOR CESSNOCK POOL FEES

COUNCILLOR: Morgan Campbell

MOTION That a report be presented to Council on the possib ility of Cessnock pool membership fees having a direct debit, installment payment opt ion, rather than being required in a lump sum at the start of the season.

It is my intention to move the above motion at the next Ordinary Meeting of Council on 15 May 2013. RATIONALE It has been recently been mentioned to me that local swimmers are finding it difficult to afford season membership of Cessnock pool, due to the fact that it can only be paid for in a lump sum at the start of the season. This is particularly difficult for families. Many cannot afford an up front $400 or $500 payment, and thus cannot purchase a family season pass. These families need to pay each time they use the pool, meaning they pay significantly more over the course of the season. It is my view that Council could relieve pool users of this burden by allowing users to pay their membership in installments throughout the season, possibly through direct debit. It is my understanding that this system is already in place at Kurri Kurri pool.

Sgd: Morgan Campbell

Date: 6 May 2013

ENCLOSURES



Notices Of Motion

Report No. BN13/2013



NOTICES OF MOTION No. BN13/2013 SUBJECT: COUNCIL PICK UP SYSTEM

COUNCILLOR: Morgan Campbell

MOTION That a report be presented to Council on the concep t of a Council pick up system. The report should consider:- 1. The likely cost of such a system, and how it com pares to the current dump pass

system. 2. How similar schemes work in neighbouring Council s. 3. Any other issues such as visual impact and healt h.

It is my intention to move the above motion at the next Ordinary Meeting of Council on 15 May 2013. RATIONALE Waste management and illegal dumping continue to be significant issues in our community. Rather than continuing to debate how best to punish or deter illegal dumpers, it may be more useful to address the basic cause of the dumping. When I am out door knocking, Council pick up is regularly raised with me as a potentially more accessible and simple system than the dump pass scheme we currently operate. It will at least be worthwhile to get some background information, to see if such a system has a merit, and whether it could work for us.

Sgd: Morgan Campbell

Date: 7 May 2013

ENCLOSURES



Answers To Questions For Next Meeting

Report No. AQ59/2013

Community Services


SUBJECT: NOXIOUS WEEDS - SWAMP CREEK


Q242/2013 - Noxious Weeds – Swamp Creek Asked by Councillor Wrightson at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 3 April 2013.

“Councillor Wrightson referred to an email in relation to noxious weeds within Swamp Creek and asked for an approximate costing for the spraying of the weeds?”

The area referred to by Councillor Wrightson includes a 40m long section south of the bridge in William Street, Abermain towards Mary Street (see red hatched area in attachment A). The approximate cost to spray weeds in this area is $300.00 which includes materials and labour. An inspection of Swamp Creek from Cessnock Road south to Mary Street Abermain (see yellow outlined area in attachment A) found that there are very small occurrences of Blackberry and Green Cestrum which are both declared noxious weeds in the Cessnock Local Government Area. In accordance with the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 and as per usual operational practices the treatment of these weeds has been scheduled and will take place at the end of May, weather permitting. The cost for these works is covered within the current Weeds Budget. Swamp Creek also contains species such as Phragmites, Cumbingi and Privet which are often mistaken for noxious weeds, but they are not classified as such in the Cessnock Local Government Area.

ENCLOSURES

1 Attachment A 1 Page






SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENTS SUBJECT TO FLOODING WITHIN THE EAST CESSNOCK FLOODPLAIN


Q243/2013- Developments subject to flooding within the East Cessnock floodplain Asked by Councillor Campbell at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 17 April 2013:

“Are there any developments presently in Council’s system or before Council which are situated on the East Cessnock Floodplain?

Council is not currently in receipt of any outstanding Development Applications proposing development/s within the area defined as the East Cessnock floodplain (which is impacted by the flooding of Black Creek). It is noted that Council was recently in receipt of a development application (8/2013/62/1) seeking to subdivide 2 Alpine Avenue (Lot 401 DP 1144232), to create seven (7) additional residential lots and the subsequent creation of an attached dual occupancy and associated strata subdivision on each of those proposed lots. The application has recently been withdrawn by the applicant, and is therefore no longer under consideration by Council. Furthermore, it is noted that the site is only partially affected by flooding to a minor extent along the eastern boundary.

ENCLOSURES







SUBJECT: WERMOL STREET FLOOD STUDY


Q236/2013 - Wermol Street Flood Study Asked by Councillor Doherty at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 17 April 2013:

“There are a number of developments in Wermol Street that are before Council and are required to prepare a flood study and is there any way that the various businesses could jointly fund such a study rather than individual businesses?’

Owners of property subject to flooding may obtain their own professional advice by way of a flood study prepared by a suitably qualified engineer. The benefit of sharing the cost of a professional flooding report would depend upon the number of land owners intending to develop their property, that is, where few land owners participate in a joint flood study, the cost sharing benefit would be limited. Provided that any such documentation was prepared professionally and to the required standard, there would no objection to it being utilised in support of future development proposals.

ENCLOSURES







SUBJECT: WERMOL STREET FLOOD STUDY INFORMATION


Q238/2013 - Wermol Street Flood Study Information Asked by Councillor Maybury at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 17 April 2013:

“Whether Council Officers are using information that has not been approved by Council in regard to their requests for flood studies” ?

The relevant 'Flood Study' is the "Kurri Kurri Main Drain Flood Study" undertaken by Lawson and Treloar Pty Ltd (December 2001). It has not been adopted by Council and is one of several pre-2005 Flood Studies used by Council in its management of flood prone land. Council's GIS Flood Layer includes the 1 in 100 flood extent of all Flood Studies, with those adopted by Council highlighted by a contrasting colour key to identify those not adopted by Council. Notwithstanding the fact that the flood study has not been adopted, it is considered best-practice for Council to utilise any available information in the assessment of development applications. Furthermore, it is noted that Council may ‘include advice on such other relevant matters affecting the land of which it may be aware’, on Planning Certificates under Section 149 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. In this instance, the Section 149 Planning Certificate for the site indicates as follows: ‘Council does not have definitive flood level data available that would enable determination of whether the land is covered by the Council's flood related development controls. Applying clause 17.1 of Appendix I to the Floodplain Development Manual, an initial subjective assessment has been undertaken based on information held by Council, historical data and reasonable assumptions based on the catchment, channel size and terrain. This assessment indicates that flood related development controls may apply to the land’. Since 2005, Council has followed the guidelines established in the NSW State Government's 'Floodplain Development Manual' 2005 for all activities related to the management of floodprone land. As a result, the most recent completed Flood Studies (eg Wollombi Flood Study Review, Wallis and Swamp/Fishery Creeks Flood Study and Black Creek Flood Study) have been developed in accordance with the manual and have subsequently been adopted by Council.

ENCLOSURES







SUBJECT: LINDSAY ST DRAINAGE - NOTIFICATION OF RESIDENTS


Q247/2013 - Lindsay Street Drainage – Notification of Residents Asked by Councillor Olsen at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 17 April 2013: .

“A meeting was held with residents of Lindsay Street regarding the drainage where they were informed that they would be kept up to date with what was going on. Have the letters gone out to the residents yet ?”

Following the onsite meeting, and consultation with both the developer and Council’s consultant engineer, a letter was provided to residents on 21 March 2013. Council officers and consultant development engineer have formally written to the civil works contractor and planning consultant responsible for the original construction works, indicating the outcome from a review of the completed bulk earthworks and drainage construction on the project, and following consultation with the residents. The proponents have been advised of the preferred concept drainage design (Option 4), as discussed at the on-site meeting on 4 February 2013, and requested to provide the final design plans for the preferred option. The proponent’s planning consultant has acknowledged receipt of Council’s correspondence and advised of an intention to respond accordingly. Council intends to provide residents with further advice on receipt of the detailed design plans from the proponent.

ENCLOSURES







SUBJECT: CESSNOCK FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STUDY AND PLAN PROGRESS UPDATE

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Strategic Asset Planning Manag er - Philip Miles

Q 250/2013 – Black Creek Flood Study Asked by Councillor Gibson at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 17 April 2013.

“An update on the status of the Black Creek flood study or flood Management Plan and enquired if it was still due to come to Council in May?”

In accordance with Council’s Operational Plan, the Cessnock Flood Risk Management Study and Plan was due to be completed by June 2013. A number of variations for additional works and claims for delay have been accepted by Council and the Office of Environment and Heritage. The Draft Risk Management Study and Plan is expected to be presented to Council for technical review and presentation to the Flood Plain Management Committee in early September 2013, with the Final Flood Risk Management Study and Plan, including public exhibition, to be considered for adoption by Council in December 2013. Council’s Floodplain Management Committee membership is now established and the progress of this project will be reported and reviewed at the first committee meeting planned for Friday, 7 June 2013.

ENCLOSURES







SUBJECT: SWAMP / FISHERY CREEK FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STUDY AND PLAN PROGRESS UPDATE

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Strategic Asset Planning Manag er - Philip Miles

Q252/2013 – Weston Flood Study & Q255/2013 – Swamp Creek Flood Study Asked by Councillor Maybury at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 17 April 2013.

“Asked the status of the Weston Flood Study?”

Asked by Councillor Wrightson at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 17 April 2013. “An update on the Swamp Creek Flood Study.”

In accordance with Council’s Operational Plan, the Swamp / Fishery Creek Flood Risk Management Study and Plan was due to be completed by June 2013. A number of variations for additional works and claims for delay have been accepted by Council and the Office of Environment and Heritage. The Draft Risk Management Study and Plan is expected to be presented to Council for technical review and presentation to the Flood Plain Management Committee in May 2013, with the Final Flood Risk Management Study and Plan, including public exhibition, to be considered for adoption by Council in October 2013. Council’s Floodplain Management Committee membership is now established and the progress of this project will be reported and reviewed at the first committee meeting planned for Friday 7 June 2013.

ENCLOSURES







SUBJECT: CORNER OF FIRST STREET, KLINE STREET AND CESSNOCK ROAD, WESTON


Q265/2013 - Corner of First Street, Kline Street an d Cessnock Road, Weston Asked by Councillor Maybury at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 1 May 2013.

‘What is happening with the area at the corner of First and Kline Streets, Weston, where there is a hole and it is overgrown with weeds’?

The site in question is located at the corner of First Street, Kline Street and Cessnock Road, Weston, and is legally known as Lots 1 – 6 DP 979187. The site benefits from an active development consent (8/2008/343/1), which permits the construction of six (6) dual occupancies and associated works. This approval was granted on 10 November 2011, and it is noted that remediation works were carried out on the site in August/September/October 2012. The carrying out of these works most likely constitutes ‘physical commencement’ under Section 95(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. In this respect, the consent will now remain valid in perpetuity, which means that the developer can take unlimited time in which to commence further works on the site. The concern relating to the current condition of the site was referred to Council’s Rangers for investigation, and a review of the matter identified that a Notice of Intention to Issue an Order in respect of the overgrown nature of the property, was issued by Council on 30 April 2013. Council’s Rangers will continue to monitor the site to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

ENCLOSURES





Community Services


SUBJECT: JOHN STREET, ABERMAIN

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Design Delivery Manager - Katr ina Kerr

Q264/2013 – John Street, Abermain Asked by Councillor Parsons at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 1 May 2013.

Councillor Parsons asked if the ‘No Standing’ at the crest of the hill at John Street, Abermain could be extended over the hill?

This matter has been referred to the Traffic Engineering Officer for investigation. To be referred to the Traffic Committee if required as a result of the investigation.

ENCLOSURES





Community Services


SUBJECT: HEDDON STREET, HEDDON GRETA

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Design Delivery Manager - Katr ina Kerr

Q262/2013 – Heddon Street, Heddon Greta Asked by Councillor Smith at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 1 May 2013.

Councillor Smith asked that the matter of traffic calming in Heddon Street, Heddon Greta be referred to the Traffic Committee for investigation?

This matter has been referred to the Traffic Engineering Officer for investigation in the first instance. The matter will then be referred to the Local Traffic Committee if the result of the investigation is a recommendation to install regulatory traffic facilities, signs or markings.

ENCLOSURES





Community Services


SUBJECT: DRAIN - 3 KEELENDI ROAD, BELLBIRD

AUTHOR: Works Delivery Manager - Geoffrey Bent

Q126/2012 – Drain – 3 Keelendi Road, Bellbird Asked by Councillor Burcham at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 5 September 2012.

“Councillor Burcham advised of a complaint that she had received concerning the drain at 3 Keelendi Road, Bellbird and asked for it to be investigated as it is overgrown and silted.”

Staff have been unable to identify a drain at or near this location. The team did however while onsite, inspect the stormwater pits at the bottom of the road to ensure that they were clear of any obstruction.

ENCLOSURES





Community Services


SUBJECT: RAILWAY PARADE KURRI KURRI

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Works Delivery Manager - Geoff rey Bent

Q253/2013 – Railway Parade Kurri Kurri Asked by Councillor Councillor Maybury at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 17 April 2013.

Councillor Maybury asked that the state of Railway Parade going into the town houses be investigated?

The area has been investigated and as a result maintenance sealing has been programmed for the pavement adjacent the townhouses during May 2013.

ENCLOSURES





Community Services


SUBJECT: CONGEWAI ROAD


Q254/2013 – Congewai Road Asked by Councillor Burcham at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 17 April 2013.

Councillor Burcham tabled a petition from the residents that live along the 9.6km of dirt of Congewai Road asking for the Maintenance Program to be revisited in regard to grading?

The rural grading maintenance program is currently being reviewed citywide. The review will reassess rural grading intervention levels based on available funding and resources. This review will include Congewai Road. Over and above this, Council has been asked to consider an increase to the maintenance schedule for Congewai Road as part of the upcoming Operational and Delivery Plan deliberations.

ENCLOSURES





Community Services


SUBJECT: VINES ESTATE


Q260/2013 – Vines Estate Asked by Councillor Gibson at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 1 May 2013.

Councillor Gibson asked whether the area at Vines Estate, on the road shoulder, post Hunter Water water mains works can be tidied up?

The works are not yet complete. Council undertakes restoration inspections in conjunction with Hunter Water representatives. This issue will be raised at the next programmed inspection.

ENCLOSURES





Community Services


SUBJECT: OVERHEAD BRIDGE - WESTON


Q263/2013 – Overhead Bridge - Weston Asked by Councillor Parsons at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 1 May 2013.

Councillor Parsons asked if the bits of material could be removed off the overhead bridge at Weston?

Council staff will arrange removal of material by the week ending 10 May 2013.

ENCLOSURES





Community Services


SUBJECT: MAINTENANCE OF TREES


Q259/2013 – Maintenance of Trees Asked by Councillor Campbell at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 1 May 2013.

Councillor Campbell asked if Council undertakes regular maintenance of trees in front of Vineyard Grove on Mount View Road and if not, would it be possible to be done?

Council is responsible for approximately 19,000 trees located on road reserves, median strips, footpaths, garden beds, parks and other active and passive recreation areas. The majority of Council’s Tree Services Team work is generated by customer requests. Council sought quotations to carry out dead wooding of the trees on the northern (school side) of Mount View Road in front of Vineyard Grove around 12 months ago and were in the vicinity of $40,000. This was considered cost prohibitive given the total budget for annual tree maintenance is $264,400. The trees near Vineyard Grove are in considered to be in reasonable health and will continue to be monitored when the Tree Services Team is in the area.

ENCLOSURES







SUBJECT: LEP PROCESS - KURRI CBD


Q257/1013 – LEP Process Kurri CBD Asked by Councillor Graham Smith at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 17 April 2013.

“Councillor Smith asked if it could be identified at what point of the LEP process the radius from the Kurri CBD was reduced from 1,000 to 600m for the R2 zone and by whom it was done as Councillors were not briefed on the matter? Also given that quite a number of property owners have had their ability to use their property stymied by this decision can the matter be dealt with as a housekeeping amendment to the LEP?”

It is believed that this matter is related to the medium density zone at Kurri Kurri which is the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone as opposed to the R2 Zone (Low Density Residential) referred to in the question. The following answer is couched in terms of the medium density R3 Zone. City Wide Settlement Strategy The commercial centre hierarchy, which justifies the R3 - Medium Density zone at Kurri Kurri, was established by Council with the review of the City Wide Settlement Strategy (2010). This was done to assist in meeting infill dwelling targets identified in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy. The City Wide Settlement Strategy (2010) was adopted without any alterations or changes to that that was publicly exhibited from 27 July 2009 to 11 December 2009. Kurri Kurri R 3 Zone Size The City Wide Settlement Strategy and the issue of the size of R3 Zones around commercial centers was part of a Council briefing on 13 May 2009. At that briefing the principle of R3 Zones being generally within a 1000m radius of the Cessnock, Kurri Kurri, Branxton and Weston commercial areas was discussed. In establishing the size of higher density residential zones, including medium density zones industry standards relating to higher residential densities nominate a walking catchment of between 400m and 1000m from the transport node of a town centre (effectively the town Centre). This and the commercial centre hierarchy was the basis of establishing the R3 zone sizes around these centres. Under the City Wide Settlement Strategy the Cessnock town centre, being a major regional centre was determined to be suitable for a 1000m medium density catchment. A smaller maximum catchment of 600m was proposed and adopted for the centre of Kurri Kurri, in accordance with its place in the hierarchy of commercial centres. Based on the briefing in 2009, Council may have had an expectation that the R3 Zone at Kurri Kurri might have been extended to 1000m from the town Centre. The amount of R3 Zoned land at Kurri Kurri under Cesnnock LEP 2011 represents no change from the previous






zoning arrangements. These arrangements were endorsed by Council with the adoption of the City Wide Settlement Strategy and the Cessnock LEP 2011. Planning Proposal Changes to the R3 Zone at Kurri Kurri would require a Planning Proposal. The Planning Proposal would need to be strategically justifiable in order to either increase or decrease the R3 Zone. The matter is not suitable to be included as a “house keeping” amendment to Cessnock LEP 2011 as it is not a minor matter and any changes would have implications for the City Wide Settlement Strategy and the housing targets identified in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy. Should a Panning Proposal be commenced prior to the review of the City Wide Settlement Strategy it would be a major work item not currently planned for and would impinge on the delivery of other projects identified in the 2013-17 Delivery Program.

ENCLOSURES







SUBJECT: HISTORIC MILITARY SIGNS - KURRI KURRI


Q87/2012 – Historic Military Signs – Kurri Kurri Asked by Councillor Maybury at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 20 June 2012:

“Councillor Maybury referred to a previous resolution in regard to the erection of two Historic Military Signs within Kurri Kurri and advised that he had received a letter from the Returned and Services League of Australia requesting that two signs be erected, the first to be placed on the roundabout at the intersection of Heddon & Northcote streets titled “Hill 60” and the second at the t-intersection at Loxford titled “Soldiers Settlement”.

A meeting between Cessnock City Council’s Heritage Advisor and Kurri Kurri Returned Services League (RSL) was held on 8 February 2013 to gauge the feasibility of erecting historic signs for both Hill 60 and Soldiers Settlement within Kurri Kurri. Following the meeting, information regarding the historic significance of Hill 60 and Soldiers Settlement was submitted to Council for assessment. Council’s assessment concluded that the proposal to erect signage for both Hill 60 and Soldiers Settlement in Kurri Kurri has historic relevance and Kurri Kurri RSL was given direction on how to progress the matter. Kurri Kurri RSL is now compiling a formal proposal on how to best interpret the historic significance of Hill 60 and Soldiers Settlement within Kurri Kurri. Following receipt of Kurri Kurri RSL’s proposal, Council will assist Kurri Kurri RSL in progressing the proposal under Council’s standard policies and procedures.

ENCLOSURES


agenda: page no. - cessnock city council · pdf filethis is page 1 of the agenda of the...

Documents