commencing at 9:00 am elbow street west …...2018/12/18 · council can consent to development...

Ordinary Council Meeting - 18 December 2018

A Council meeting will be held on Tuesday 18 December 2018 in the Council Chambers located Elbow Street West Kempseycommencing at 9:00 am


INDEX

1 OPENING PRAYER..............................................................................................................................42 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL ABORIGINAL LANDOWNERS ......................................43 APOLOGIES........................................................................................................................................44 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST ............................................................................................................45 ASSESSMENT OF ITEMS LISTED FOR CONFIDENTIAL CONSIDERATION.............................................46 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ...........................................................................................................47 CITIZENSHIP CEREMONIES ................................................................................................................48 PUBLIC FORUM AND PRESENTATIONS..............................................................................................49 CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS FOR SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS AND MOTIONS FOR CHANGES TO

THE ORDER OF BUSINESS ..................................................................................................................510 CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS RELATING TO PUBLIC FORUM MATTERS..........................................511 CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS RELATING TO A CONSENSUS MOTION .............................................512 MAYORAL MINUTES ..........................................................................................................................613 STAFF REPORTS .................................................................................................................................7

13.1 SALTWATER URBAN RELEASE AREA OPTIONS .........................................................................................713.2 STUARTS POINT SEWERAGE SCHEME....................................................................................................1413.3 POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR THE LODGEMENT OF PETITIONS...........................................................2213.4 FUNDING OF ACTIONS OF THE RUDDER PARK FLYING FOX CAMP MANAGEMENT PLAN.....................2313.5 TENDER FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TURNERS FLAT BRIDGE ........................................2913.6 NOMINATIONS FOR JRPP.......................................................................................................................3113.7 REVIEW OF COMMITTEES......................................................................................................................3213.8 HERITAGE MAINTENANCE COMMITTEE ................................................................................................3713.9 ACTING GENERAL MANAGER APPOINTMENT .......................................................................................3913.10 STATEMENT OF CASH AND INVESTMENTS - NOVEMBER 2018 .............................................................4113.11 NOTICE OF MOTION NOT INCLUDED.....................................................................................................42

14 RESCISSION MOTIONS.....................................................................................................................4315 NOTICES OF MOTION ......................................................................................................................44

15.1 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION - POINT PLOMER ROAD.........................................................................4415.2 LONG TERM ENERGY STRATEGY, CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY AND

EMISSIONS REDUCTION STRATEGY .......................................................................................................4615.3 GRANT FUNDING - LONG TERM FINANCIAL IMPACT.............................................................................4915.4 MASTER PLAN AND LEP REVIEW STUARTS POINT .................................................................................5015.5 SEWERAGE SERVICES WILLAWARRIN AND BELLBROOK ........................................................................5215.6 IMPROVED BOATING ACCESS BACK CREEK SOUTH WEST ROCKS..........................................................5415.7 WASTE VOUCHER USE ...........................................................................................................................5615.8 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - LONG TERM INCREASE IN FLIGHT ACTIVITY ..........................5715.9 SEWERAGE SERVICES - SOUTHERN INTERCHANGE................................................................................59

16 DELEGATES REPORTS ......................................................................................................................6016.1 LGNSW ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2018.....................................................................................................60

17 COMMITTEE REPORTS.....................................................................................................................6317.1 LOCAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 4 DECEMBER 2018 ...................................................63

18 DELIVERY PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ........................................................................6419 COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS................................................................................................................6520 CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS .....................................................................................................................72


20.1 LEGAL MATTERS.....................................................................................................................................7320.2 TENDER FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TURNERS FLAT BRIDGE ........................................73

21 CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................73


1 OPENING PRAYER

“Dear Lord, help us in our deliberations today so that our decisions will be for the greater good for the whole of Kempsey Shire - Amen”.

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL ABORIGINAL LANDOWNERS

“Council acknowledges that this meeting is being held on the traditional lands of the Dunghutti People”.

3 APOLOGIES

That the apology submitted by Councillors for non-attendance at the meeting be accepted and leave of absence granted.

4 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

That Councillors' declared interests be noted.

5 ASSESSMENT OF ITEMS LISTED FOR CONFIDENTIAL CONSIDERATION

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

6 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1 That the minutes of the ordinary meeting of Kempsey Shire Council dated 20 November 2018 be confirmed.

2 That the minutes of the extraordinary meeting of Kempsey Shire Council dated 4 December 2018 be confirmed.

Attachments1. minutes-2018-11-20 [6.1.1]2. minutes-2018-12-4 [6.1.2]

7 CITIZENSHIP CEREMONIES

Nil

8 PUBLIC FORUM AND PRESENTATIONS

8.1 PUBLIC FORUM


8.2 PRESENTATIONS

Mayoral Community Fund recipients;1. Terry Witchard from the Macleay Valley Education Fund 2. Colin Scullion from the South West Rocks Arts Council

9 CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS FOR SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS AND MOTIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF BUSINESS

That the Agenda Order of Business is adopted.

10 CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS RELATING TO PUBLIC FORUM MATTERS

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

11 CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS RELATING TO A CONSENSUS MOTION

The following items will be enacted by one motion unless a Councillor or citizen of Kempsey Shire Council requests the item be considered separately.

RECOMMENDED:

That the recommendations contained in the following items be adopted:

13.5 Tender for the Design and Construction of Turners Flat Bridge13.6 Nominations for JRPP13.7 Review of Committees13.8 Heritage Maintenance Committee13.9 Acting General Manager Appointment13.10 Statement of Cash and Investments - November 201813.11 Notice of Motion Not Included17.1 Local Traffic Committee Meeting Held on 4 December 201820.1 Legal Matters20.2 Tender for the Design and Construction of Turners Flat Bridge


12 MAYORAL MINUTES

Nil


13 STAFF REPORTS

13.1 SALTWATER URBAN RELEASE AREA OPTIONS

Officer Peter Orr, Senior Strategic Planning OfficerFile No KLEP2013-AM-27Attachments Nil

PURPOSE To provide a report regarding the southern portion of the Saltwater Urban Release Area (URA).

RECOMMENDATION That the report is noted and that Council proceed to prepare a Development Control Plan for the entire Saltwater precinct. ISSUES Planning Proposal KLEP2013-AM-27 (being a Housekeeping Amendment) received endorsement at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 20 November 2018. The resolution included the following requirement:

4 A report be brought back to provide options to facilitate the release of the remainder of the Southern area of Saltwater Urban Release Area including the staging and road connectivity.

This report is in response to the resolution above, which came about following representation by a neighbouring landowner (who owns land within the Urban Release Area not the subject of Planning Proposal KLEP2013-AM-27) at the Council meeting. BACKGROUND The Saltwater Precinct in South West Rocks is the only Urban Release Area (URA) in the Kempsey Shire as identified in the Kempsey LEP 2013 (KLEP 2013). The precinct comprises two urban release area portions (as highlighted in Figure 1 below); being separate northern and southern localities.

The referred Housekeeping Amendment (Planning Proposal KLEP2013-AM-27) proposed to remove a portion of the southern URA mapping (also identified in Figure 1 below). The housekeeping amendment is currently with the Department of Planning and Environment for consideration in issuing a gateway determination.


Figure 1: Saltwater Urban Release Area (including Housekeeping Amendment endorsed by Council)

Part 3A Project Approval (MP 08_0167 Belle O’Connor Street, South West Rocks)

The southern portion of the Saltwater URA is currently being developed under Part 3A approval MP 08_ 0167 issued by the Department of Planning and Environment. The Project Approval, issued in 3 June 2011, provides for a 269-lot low density residential subdivision with one medium density residue lot. The Project Approval provides for eight stages including the provision and timing of necessary infrastructure.


Figure 2: Saltwater Residential Subdivision MP 08_0167

This Part 3A project has been subject to several modifications as summarised below:

Modification 1

This modification was sought by Land Dynamics Australia on behalf of Malbec Properties Pt Ltd. It was approved on 6 August 2013 and involves:

redesign of the stormwater treatment drain including deletion of the constructed wetlands; shifting the approved road network to the east to create a more efficient road network

layout preventing any lots from having two street frontages; consolidation of public open space; and seven additional residential lots.


Figure 3: Modification (1) - Staging Plan approved 6 August 2013

Modification 2

This modification was sought by Keiley Hunter on behalf of Lex Tall, Director of Teebee Holdings Pty Ltd. It sought to develop stages 10 and 11 of the project independent of stages 1 to 9. This modification was approved on 3 December 2018 and involves:

amend the size, location and layout of residential lots; deletion of the medium density lot and increase of 14 low density residential lots; amend and provide a new internal road network; create a new public vehicular access; amend bushfire asset protection zone requirements; provision of essential services and infrastructure.


Figure 4: Modification (2) Layout Plan Overlain on Existing Approval approved 8 December 2018

Modification 3

This modification was approved on 19 December 2017 and involves:

deletion of 122 residential lots to create one lot over the eastern portion of the site for use as a senior living development (199 senior living dwelling sites over 12 stages).


Figure 5: Modification (3) Revised Overall Staging Plan approved 19 December 2017

Modification 4

This modification was lodged by Land Dynamics on behalf of Teebee Holdings Pty Ltd and Malbec South West Rocks Pty Ltd, and was approved on 16 October 2018. It relates to conditions only “to alter the timing to reflect approval pathways within Seniors Living Development and clarify applicable Environmental Planning Instruments and Codes for future applications”.

Modification 5

This modification was sought by Land Dynamics Australia, on 28 February 2018, and sought to extend the seniors living development on the eastern portion approved under modification 3. This application was subsequently withdrawn.

Urban Release Area

The Saltwater URA is mapped in KLEP 2013 to ensure that future development at the site occurs in an orderly manner in terms of servicing and sequencing. The linkage is through clause 6.3 of KLEP 2013, which states that development consent cannot be granted for development in an URA until a specific Development Control Plan (DCP) is in place which addresses the considerations identified in subclause 6.3(3). There is not such a DCP in place. Despite this, clause 6.3(4) does provide that Council can consent to development that is of a minor nature only, if the consent authority is of the opinion that the carrying out of the proposed development would be consistent with the objectives of the zone.

OPTIONS FOR URA RELEASE

Given the URA provisions, there are essentially two options to facilitate release of the southern


portion of the Saltwater URA:

1. Saltwater Precinct DCP – The Saltwater precinct is important, being the only URA in the Shire, and it is imperative that the development of this area progresses in an orderly and integrated fashion for the benefit of the broader community. Preparing a place-specific DCP for this area will provide an overarching plan to guide development of the land, giving landowners a level of certainty, and which would be developed in consultation with stakeholders and the broader community. Once the DCP is in place, the provisions of clause 6.3 of KLEP 2013 will be satisfied enabling the development of both the northern and southern portions of Saltwater precinct. Any such DCP would have due consideration to any existing activated Part 3A approvals. It is anticipated that a DCP could take in the order of 12 months to complete, with the process able to commence early 2019.

2. Planning Proposal – A planning proposal could be prepared which seeks to remove the land from the mapped URA. Any such planning proposal would need to demonstrate how it will be ensured that the land will be developed in a logical and cost-effective manner in the absence of it being in the mapped URA, having regard for matters such as staging, transport movement, recreation network, and the amelioration of environmental hazards. The most appropriate means to do this would be via a site specific DCP however (the subject of option 1 outlined above), the preparation of which negates the need for a planning proposal. Whilst there is a Part 3A project approval in place over the land which provides for its development (as outlined above under the Part 3A Project Approval information), land owners still have the option to develop the land either in accordance with this approval, or in the alternative pursue a new kind of development under the current legislative framework (i.e. via a new Development Application). If the latter option is pursued, in the absence of a site specific DCP for this land, there would be no overarching plan to guide the logical and orderly development of this southern precinct.

ROAD CONNECTIVITY

The southern Saltwater area will be linked via Belle O’Connor Street as identified in plans shown above. The DCP recommended to progress will identify needs with regard to road connectivity through the overall Saltwater precinct.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

Option 1 is believed to provide a wholistic view to the location and is a better model from a community engagement perspective. This option once complete shall also fully resolve the issue for the URA mapped areas. Option 2 may lead to a more piecemeal approach of proponent led planning proposals, which would be required to address many aspects that a DCP would consider in any case.

It is noted that Option 1 does not prevent proponents submitting a Planning Proposal for consideration, however this is not a desirable outcome and has no certainty of approval. Further it is noted that for a planning proposal to reach the making of an LEP amendment generally takes a minimum of 9 months to complete.


13.2 STUARTS POINT SEWERAGE SCHEME

Officer Robert Fish, Director Operations & PlanningFile No F12/1614Attachments 1. 22185121505- RE P-1 Options Comparison November 2018 Redacted

[13.2.1]

PURPOSE

Reporting on a review of options for the Stuarts Points Sewerage Scheme (SPSS) in light of constraints and concerns identified with developing the proposal to transfer sewage from Stuarts Point to the South West Rocks Sewage Treatment Plant.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1 Progress with design and investigation work for the proposed alternative option for the Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme of a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) near Stuarts Point, with dunal discharge of treated effluent, subject to successful amendment of the grant funding Deed.

2 Authorise the General Manager to negotiate and amend the Restart NSW Funding Deed to reflect a revised project scope, noting that the revised option delivers the same overall outcome of that originally intended under the grant.

3 Revert from progressing the proposed sewer charge for the Stuarts Point area for the 2019/20 financial year to the annual septic charge listed within Council’s Fees and Charges.

4 Inform the community of this decision.

ISSUES

Properties at the villages of Stuarts Point, Grassy Head and Fishermans Reach presently rely on Onsite Sewage Management Systems (OSMS) to treat and dispose of effluent. The majority of residences are served by septic tanks provided with absorption trenches or pump-out systems. There are many sewage management issues facing these communities including:

High nitrate levels in groundwater and further groundwater contamination risk with continuation of septic tank use.

Shallow groundwater table resulting in wet weather overflows from the septic systems, with several low performing septic systems in use.

The Environmental Protection Authority’s Beach Watch Program identified elevated levels of nutrients and biological contamination in the local estuary over an extended monitoring period.

Ongoing use of OSMS at holiday parks may cause a risk to public health and the sensitive surrounding environment.


In 2013 Council installed a package sewage treatment plant for the Stuarts Point Caravan Park to replace the former septic tank. However, there are two other holiday parks in the Grassy Head area which still rely on septic tank systems for sewage management.

Provision of a reticulated sewerage scheme and treatment system utilising modern technology will eliminate or reduce these risks significantly. The sewerage scheme will assist in protection of the pristine environment at Stuarts Point, Fishermans Reach, Grassy Head and the surrounding area. The scheme will also support the local economy by protecting the environment for sensitive land uses such as oyster leasing, promote growth in the area and provide for the potential opportunity of using treated effluent and biosolids for agricultural land uses (subject to further investigations).

Design and investigation work over the past two years has focussed on the option of transferring sewage from Stuarts Point to South West Rocks via a trunk main. Whilst having some merit, several key constraints and concerns have been identified during the development of this option. Further information on this, and associated recommendations, are outlined in the Background section of this report.

BACKGROUND

Project History

First investigation of a sewerage scheme at Stuarts Point Sewerage dates back to January 1983 by Pak-Poy and Kneebone, which considered the option of a Sewage Treatment Plant at Stuarts Point. This was followed by sewerage scheme loading development by the Public Works Department (PWD). A concept design incorporating an aerated lagoon treatment system and effluent discharge options investigation was undertaken by Sinclair Knight & Partners in 1984. A parcel of land on the corner of the Grassy Head Road and Stuarts Point Road was considered as a proposed site for treatment works and effluent disposal to the drainage reserve west of the Macleay River Arm.

In August 1995 the Stuarts Point Sewerage Strategy was developed by CMPS&F Environmental for PWD, which considered detailed options for the collection system, treatment and discharge of treated effluent. This strategy identified a vacuum collection system, activated sludge treatment process and dunal discharge as an option.

In 1999, the Australian Centre for Value Management developed the Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme Investigation Focus Workshop Report. The Department of Public Works then produced a Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme Discussion Paper in November 2002.

In 2016, Council developed a new Sewerage Strategy for Stuarts Point, Grassy Head and Fishermans Reach. This identified the option of a pressure sewer collection system and transfer of sewage to South West Rocks Sewage Treatment Plant (SWR STP) for treatment. To transfer sewage to South West Rocks Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) to cross under the Macleay River was identified as being required.

Project Funding

Through the early work undertaken, funding was not able to be sourced or allocated to enable the project to progress. However, in 2016 Council was successful in receiving a $6.63 million grant from Infrastructure NSW under the Water and Waste Water Backlog Program (Restart NSW funding). The grant amount was 42% of the then estimated total project cost.


At the December 2016 Ordinary Meeting Council resolved to accept the Restart NSW grant funding. At that meeting Council resolved the following:

1 That the General Manager be delegated authority to sign the Restart NSW Funding Deed.

2 That for the properties that justified the receipt of the Restart NSW funding:

a) the Stuarts Point sewerage charge be progressively applied

b) the septic inspection fee in 2016/2017 be reduced by the equivalent of the Stuarts Point sewerage charge and discontinue the septic inspection fee from 2017/2018 sewerage charge.

3 That Developer Charges in accordance with s.64 of the Local Government Act be applied to properties not included in the subsidised scheme or where a development intensification is proposed.

4 That the proposed sewer charge for 2016/2017 of $16 per residential property to be connected be placed on public exhibition before being implemented under s.501 of the Local Government Act.

5 That once connected, the annual sewer access charge is applied to each property on a pro-rata basis from the date of connection.

6 That a new action be incorporated into the current Operating Plan for the development of the detailed designs and preparation of the tender packages for the works with a due date of December 2017.

7 That the timeframes for delivery of the following Operating Plan actions be adjusted in recognition of the unplanned work completed to date on this project and what is projected to occur through the remainder of 2016/2017:

Operating Plan Action Original Due Date Projected Completion Date

Determine the viability of linking the coastal water schemes - Stage 2 delayed

June 2016 September 2017

Undertake review of user pays pricing to achieve 75% income split for domestic users and ensure equity in income from across the community

March 2017 May 2017

Undertake assessment of remote meter reading technology

March 2017 July 2017

Review developer contributions plans June 2017 November 2017

8 That a MasterPlan for Stuarts Point be considered in the development of the delivery plan 2017-2021.


Key elements of this resolution with further commentary in this report include accepting the grant funding and providing for progressively applying sewer charges to finance Council’s component of the project.

Options Investigation

The option of transferring sewage from Stuarts Point to South West Rocks via a trunk main was further explored in subsequent investigations through 2017 and in 2018. Due to the cultural heritage significance of the locality, and the potential for environmental impacts associated with construction, several route options were developed for the transfer pipeline for discussion with key stakeholders, including local Aboriginal groups and National Parks & Wildlife Services. Potential routes are identified in Figure 4 of the attachment to this report.

Through this work a number of concerns and constraints were identified which were considered to significantly impact the ability to deliver the project. These are outlined below, including a brief summary of the issue.

Aboriginal heritage/culture – The identified routes are in close proximity to an Aboriginal midden, the largest indigenous midden in the southern hemisphere. As a result, the area is of great value and cultural significance. As part of consultations undertaken, objection to all routes has been received from the Clybucca Aboriginal Custodians Group. Ground Penetrating Radar investigations identified potential isolated artefacts along proposed pipeline routes to South West Rocks. Verification has not occurred via test pits at the identified locations. To progress further, archaeological investigation work needs to occur under an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit. If the trunk main was to ultimately be constructed, stringent mitigation measures to abide by are likely, increasing construction costs.

Project environmental approvals required – The transfer main routes run through environmentally sensitive coastal wetland areas. The routes are covered by classified coastal wetland or coastal wetland proximity mapping, and are therefore covered by the provisions of the Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy. As a result of this, an Environmental Impact Statement is required, with determination through the relevant state minister being necessary. This is a very time-consuming and costly process.

Design hydraulic challenges – There are engineering challenges for the HDD and hydraulic challenges for the section of rising main from the HDD exit point to the SWR STP. Whilst, this can be overcome with additional engineering measures, it will result in additional construction and operational costs.

Capacity of South West Rocks Sewage Treatment Plant – The SWR STP is sized to handle 2.55 ML/day, which includes the three original Pasveer channels (of which only one is currently operational). This means that the existing plant can treat the current combined loads of Stuart Point and South West Rocks at 2.4 ML/day. However, a plant upgrade would be required in the short term to allow for growth, which would be anticipated to exceed the plant capacity by 2022. As such, any solution involving the transfer of sewage to SWR STP would require planning work to upgrade the STP to commence by 2020. Without additional load from Stuarts Point, SWR STP can cater for the town of SWR until approximately 2036 pending actual growth that occurs.

Cost – With the option of transferring sewage to SWR STP, as outlined above an upgrade of the STP is required. The preliminary cost estimate of increasing capacity of the SWR STP is $7.77 million, which significantly increases the overall project cost beyond funding available. HDD for the required trunk main is also a cost risk if inadequate geotechnical investigation occurs or incorrect assumptions are made.


Opportunity for effluent reuse for agriculture – If sewage is transferred via a trunk main to SWR STP, the potential opportunity for effluent reuse for agriculture is lost.

Risks to environment during construction – HDD of the scale required for the trunk main construction under the Macleay River has inherent risks. Whilst there is significant expertise and suitable equipment in this field of work, in the event that an incident were to occur during construction, there is significant environmental impact potential given the sensitive location.

Operational risks – Although of very low risk, in the event of failure of a trunk main to South West Rocks, this would result in significant issues in terms of environmental impact. It would also necessitate the need to pump and transport sewage for a long period of time while the failed trunk main is replaced, which would be at high cost.

Options Reassessment

Given the concerns and constraints associated with the option of transferring sewage to SWR STP, options for the project delivery were reassessed by GHD. The Options Comparison report is attached.

The reassessment considered options for transfer of sewage, treatment of sewage and disposal of treated effluent. Options reviewed for transfer of sewage included three routes for a trunk main to SWR STP and a route between Fishermans Reach and Grassy Head associated with a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) near Stuarts Point. The options considered for sewage treatment included the SWR STP, which as outlined above would require an upgrade in capacity, or a sewage treatment plant located to the south of Stuarts Point. Treated effluent disposal options included dunal discharge, subsoil irrigation or reuse.

The reassessment undertaken by GHD incorporated a multi-criteria assessment approach considering the following:

Constructability

Maintainability

Environmental/Social Issues

Financial Impact

The preliminary overall costs of the key options considered were as follows:

Collection, transfer to SWR STP and augment SWR STP - $34.1 million

Collection, transfer to Stuarts Point STP and STP construction - $24.9 million

Both figures above incorporate preliminaries (15%), contingency (15%) and engineering and on-cost (10%). The cost of each option would be refined through further option development.

The multi-criteria assessment determined that the option of having a STP at Stuarts Point was clearly preferred. Key reasons for this outcome were the overall scheme cost, environmental approval pathway, delivery timeframe, delay in the need to augment SWR STP and the mitigation of impacts on aboriginal heritage/culture.


Risks associated with this option, however, include licensing requirements for a new STP, the need to amend the funding Deed given the change in project scope, affordability and the STP location. Further information on the option development of a STP at Stuarts Point is provided below.

Stuarts Point Sewage Treatment Plant Option Development

This option is premised on the approach of forgoing the transfer of sewage to SWR STP by constructing a new STP south of Stuarts Point. The treatment plant at Stuarts Point offers the opportunity to eliminate work within the Coastal Wetland mapped areas and avoid areas of significant importance to Aboriginal heritage and culture.

To collect and transfer sewage to a new STP site a trunk main is required to run between Fishermans Reach and Grassy Head. Collection networks within the villages would connect to the trunk main. A potential site for a Sewage Treatment Plant has been identified off Fishermans Reach Road. This site is vacant Crown land clear of vegetation. Investigations have commenced into the status of the Crown land and any associated constraints this may present.

The site provides for a buffer distance of approximately 500m from residences. This meets Department of Planning and Environment development guidelines and provides for ability to manage odour during the design process, noting that modern treatment plants provide for excellent odour management capacity.

A Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) is considered the most suitable technology for the type of STP. Treatment options would be further investigated in subsequent design work however to confirm an MBR plant is most suited.

A potential site for treated effluent disposal via dunal disposal, similar to the South West Rocks dunal disposal, has been identified (at a desktop level) on the eastern side of the Macleay Arm, north east of Stuarts Point. The pressure main for effluent disposal could be installed in a combined trench with the Stuarts Point sewage rising main to a suitable point on Marine Parade. A horizontal directional drill under the Macleay Arm would be required to discharge effluent into the dunes.

Initial discussions have occurred with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) regarding a dunal discharge of treated effluent to the north east of Stuarts Point. No objections were raised in principle. However, further investigation is ultimately needed and consideration by the EPA.

It is noted that liaison with the EPA and Department of Industry is required to further progress the STP option and to obtain necessary approvals and licensing. During further development of the option, these authorities will be key stakeholders throughout the process.

Water and Waste Water Backlog Program Grant Conditions

The Water and Waste Water Backlog Program grant scope involves design and construction of a low pressure sewer system to serve the villages of Stuarts Point, Grassy Head and Fishermans Reach, conveying raw sewage to the existing STP in South West Rocks.

Early discussions have occurred with the proposed change in the project delivery approach of a STP at Stuart Point. Infrastructure NSW have indicated initial support in principle for the change as the key project objective of providing a reticulated sewerage system to Stuarts Point will still be delivered under this alternative.


The grant Deed has specified conditions around terms of payments. Under these conditions, the Treasurer is not obliged to pay any further payments if a milestone is not achieved by the relevant Milestone Sunset Date. The Deed also outlines that the recipient must use its best endeavours to deliver the project in accordance with the initial project plans.

Due to the environmental and heritage constraints encountered during early investigation of the transfer option to SWR, and the subsequent trigger to broaden the review of options assessment that is the subject of this report, progress is behind the scheduled project delivery that was submitted as part of the Deed. The Deed document includes milestones of concept and detailed design, as well engagement of contractor and HDD construction to be completed by now, SWR STP upgrade by February 2020 and construction of reticulation and transfer pump station to be completed by March 2021.

In principle, Infrastructure NSW have indicated initial support to some extension of the grant milestones (approximately 6-12 months). This is subject to further negotiation. It is noted that the individual milestones would require amendment based on the amended project scope.

Completion of the project to meet this Deed requirement, and more broadly community expectations around project completion, warrants swift actions from Council in terms of progressing design and investigation work.

Sewer Access Charge

As per Council’s resolution from the December 2016 Ordinary Meeting of Council, sewer charges have been progressively applied to assist financing Council’s component of the project. The charges applied, or planned to be applied, are as follows for residential properties:

2017/2018 - $82 2018/2019 - $560 2019/2020 - $1050 2020/2021 - $1,052 (full sewer charge)

In association with the progressive implementation of a sewer charge, septic fees have been discontinued.

In considering the project progress thus far, as well as community feedback received since the start of this financial year (2018/2019), it is recommended that sewer access charges revert to septic inspection fees as listed within Council’s annual Fees and Charges for all properties in the Stuarts Point area for next financial year (2019-2020).

It is anticipated that sewer access charges will be reviewed and reported to Council for resolution once a higher level of certainty around the project delivery timeframe is available as subsequent investigation and design work progresses.

Summary of Recommendation

Based on the conclusion of the reassessment of options, for timely and cost-effective delivery of this project to meet community expectations, it is recommended Council pursue the option of constructing a new STP at Stuarts Point with dunal discharge of treated effluent. On resolving this position, design and investigation work will progress based on this option.


The outcome of this report requires review of Council’s long term financial plan for the Sewer Fund, in association with other major sewerage projects planned in coming years. This will be undertaken as a priority during the initial development phases of these projects.

The Restart NSW funding Deed will need to be amended to reflect the revised project scope under the Water and Waste Water Backlog Program. It is recommended the General Manager be authorised to negotiate and amend the Deed, ensuring the project delivers the same overall outcome of that originally intended under the grant.

Based on the progress of the project, it is recommended that charges proposed for landowners be amended by reverting to the annual septic charge for 2019/20. Council can then reconsider charges applied for future years once a more comprehensive review of the project delivery timeline can be established.

It is noted that at the December 2018 meeting of the Stuarts Point and District Community Organisation (SPADCO) an update on the project was provided, including outlining the proposed new direction of the project. It is recommended that the community be informed of decisions made arising from this report. The project Communications and Community Engagement Plan shall be updated to reflect the change in project scope. Informing the community on project progress shall form part of this Plan.


13.3 POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR THE LODGEMENT OF PETITIONS

Officer Daniel Thoroughgood, Manager – Governance and Information ServicesFile No F18/1933Attachments 1. 2 1 V4 CUSTOMER SERVICE AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION POLICY Draft [13.3.1]

2. 2 1 5 V1 Petitions Draft [13.3.2]

PURPOSE

To vary Councils Customer Service and Public Notification Policy to recognise petitions and adopt a Petitions procedure.

RECOMMENDATION

That the varied Customer Service and Public Notification Policy and Petition procedure be placed on exhibition for a period of not less than 28 days

ISSUES

Attached is an updated Customer Service and Public Notification Policy that recognises the value of petitions as means for a member of the public or a community group to bring an issue before Council and links to a procedure establishing the form, content, lodgement process, and handling of a petition.

This draft procedure establishes a process where a petition which contains the pertinent information may be lodged with either the General Manager or a Councillor and tabled before the next available ordinary meeting of Council.

The draft procedure provides clarity to the public on the information which a petition must contain, and the form which it must take.

It also establishes a lower limit, proposed at 20, as the number of signatures that would result in a petition being brought before the Council and another limit, proposed at 50, which will trigger a staff report to come before a future meeting of Council unless the matter is already the subject of a paper on the agenda.

This procedure creates a new mechanism for a member of the public to bring business before Council which until now has only been able to occur via a Staff Report or a Notice of Motion from a Councillor.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of 16 October 2018 Council resolved:

1 That Council develops a Policy regarding the form of, receipt and processing of petitions from the community.

2 That this Policy be reported to Council for adoption at a future Council Meeting


13.4 FUNDING OF ACTIONS OF THE RUDDER PARK FLYING FOX CAMP MANAGEMENT PLAN

Officer Bill Larkin, Environmental Strategies OfficerFile No F12/1683Attachments Nil

PURPOSE

To decide on the funding of actions set out in the Rudder Park Flying-Fox Camp Management Plan, considering the current vacant occupancy status of the flying-fox camp.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1 Resolve to proceed with Level 2 actions from the Rudder Park Camp Management Plan.

2 Allocate funds to be able to match the dollar for dollar funding for when it becomes available through the Local Government NSW flying-fox grant funding program.

3 Apply for funding through the Local Government NSW flying-fox grant funding program (when funding round is opened) and if successful, prepare the required Vegetation Management Plan and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage values assessment required to be submitted to Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) with the Part 2 licence application.

ISSUES

A Flying-Fox Camp Management Plan (CMP) was prepared for the Rudder Park urban flying fox camp by Ecosure ecological consultants. The CMP was endorsed by Council at the October 2017 Ordinary Council Meeting. The CMP was partially funded by Local Government NSW (Flying Fox Grants Program) and was carried out in accordance with the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) NSW Flying Fox Camp Management Policy (2015). On 17 October 2017 Council resolved that: 1. The draft Rudder Park Flying-fox Camp Management Plan be endorsed.2. Grant funding be sought to implement actions in the plan. At the time of writing this report the camp has been vacated for around nine months and a new flying-fox camp established at Council’s Jerseyville environmental project site at about the same time. It is likely (but not certain) that the population currently at Jerseyville is the same as that which was using the Rudder Park site.

BACKGROUND

Subject Site

The core camp area is a large stand of tropical bamboo (Figure 1) across Council (freehold land), Crown (Council managed and one parcel of Crown managed) and private land at Rudder Park in East


Kempsey. A generally smaller number of flying-foxes also utilise adjacent vegetation in private residences to the south, and less commonly to the north.

Figure 1. Site location

Regular quarterly monitoring began at all known flying-fox camps in NSW in 2012 as part of the National Flying-Fox Monitoring Program. Since this time the Rudder Park camp has been consistently occupied until recently, by between approximately 1,000 and 5,000 flying-foxes, with a peak count of 5,736 in May 2016. There have been a few occasions over the past six years that the camp has been vacated for a short period of time.

The Rudder Park camp has now been vacated for over nine months and a flying-fox camp has been established at Councils environmental project site at Jerseyville. Based upon timing, it is likely that the individuals that are now present at the Jerseyville site are from the Rudder Park site, however this is difficult to determine. Due to the transient nature and behavioural unpredictability of flying-foxes, it is unknown if the Rudder Park camp will continue to remain vacant or if and when re-occupation of the camp might occur.

Occupation of flying-fox camps are tightly tied to the flowering of their preferred food trees within a 20 to 50 km radius, however little is understood of specific patterns of the occupation of individual flying-fox camps. This makes it difficult to predict the likelihood of the flying-foxes returning to the Rudder Park camp sometime in the future and raises the question of when to invest in actions to control flying-fox camps.

Camp Management Plan Actions

The CMP sets out several optional actions aiming to alleviate the issues caused by the flying-foxes on nearby residences. The actions are categorised into Level 1, 2 and 3 actions, based upon their level of complexity and direct intervention with the flying-fox camp. Level 1 being the lowest level of intervention and Level 3 being the highest. Dispersal of the flying-fox camp is a Level 3 action.

Subject land

Flying-fox Camp in Tropical Bamboo


Level 1 and 2 actions need to be attempted, undertaken or trialled without success before OEH will consider approval of Level 3 actions.

Two of the feasible options for Level 2 actions in the CMP are the creation of a vegetation buffer area between the camp and the property to the south and the installation of canopy mounted sprinklers in strategic locations in the northern and southern areas of the camp (see Figure 2). This aims to deter the flying-foxes from edges of the urban interface.

As per legislative requirements, Council is required to apply for a licence under part 2 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 to carry out the vegetation buffer and canopy mounted sprinkler actions of the CMP. The OEH conditions of approval of the CMP require a Vegetation Management Plan to be prepared and approved by OEH prior to any of the vegetation buffer works being carried out. In addition to this, Council is required to provide OEH with an assessment of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage values of the site prior to the buffer works being carried out.


Figure 2. Canopy mounted sprinkler and vegetative buffer proposal from the CMP

Funding Opportunities


Local Government NSW Flying-Fox Grants Program has indicated that a new grants program is likely to commence by the end of 2018. Council will be eligible to apply for stream 3 funding (implement approved actions in flying fox camp management plans) under the grants program. The funding requires dollar for dollar matching of the funding amount.

Costs to Carry Out the Level 2 Actions of the CMP

The following table indicates the costs that are associated with the buffer and canopy mounted sprinkler actions from the CMP. It is noted that the figures are approximate.

ACTION COST ASSOCIATED WITH ACTION

COUNCIL CONTRIBUTION TO MATCH FUNDING

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Values Assessment

$1,500 $750

Vegetation Management Plan $3,500 (or no cost if carried out by

Council)

$1,750

Buffer through vegetation removal

$18,000 $9,000

Canopy mounted sprinklers and associated infrastructure

$25,000 $12,500

Totals Total cost $48,000 Cost to Council $24,000

As can be seen in the above table the total estimated cost to carry out the level 2 action of the CMP is $48,000. If Council was successful in securing funding through the Flying-Fox Grants Program, the dollar for dollar contribution from Council to the project would be in the order of $24,000. There would be significant in-kind contribution from Council staff project-managing the vegetation buffer works and canopy mounted sprinkler project.

Once the vegetation buffer is established, the buffer area will require maintenance for perpetuity to ensure that the tropical bamboo does not re-establish in this area. This will need to be factored into Councils regular maintenance program of Rudder Park. Councils current maintenance program for Rudder park costs $2,136 per month and it is expected that the ongoing maintenance of the buffer area will be an additional cost to Council of $260 per month and $3,120 per year (based upon current hourly rate of staff and plant and equipment). Over time the sprinkler system would also deteriorate and require replacement.

No current funding is identified in Council’s Operational Plan or Long Term Financial Plan for these activities. Should Council wish to pursue, and if successful accept, the funding available per the recommendation of this report then a source of the funds will need to be identified. The Environmental Levy is considered the most appropriate source.

Risks

There is uncertainty surrounding the future occupation of the camp by the flying-foxes, giving rise to two primary risks. The camp may remain vacated (in its current state), or the flying-foxes may return sporadically to the camp, or the camp may be repopulated by flying-foxes for an extended period of time. This uncertainty creates two risks depending on the action Council wishes to take.

A financial risk that Council could potentially allocate $24,000 of Council funds, create the vegetative buffer, install the canopy mounted sprinklers and associated infrastructure (plus


ongoing maintenance costs of buffer area), and the flying-foxes may not return to the site. There is also an element of reputational risk in this approach with a perception of misallocation of funding priorities.

A reputational risk if Council does not apply for the funding and the flying-foxes return to the site, with Council having no funds allocated to carry out the actions.

Alternative Option to Recommendation

The alternative option to that recommended by this report is that Council not undertake any further actions in light of the flying-foxes not currently occupying the East Kempsey location. The risk with this option is that a buffer to the surrounding residential houses, in accordance with the management actions set out in the CMP, will not be in place.


13.5 TENDER FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TURNERS FLAT BRIDGE

Officer Robert Fish, Director Operations and PlanningFile No TQE18/18Attachments Nil

PURPOSE

To provide advice on the submission of tenders for the design and construction of the replacement of Turners Flat Bridge.

RECOMMENDATION

That the report assessing tender submissions for the Design and Construction of Turners Flat Bridge be classified as Confidential in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public relating to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed, prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

ISSUES

The current timber Turners Flat Bridge on Turners Flat Road is reaching the end of its economic life. Any future flood event that overtops the bridge could easily see it fail, which would greatly inconvenience residents on the southern side of the Macleay River. The estimated cost for replacement with a concrete structure was $4 million. This was well in excess of Council’s annual bridge replacement budget. Consequently, a grant was sought under the federally funded Bridges Renewal Program, which was successful.

BACKGROUND

Council received a Bridges Renewal Program grant of up to $1,995,615 for the replacement of Turners Flat Bridge. Council is required to contribute 50% of the total cost. Council has previously resolved to accept the grant and Council’s share of funding is to be provided through a loan. The total budget for the replacement is therefore up to $3,991,230. Approximately $500,000 is required for geotechnical and environmental investigations, preparation of the concept design and tender documents, project management and construction of the approach roads to the new bridge that were not included in the tender. The budget for the bridge construction contract is therefore $3,500,000.

Tenders for the design and construction of a new bridge were invited by the “open tendering” method in accordance with the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. The tender required the bridge to be two-lane and approximately 144m long. A concept design was provided, although tenderers were free to offer alternative designs.

Tenders opened on 9 October 2018 and closed at 2.00pm on 6 November 2018. The tender was advertised through Council’s Tenderlink portal from 9 October 2018. The tender was also advertised in the:

Sydney Morning Herald on 9 October 2018


Macleay Argus on 10 October 2018.

Tenders were required to be submitted electronically through the portal or be deposited in the Tender Box. At the close of tenders seven submissions had been received from the following companies: 1. Abergeldie Contractors Pty Ltd, Regents Park, NSW 2. Bedrule Pty Ltd T/as Tobco, North Sydney, NSW 3. Bridge and Civil Pty Ltd, Armidale, NSW 4. CPM Group Pty Ltd, Ipswich, Qld 5. Davbridge Properties Pty Ltd T/as Davbridge Constructions, Ormeau, Qld 6. Saunders Civilbuild Pty Ltd, Redhead, NSW 7. Waeger Constructions Pty Ltd, Rutherford, NSW A Tender Evaluation Panel assessed the tenders. Details of the tender evaluation process have been provided in a separate confidential report.


13.6 NOMINATIONS FOR JRPP

Officer Graham Snow, Manager Development & ComplianceFile No F18/415Attachments Nil

PURPOSE

To confirm Council’s appointment of Nambucca Shire Council’s Senior Town Planner as the nominated alternative representative for Kempsey Shire Council on the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP).

RECOMMENDATION

That the Department of Planning and Environment be advised that the Senior Town Planner, Brad Lane, of Nambucca Shire Council is the nominated alternative representative for the Kempsey Shire Council on the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel.

BACKGROUND

The Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) is comprised of three State Government appointed representatives and two Local Government nominated representatives for each local government area. Council has a reciprocal arrangement with Nambucca Shire Council for representation on each Council’s Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP). The rationale for this arrangement is to overcome any perceived conflicts of interest in determining applications by having dual responsibilities as community representatives and in meeting statutory obligations by impartially determining regionally significant development applications.

Following recent changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Department of Planning and Environment have sent correspondence to all councils stating that an alternate panel member be nominated in the event a decision is reviewed; as such the Managers of Development and Compliance and Strategic and Asset Planning, Graham Snow and Erin Fuller respectively, are the primary and alternate representatives for Nambucca Shire Council (alongside the Mayor, Councillor Liz Campbell who is also a primary member).

Having regard to the above and as requested by Nambucca Shire Council, it is recommended that the Senior Town Planner, Brad Lane, of Nambucca Shire Council be made Kempsey Shire Council’s alternate member on the Northern JRPP (alongside their Mayor, Councillor Rhonda Hoban and Manager of Development and Environment, Daniel Walsh who are already primary members).


13.7 REVIEW OF COMMITTEES

Officer Daniel Thoroughgood, Manager – Governance and Information ServicesFile No F18/2518Attachments 1. Extract-from- OL G- Practice- Note-16- Meetings- Practice- Note- August-

2009 [13.7.1]2. OL G- Circular-16-24 [13.7.2]3. committee-delegate-reports-2002-2009 [13.7.3]4. committee-review-2010 [13.7.4]

PURPOSE

To make recommendations for changes to council’s committee structure following a review as per council resolution 2018.234 and determine if a Councillor delegate should attend Floodplain Management Australia meetings.

RECOMMENDATION

1 That the report be noted, and no additional committees be formed at this time.

2 That no councillor delegate be appointed to attend Floodplain Management Australia meetings.

ISSUES

A review has been undertaken of committees dating back to 1975, with a focus in particular on the period between 2002 and 2010 when our current committee structure was adopted. The current committee structure is the result of a similar review undertaken in 2010 following a notice of motion lodged by Councillor Hayes. The notice of motion sought to “drastically” reduce the number of committees and indicated that council at the time had 45 committees which were not effectively delivering results and were not effectively governed. Attached for reference are notices of motion, staff reports and minutes pertaining to this review. Much of the information contained within this report is still relevant to this review.

In reviewing the committee structure consideration was given to two matters, the first is the reasons for which council may determine to form a committee, and the second is whether any particular committee is reasonably necessary for the delivery of an outcome or action in council’s adopted Delivery Program.

To the first point council may form committee’s in a number of different structures and for different purposes. Council may form committees and determine their functions, power, membership and voting rights. They may, within limits, be delegated decision-making powers or power to exercise the functions of council. At the time that a committee is formed council must determine the committee’s functions, although council may determine to vary these from time to time. Some committees exist for advisory purposes and may make recommendations to council, but not decisions. These committees often consist of experts, professionals, government employees, community representatives or council staff. Committees may be given power to spend council money for certain purposes.


Committees do not need to be formed, disbanded, or have their members appointed or elected at any particular time; this may be done at any time as determined by council. There is a difference between committees established by council and those established by others. For example, Local Traffic Committees are established by Roads & Maritime Services. These committees are not restricted to operating in the same manner as those established by council under the Local Government Act 1993. Committees consisting only of Councillors are subject to the same meeting provisions of the Act and Local Government Regulation (General) 2005 as ordinary meetings of council. The Office of Local Government has advised that council should ensure that committees established under section 355 of the Act meet the same governance and accounting standards as council and that they are able to demonstrate clear links with the goals of council's Delivery Program.

A reason that council may wish to form “committees of council” is to remove business from the ordinary meetings of council, or to establish a different code of meeting practice for different types of business. This has been undertaken historically at Kempsey with both the Works and Planning Committees; both of these committees were delegated the full decision making powers of council.

The Works Committee was designed to allow the council the opportunity to undertake site inspections and deliberate on them outside of the usual constraints of an ordinary council meeting. It also historically, although not recently, had a different quorum of 7 councillors.

The Planning Committee was designed to remove all planning matters from the ordinary meeting of council to reduce the length and complexity of the ordinary council meeting. These matters were heard on a different day of the month. To the second point in undertaking the review of committees is the particular measure applied to each of the historic committees was; “is such a committee reasonably necessary for the delivery of an outcome or action in council’s adopted Delivery Program?”

In considering this some significance may fall upon the reasons for which particular committees were dissolved or disbanded. Some of Councils previous committees have disbanded because the groups involved have incorporated, and become an independent entity such as the Macleay River Historical Society, because the lead in a particular function has been taken by a different agency, such as the Community Safety Council or the Aboriginal Liaison Committee, or because they were established for a particular purpose and that work has been completed, such as the Bellbrook Water Treatment Plant Steering Committee.

A review of committees between 2002 and 2018 demonstrates the broad range of subject matters for which a committee may be appropriate where those purposes are in support of council's adopted Delivery Program. Also attached are reports and minutes relating to the appointment of Councillor delegates to committees between 2002 and 2009 which demonstrates the range of committees that operated within this period.

Furthermore, consultation has been undertaken with members of the senior leadership team to determine if there are any gaps in our current committee structure. Council are continuing to build on the level of community engagement on a project and locality basis.


Attached to this report are extracts from the Office of Local Government’s (the Division of Local Government) Meeting Practice note relating to the formation and operation of committees as well as a circular issued in 2016 reminding councils of the governance obligations surrounding committees and the requirement for committees to be supported by an appropriate link to council’s adopted Delivery Program.

Council's current committee structure (detailed at the bottom of this report) is appropriate to deliver upon the goals of council's current Delivery Program. Additional committees can be formed as, and when, required and where deemed appropriate. There is recent evidence of this in the formation of the Macleay Valley Economic Development and Tourism Committee and the Audit and Risk Committee.

Additionally, at the council meeting of 18 September 2018, the question was raised of whether it was appropriate for a Councillor to be delegated to attend meetings of Floodplain Management Australia. Councillor attendance is not universal across the membership base and the majority of the business discussed is of an operational nature. Not delegating a Councillor does not preclude Councillors from being invited, or requesting, to attend where there is a matter of importance or interest on the agenda.

BACKGROUND

Council resolved at its meeting of 18 September 2018:

3 That council investigate the need for further committees and a report be brought back to the December meeting.

CURRENT COMMITTEE STRUCTURE Committees of Councillors

COMMITTEE Current Delegates

Australia Day Awards Committee All CouncillorsPurpose: To assist in determining the awards for Australia Day honours. The committee is also sometimes used as a sounding board for the format and nature of events.Mayoral Community Fund Committee All CouncillorsPurpose: To guide the allocation of monies from the Mayoral Community Fund in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government Regulations 2005.General Manager’s Performance Review Panel Mayor

Deputy MayorHauville1 Councillor (GM selected)

Purpose: To undertake performance reviews of the General Manager. All councillors have input into the performance review, with the panel then undertaking the review.

Advisory Committees


Macleay Valley Economic Development and Tourism Committee MayorHauville

Purpose: To assist Council to collaborate with business and industry leaders in the development


and implementation of a new Economic Development Strategy (including Destination Management Plan).Audit and Risk Committee McGinnPurpose: To provide independent assurance and assistance to the Kempsey Shire Council on risk management, control, governance, and external accountability responsibilities.

Section 355 Public Facility Management CommitteesPurpose: These are committees that Council has delegated responsibility for running certain facilities owned or controlled by Council. They have not traditionally had specific councillor representation. Their structure varies depending on what the current community involvement is. They are listed for information.

Macleay Valley Community Gallery Committee Crescent Head Hall Committee Millbank Hall Committee Stuarts Point Community Hall Committee Sherwood Hall Committee SWR School of Arts Hall Committee Gladstone Youth and Community Hall Committee Smithtown Hall Committee Willawarrin Hall Committee Frederickton Hall Committee Gladstone Tennis Club South Kempsey Tennis Club Bellbrook Tennis Club Kempsey District Silver Band Committee Kalateenee Recreation Reserve Committee Friends of Wigay Committee

External Committees with a Councillor Delegate


Bush Fire Management Committee & Zone Liaison Committee MorrisSaul (Alternate)

Purpose: To review the performance of the Rural Fire Service against the performance criteria in the service level agreement between the Rural Fire Service and Council. The committee is primarily a liaison committee for Rural Fire Service and local government.ClubGRANTS Committee Mayor

Deputy Mayor (Alternate)Purpose: To consider applications and determine the allocation of part of the funding required to be distributed by clubs in the region from their poker machine takings to fund community groups. The composition of this committee has been developed in agreement with the various clubs.Floodplain Management Australia Mayor

Morris (Alternate)Purpose: To engage with public agencies, elected officials and other stakeholders to improve flood safety and maximise floodplain resources through effective dialogue, collaboration, education, legislation and policy.Local Traffic Committee WilliamsPurpose: To provide advice required to satisfy the Council’s delegation from the Roads and Maritime Services for traffic matters on the road network. The committee is primarily a technical review committee.



Mid North Coast Regional Arts Board BaxterPurpose: To encourage and promote the arts in the region. The councillor is to provide the conduit between the Board and the Council. The NSW State Government funds a number of regional arts boards, this is the one that covers our region.North-East Zone Public Libraries NSW Committee MorrisPurpose: To collaborate, to advocate and to represent the mutual interests of member libraries of the North-East Zone.Macleay Valley Sports Council Williams

Patterson (Alternate)Purpose: A community group formed to create a Sports Council focused on creating a unified voice within the Macleay Valley for sporting facilities and to develop a direction forward for sporting facilities in the future.South West Rocks Sport & Recreation Association Shields

Williams (Alternate)Purpose: SWR Sport & Rec Association represents the sport and recreation groups of SWR. They work united together towards building new and upgrading current facilities in SWR. Melville Hall Sport and Entertainment Centre Management Committee

MorrisHauville

Purpose: To manage public access. The facility was established with grant funding, which required the facility to be available for public access.


13.8 HERITAGE MAINTENANCE COMMITTEE

Officer Robert Fish, Director - Operations and PlanningFile No F18/1977Attachments Nil

PURPOSE

To advise on the need for a Heritage Maintenance Committee.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council does not establish a Heritage Maintenance Committee. ISSUES

Heritage matters are relevant to specific projects, development activities, features or attributes requiring conservation. They should be considered and addressed through relevant expert advice and stakeholder engagement, or in accordance with suitable development controls or legislation utilising expertise available where necessary.

To form and administer a Heritage Maintenance Committee has resourcing and budget implications. At this point in time establishment of such a Committee is not considered to be necessary. There are alternative means in which heritage matters may be addressed or considered.

Should members of the community, including the Macleay Historical Society, have enquiries of a heritage nature they can be considered and dealt with as operational matters through the relevant Council officer. This is a more efficient and timely manner in which to address heritage maintenance matters.

Within the Notice of Motion presented to the November Ordinary Council Meeting, Councillor Hauville listed four heritage maintenance matters that had been related from members of the community. Comments on the items listed are provided below:

Apex sign at Rudder Lookout: The sign was removed as it was in poor condition. Some restoration work has occurred, although it is not yet ready for reinstallation.

Plaque on the amenities block at the Athletics field: The amenities were refurbished by user groups approximately three years ago. It is likely the plaque was removed during this work. There is no knowledge of the location of the plaque.

Clyde Street Mall plaque: The plaque (Mall opening 14 October 1989, by Shire President Steuart McIntyre O.A.M.) was removed from the mall during upgrade works undertaken. The plaque has been stored at Council’s depot since, however was not intended to be reinstated given the significant rejuvenation of the area from the original opening in 1989.

South Kempsey Memorial for the bus-train collision that occurred in 1968: The Memorial has recently been restored with the assistance of the community to mark 50 years since the level crossing accident. Ongoing maintenance will require some assistance from the community.


BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 20 November 2018, Councillor Hauville submitted a Notice of Motion to investigate and assess the need for a Heritage Maintenance Committee. Council resolved the following arising from the consideration of the Notice of Motion:

That a report with recommendation for determination be presented to December Council to establish a Heritage Maintenance Committee with Council staff, Macleay Historical Society, Community and Councillor members.

The report should address the need or otherwise of a possible deficit in council practises that have disappearing recognition of people, places and events that impact on the Community’s social cohesion.

The report should investigate whether a committee is established, and whether it be ad hoc, set duration or an ongoing committee.

Heritage is a consideration in the development of Council projects through the environmental assessment processes undertaken prior to undertaking works. Assessment occurs in compliance with relevant legislation in place to protect heritage. Typically, such assessment focuses on matters of significance related to heritage preservation.

Council has engaged Mr Stephen Booker as the Heritage Advisor for Kempsey Shire Council. His position is part grant funded under a program administered by the Office of Environment & Heritage. Mr Booker is responsible for ensuring the Macleay Shire’s heritage assets are managed appropriately and provides heritage conservation advice and support to the community and Council. Mr Booker makes recommendations for further heritage listings and his advice is sought on relevant projects, including strategic planning and development activity. There are 107 items, areas and sites of heritage significance listed under Schedule 5 of the Kempsey Local Environmental Plan.

No significant gaps in relation to heritage preservation are known to exist, however the items listed in Councillor Hauville’s Notice of Motion are noted. As outlined above, given they are minor in nature such issues are better dealt with the relevant staff during the course of works or the life of the asset when required, rather than through the establishment of a Committee.


13.9 ACTING GENERAL MANAGER APPOINTMENT

Officer Daniel Thoroughgood, Manager – Governance and Information ServicesFile No F18/1854Attachments Nil

PURPOSE

To facilitate the effective and efficient operation of Council by providing for the Director Corporate & Commercial and Director Operations & Planning to act in the role of General Manager when the General Manager is absent from work.

RECOMMENDATION

1 That for the period 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019, the person holding the position of Director Corporate & Commercial be appointed to act as General Manager if the General Manager is sick or otherwise absent from work on leave, such appointment to cease upon the return to work of the General Manager or other resolution of the Council

2 That if the person specified in paragraph 1 is unable or unwilling to act as General Manager at any time during the specified period, the person holding the position of Director Operations & Planning be appointed to act as General Manager if the General Manager is sick or otherwise absent from work on leave, such an appointment to cease upon the return to work of the General Manager or other resolution of the Council.

3 That any person acting as General Manager pursuant to this resolution has all the functions, delegations, and sub-delegations given to the General Manager by Council.

ISSUES

At its meeting on 20 March 2018 Council adopted a resolution permitting for the appointment of an acting General Manager in cases where the General Manager is absent from work. This resolution expires on 31 December 2018.

BACKGROUND

Local Government legal advises that they believe that a Council resolution is required for the appointment of a person as acting General Manager regardless of the circumstances or duration of the acting appointment.

They further advise that it is good practice to pass a resolution annually in advance which appoints a specified person, or persons, to act as General Manager in the event that the General Manager is absent.

Nothing in this resolution would prevent a future resolution appointing a different person as acting General Manager on a case by case basis in particular circumstances.

The wording of the recommendation provides a priority order in that the Director Corporate & Commercial is the first preference, followed by the Director Operation & Planning. This is necessary as the appointment must operate unambiguously in the event that it comes into effect for an


unplanned absence. The Director Corporate & Commercial can cause the appointment of the Director Operations & Planning if they are unwilling to act without limitation as to the reason for them being unwilling.

Alternatively, a resolution could be sought on a case by case basis.


13.10 STATEMENT OF CASH AND INVESTMENTS - NOVEMBER 2018 Officer Ron Wood, Chief Financial Officer File No N/A Attachments 1. Investments at November 2018 [13.10.1]

2. Investment Performance Chart Nov 2018 [13.10.2]3. November 2018 bank reconciliation [13.10.3]

PURPOSE In accordance with the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (the Regulation), a report on investments is to be provided monthly to Council. RECOMMENDATION

That the report is noted.

ISSUES Council's investments are in accordance with the Local Government Act (1993) and the Council's investment policy.

Year to date (YTD) budgets have currently been allocated equally across the financial year. Based on current budgets, there is an expectation that overall total cash holdings will reduce as works are completed. Water and Sewer funds, in particular, have relatively significant works programs.

As a result, YTD actual income is currently exceeding budget, however if cash balances reduce as currently forecast, actual investment income should trend back in line with budget. An assessment will be made as part of the December Quarterly Budget Review regarding forecast income and budget adjustments. BACKGROUND Clause 212 of the regulation states: Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 Part 9 Division 5 Clause 212 212 Reports on council investments

(1) The responsible accounting officer of a council: (a) must provide the council with a written report (setting out details of all money that the council has invested under section 625 of the Act) to be presented: (i) if only one ordinary meeting of the council is held in a month, at that meeting, or (ii) if more than one such meeting is held in a month, at whichever of those meetings the council by resolution determines, and (b) must include in the report a certificate as to whether or not the investment has been made in accordance with the Act, the regulations and the council’s investment policies. (2) The report must be made up to the last day of the month immediately preceding the meeting. Note. Section 625 of the Act specifies the way in which a council may invest its surplus funds.


13.11 NOTICE OF MOTION NOT INCLUDED

Officer Stephen Mitchell, Acting General ManagerFile No F18/922Attachments Nil

PURPOSE

To report to council the exclusion of business for which due notice has been given in the agenda as required by Local Government Regulation (General) 2005 cl 240(2)

RECOMMENDATION

That the information be noted

ISSUES

An item of business, for which due notice was given, has been excluded from the Business Paper because in the General Manager’s opinion the business is unlawful.

This report is provided in order to comply with the requirement in cl 240(2) to report any such exclusion to the next meeting of council.

Furthermore, it is required by cl 240(2) that the general manager not give details of the item of business.

The Local Government Regulation (General) 2005 states:Local Government (General) Regulation 2005240 Agenda and business papers for council meetings(1) The general manager must ensure that the agenda for a meeting of the council states:(a) all matters to be dealt with arising out of the proceedings of former meetings of the council, and(b) if the mayor is the chairperson—any matter or topic that the chairperson proposes, at the time when the agenda is prepared, to put to the meeting, and(c) subject to subclause (2), any business of which due notice has been given.(2) The general manager must not include in the agenda for a meeting of the council any business of which due notice has been given if, in the opinion of the general manager, the business is (or the implementation of the business would be) unlawful. The general manager must report (without giving details of the item of business) any such exclusion to the next meeting of the council.(3) The general manager must cause the agenda for a meeting of the council or a committee of the council to be prepared as soon as practicable before the meeting.(4) The general manager must ensure that the details of any item of business to which section 9 (2A) of the Act applies are included in a business paper for the meeting concerned.(5) Nothing in this clause limits the powers of the chairperson under clause 243.


14 RESCISSION MOTIONS

Nil


15 NOTICES OF MOTION

15.1 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION - POINT PLOMER ROAD

Councillor Bruce MorrisFile No F18/2387Attachments Nil

PURPOSE

It is desirable that Council engages with the local community to manage community concerns with the proposed construction and sealing of Point Plomer Road. We always achieve a better outcome when we all work together. I intend to move the following motion at the ordinary meeting of Council to be held Tuesday, 18 December 2018

RECOMMENDATION

1 That Council holds a workshop to engage with community members impacted by the construction and sealing of Point Plomer Road.

2 That Council establishes a Community Working Group to provide input concerning the soft social design aspects of the project and to better manage the community concerns in relation to the works along the length of Point Plomer Road.

3 That Council develops a Master Plan for the enhancement of the Point Plomer area.

BACKGROUND

The decision to proceed with the construction and sealing of Point Plomer Road presents an opportunity for Council to engage with the community during the pre-construction period to potentially address community concerns. Whilst effective engagement will not remove all opposition, it should mitigate some of the concerns and provide greater long-term ownership of the outcome.

Council must acknowledge that this project will have a considerable impact on the entire length of Point Plomer from Crescent Head to Big Hill, with some people being strongly against the project and some strongly for. Either way it will forever change the area.

That said some against the proposal have suggested that we (as a community) need to work to provide appropriate protection to sensitive area and to best maintain the desired amenity. Concern has been raised in relation to the protection of aboriginal heritage, others in relation to the road becoming a speed way, the need for additional infrastructure and other issues.

As a Council we need to work with the community to address these issues in a proactive, not a reactionary way.

I do not know what the design parameters for the road are, and nor does the community. Are we going to just construct a road and manage the concerns later, or are we going to holistically develop a destination and turn this area into the rustic playground of the Macleay Valley. What speed limit/s


should apply to the road? What additional infrastructure should be provided (toilets, carparks, lookouts)? What directional and information signage should be provided? Do all aboriginal sites need to be off limits, or can a feature be made of some? Should a cycleway be included? It is clear that this project should be more than just constructing and sealing a road.

If we get this right the economic boast to both Crescent Head and the region could be significant. We may not be able to provide all the infrastructure enhancements immediately, but we need a realistic plan moving forward.

GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENT

Council resolved to proceed with the sealing of Point Plomer Road at the October 2018 Ordinary Council Meeting, with the funding and timeframe for delivery dependent on the success or otherwise in obtaining grant funding. All aspects of the decision making process were comprehensively covered within that report on Point Plomer Road (October 2018 Council Report link). It is noted the basis of this decision was largely a result of ongoing maintenance costs and inability to maintain the road in a safe condition with the traffic volumes experienced. Given the parameters of the October Council decision were around maintenance costs and safety, it is difficult to conceptualise what alternative decision point would form the basis of ongoing community engagement or terms of reference for a community group. The current resolution involves seeking funding to seal the road on the existing alignment. Any additional scope such as social design aspects are beyond the scope of the funding which has been applied for and therefore further community engagement around these elements risks creating false expectations. The proposed project would be to construct a road with an 8m bitumen seal on the existing alignment/grade (narrowing to a 7m seal may be necessary at the southern end), so as to limit environmental impact, per previous advice to Council. Aboriginal heritage would be considered through an assessment of environmental impacts during the development of the project. With regard to planning for the area it is noted that National Park or private land exists along the road. Any exercise to masterplan for the enhancement of public facilities in the area is better undertaken by the National Parks & Wildlife Services (NPWS), given public assets in the area are theirs. Council may consider requesting NPWS review long term planning for their assets in the area. Through strategic planning tasks planned for Crescent Head, planning controls along Point Plomer Road may be able to be strengthened to assist in facilitating preserving the current character of the area. Per advice included in the Notice of Motion related to master planning for the Stuarts Point region, this exercise may be best achieved through a statement of local character, as part of the local strategic planning statement, to define the desired character of the area into the future.

Council staff have begun planning the community engagement required for development of the local character statements and can direct focus to this area of Crescent Head through this process.

http://www.kempsey.nsw.gov.au/council/meetings/2018/2018-10-16/index.html


15.2 LONG TERM ENERGY STRATEGY, CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION STRATEGY

Councillor Bruce MorrisFile No f18/1859Attachments 1. NOM 21 Nov 2017 [15.2.1]

2. Motion 100 to LGNSW Conference - Albury City Council [15.2.2]3. Local Leadership Tackling Local Government Progress on Climate Change

[15.2.3]

PURPOSE

The development of an appropriate suite of Strategies and Plans to enhance Councils energy efficiencies and increase renewable energy provision is required to maximise the potential financial savings to both Council and the community. I intend to move the following motion at the ordinary meeting of Council to be held Tuesday, 18 December 2018

RECOMMENDATION

1 That Council develops a Climate Change Policy with adoption proposed by Council at the Ordinary Meeting of 18 June 2019.

2 That Council includes the development of a Long-term Energy Strategy which includes a Renewable Energy and Emissions Reduction Plan to be completed by an independent consultant in the 2019/20 Operating Plan.

3 That Council commits to implementing options to enhance energy efficiency and renewable energy uptake within the local community.

4 That Council establishes a Community Sustainability Reference Group to provide community input in developing the Policy, Strategy and Plans in regard to Climate Change developing community options to enhance energy efficiency and renewable energy uptake.

5 That Council pursues membership of the Climate Council’s Cities Power Partnerships.

6 That Council endorses resolution 100 of the Local Government NSW Conference 2018 as attached and act to promote its introduction.

BACKGROUND

Council considered a Notice of Motion (Item 15.1) at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 21 November 2017. At this meeting it was resolved “That Council develops a long-term energy strategy, with a draft strategy to be considered in the next delivery program of Council.” The original recommendation was to have a draft strategy reported to Council by March 2018, although this was not supported as the matter was not included in the current Delivery or Operating plan.

Since this resolution a staff member has attended the Renewable Energy workshop in March 2018 to better understand the available opportunities applicable to Kempsey, matters in progress has indicated the development of the Long-Term Energy Strategy will be considered for inclusion in the draft 2019/20 Operating Plan. In addition, Council resolved to proceed with an upgrade of Street


Lights to LED Luminaires, which is currently on hold, pending an update on the state-wide proposal put to the NSW State Government by Essential Energy.

The adoption of a Climate Change Policy by the end of this financial year is considered important, as this document will provide the foundation, or starting point for the Long-term Energy Strategy and the Renewable Energy and Emissions Reduction Plan and failure to act now with this Policy is likely to delay the Strategy and Plan development beyond the preparation of the next Delivery Plan.

It is considered that the potential saving to Council from a Long-Term Energy Strategy and Renewable Energy and Emissions Reduction Plan are considerable. On this basis it would be beneficial to have the strategy and plan adopted to permit a more considered action plan and funding allocation in the next Delivery Plan.

The development of such Strategies and Plans is not unique, Port Macquarie Hastings Council adopted a Long-Term Energy Strategy at its meeting in October 2017. Coffs Harbour City Council adopted a Climate Change Policy in September 2013 and a Renewable Energy and Emissions Reduction Plan in April 2016. Clarence Valley Council adopted Renewable Energy and Emissions Reduction Targets at its Ordinary Meeting held on 20 November 2018 which were developed in accordance with their Climate Change Policy, in addition Clarence Valley Council have a Climate Change Advisory Committee. It is time we developed and acted upon similar strategies.

The opportunities to involve the community, with potential for enhancement in energy efficiencies and the uptake of renewable energy will result in both a reduction in emissions and the lowering of individual electricity accounts. In addition, other savings / enhancements may be identified as a result of the investigations and community engagement though the reference group.

It is important that Council and the community is well positioned to take advantage of options that may become available, such as the recently announced policy by the Labour opposition in relation to renewables and battery provision and Motion 100 by Albury City Council “That Local Government NSW seeks an amendment to the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) that will enable local councils to apply a voluntary Special Charges Scheme (opt in system) to council rates to fund environmental programs such as solar photovoltaic (PV) bulk buy programs” which was adopted at the Local Government NSW Conference 2018. Without these Strategies and Plans in place our Council and the Community may miss out on the opportunities presented by these changes.

The preparation of this suite of documents along with engagement with the community will provide a sound platform to improve sustainability and enhance energy saving measures These opportunities are available to Council and the community now if the Strategies and Plans are in place. We need to harness all opportunities for a more sustainable future. The time to act is now with the potential for substantial savings.

The adoption of these Strategies and Plans would position Council to become a member of the Climate Council’s Cities Power Partnership which over 100 councils have already joined. Membership of this partnership provides incentives to increase renewable energy and energy efficiency, improve transport sustainability and access to a national knowledge hub and an online analytics tool to measure energy, cost and emissions savings of projects.

The time to act is now, let’s move forward rather than being left behind.


GENERAL MANAGERS COMMENT

Development of a Climate Change Policy is not a current activity documented as a priority in Council’s Operating Plan. To develop such a Policy would require redistribution of resources from other projects.

It is currently intended to incorporate an action in the draft 2019/20 Operating Plan to develop a long-term energy strategy, per advice in the Matters in Progress Arising from Previous Council Meetings attachment in the November Ordinary Council Meeting Business Paper.

Investigating options for future direction in terms of sustainability more broadly are being considered. This includes resourcing needs and alignment with Council’s integrated planning and reporting documents. Potential actions may be better suited to being incorporated into future Operating Plans.

The Climate Council has developed the Cities Power Partnership to support and encourage towns and cities, via Local Councils, to reduce emissions, shift to cleaner energy and build greener, efficient and more resilient communities. It is noted the program requires a commitment to five key actions from the partnership pledge ranging from renewable energy, efficiency, transport and advocacy.


15.3 GRANT FUNDING - LONG TERM FINANCIAL IMPACT


PURPOSE

The current grant funding opportunities are very welcome, although potentially have an impact on Councils Long Term Financial Sustainability. It is important that this potential impact is considered as a part of the grant submission and acceptance process. I intend to move the following motion at the ordinary meeting of Council to be held Tuesday, 18 December 2018.

RECOMMENDATION

That all future grant proposals consider by Council include details of the anticipated impact on Councils future Operating and Maintenance Costs and Depreciation.

BACKGROUND

The current grant programs generally provide funds for Capital works. These funds are obviously appreciated and provide much needed improvements to Councils infrastructure and service provision. These projects though can also generate an additional burden for Council by way of additional Operating and Maintenance Costs and Depreciation. These additional costs need to be borne by Council and the community by savings in other areas or an increase in revenue. It is important that Council is aware of and considers these potential on-going financial burdens when considering grants.

GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENT It is considered prudent to assess the impacts listed within the Recommendation when considering making application for grants that result in the creation of new or expanded assets owned or operated by Council. Where relevant, future reports to Council outlining potential grant applications relating to a new or expanded asset shall include such information. Similarly, where grants of this nature are applied for that are not reported to Council, prior to application consideration of the financial impacts shall occur. Where grants purely relate to rehabilitation work (such as road pavement rehabilitation or building repair) such consideration is not considered necessary.


15.4 MASTER PLAN AND LEP REVIEW STUARTS POINT

Councillor Bruce MorrisFile No F12/1327-01Attachments Nil

PURPOSE

The provision of sewerage services at Stuarts Point has the potential to result in additional development. It is important that Council prepares a Master Plan and reviews the planning documents to support this potential growth. I intend to move the following motion at the ordinary meeting of Council to be held Tuesday, 18 December 2018

RECOMMENDATION

1 That Council includes the development of a Master Plan for Stuarts Point in the next Delivery Plan of Council.

2 That Council commences the review of planning documents applicable for Stuarts Point and the surrounding region in the 2019/2020 Operating Plan.

BACKGROUND

The potential for growth after the provision of sewerage services in the Stuarts Point region needs to be planned with the timely provision of the infrastructure needed to support and enhance the potential for this growth.


Council’s Strategic and Asset Planning team are in the process of rebuilding the strategic land use and environmental planning program. While some strategies and plans are fairly recent, many are outdated and do not take into account new State legislation and regional planning. In line with the Integrated Planning Framework and the State Government’s new framework for strategic land use planning, our new program will strengthen Council’s strategic focus in urban development and environmental management in the delivery of the aspirations and goals set out in the Macleay Valley 2036 Community Strategic Plan. To follow a coordinated approach the first activity in the program would be to see the preparation of a Local Strategic Planning Statement for the shire, setting out the 20-year urban or rural vision of each of our communities, including Stuarts Point. These statements would include consideration of regional objectives, demographic profile, local character, amenity, and natural values that make each place unique. Following this vision-setting work, the team would prepare an action plan of local planning priorities to deliver the 20-year vision. A local infrastructure assessment would also be considered in each area. Strategic infrastructure planning would be carried out as part of the land use planning work to ensure coordination of urban development and the provision of infrastructure, including any necessary updates to the developer contributions plans to help fund the cost. The Local Strategic Planning Statement is in the project planning phase now and will commence in the first quarter of the 2019 calendar year. It is anticipated to be complete by June 2020. Given this is the important first step in achieving line of sight to the Community Strategic Plan and engaging local


communities in a long term vision, it is recommended that master planning for Stuarts Point not commence until after this body of work and local planning priorities are more evident. Nevertheless, the Stuarts Point community will be consulted in this process in the 2019/20 financial year to start developing a local vision around desired character, development and growth, a critical precursor to the master planning of the area.

Councillors may wish to consider amendment of the Recommendation in line with this proposed strategic land use planning pathway.


15.5 SEWERAGE SERVICES WILLAWARRIN AND BELLBROOK


PURPOSE

The provision of sewerage services at Willawarrin and Bellbrook has previously been considered by Council. These villages both have several residences that are situated on properties that are generally not large enough to have fully complying septic systems. This needs to be addressed at some time in the future. I intend to move the following motion at the ordinary meeting of Council to be held Tuesday, 18 December 2018

RECOMMENDATION

1 That Council includes the investigation of the options available for the provision of reticulated sewerage at Willawarrin and Bellbrook in the 2019/2020 Operating Plan.

2 That a report outlining the preferred option, projected timeframe and funding options be presented to Council for consideration by 30 June 2020.

BACKGROUND

The communities of Willawarrin and Bellbrook have previously been considered for reticulated sewerage. This infrastructure is both desired and needed by the community. Several of the on-site sewerage system are considered high risk due to the limited disposal areas available because to the size of the properties. The issue of compliance will become more difficult if the EPA introduce more stringent environmental requirements for on-site sewerage disposal. The provision of sewerage would also provide an improvement in the potential for population growth in these villages, enhancing their sustainability in the future.

In recent years a failed on-site sewerage system had leakage onto the Primary school’s playground which necessitated urgent action by both the school and Council.


Reticulated sewerage schemes at the villages of Bellbrook and Willawarrin are not identified for funding in Council’s long term financial plan for the sewer fund and may not be affordable in coming years. Council has significant capital expenditure projects planned which are funded under the sewer fund. Delivery of these projects requires significant staffing and financial resourcing. These include:

Central Kempsey Sewage Treatment Plant (and associated decommissioning of Kempsey Sewage Treatment Plant)

Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme South Kempsey Pressure Sewer Scheme Connection of Frederickton Sewerage Scheme to Central Kempsey Sewage Treatment Plant

(and associated decommissioning of Frederickton Sewage Treatment Plant)


Connection of South Kempsey Sewerage Scheme to Central Kempsey Sewage Treatment Plant (and associated decommissioning of South Kempsey Sewage Treatment Plant)

Decommissioning the North Street Sewage Treatment Plant and South Kempsey Sewage Treatment Plant are the subject of directions under a Pollution Reduction Plan from the Environmental Protection Authority. Some concerns do exist with a minority of systems at Willawarrin and Bellbrook. Site (lot size) and soil constraints impact these system issues. Inspections of onsite systems at these locations occur annually. Many onsite systems at these villages are ageing, meaning system condition may deteriorate further over time. Affordability of maintenance also impacts upon this status. Council has ability to escalate enforcement action under the Local Government Act. Typically the preferred process is to work with the landowner to facilitate rectification of the issue with the onsite system, prior to higher level enforcement action. Sewerage Strategies were undertaken for Bellbrook and Willawarrin in 1995. The information in these documents has some relevance given the low growth rate of these areas. The studies identified that the cost of a centralised scheme would be likely to be met with significant community resistance, an issue that is likely to still exist. Whilst some issues are recognised with the standard and performance of onsite systems at Bellbrook and Willawarrin, there are currently issues of larger concern related to sewerage infrastructure. At this point in time it would be recommended that the option of sewering Willawarrin and Bellbrook be revisited on completion of the Central Kempsey and Stuarts Point projects.


15.6 IMPROVED BOATING ACCESS BACK CREEK SOUTH WEST ROCKS

Councillor Bruce MorrisFile No F18/1881Attachments 1. Draft Report Back Creek Boating Access Improvements [15.6.1]

2. south-west-rocks-sustainability-assessment-report [15.6.2]

PURPOSE

The need to improve the safety for ocean access at Back Creek South West Rocks has been raised by a member of the community. Given that Council has received grant funding to upgrade boat parking facilities and other supporting amenities for Back Creek, Council needs to show due diligence in exercising its Duty of Care in relation to the safety of Ocean access from Back Creek. I intend to move the following motion at the ordinary meeting of Council to be held Tuesday, 18 December 2018

RECOMMENDATION

1 That Council investigates the safety of Ocean access for recreational boaters from Back Creek South West Rocks.

2 That if these investigations reveal that access can at times be treacherous:

a That Council investigates funding to assess the works required to improve the safety of Ocean access from Back Creek.

b That Council includes an action in the next Delivery Plan to seek funding to enhance the Ocean access with Back Creek.

BACKGROUND

Concern has been raised within the community about the safety of ocean access from Back Creek South West Rocks. It has been stated that boats can be capsized on entry and exit from the creek. Comments have also been made that some recreational boating clubs that have regularly visited South West Rocks, during the low or shoulder tourism season have either ceased or largely cut back in numbers due to the safety of the ocean access.

Council has received a grant and is currently in the process of improving boating infrastructure at the Back Creek boat ramp. These works include an increase/enhancement of boat parking facilities, repairs to the boat ramp, provision of a pontoon and other facilities. These works are indicated at Map 3.1 of Attachment 1. The upgrade of these facilities is likely to increase the use of this area and subsequently the number of boats that are likely to utilise Back Creek for access to the ocean. Some could argue that Council has a duty of Care too establish whether ocean access at Back Creek is safe or not and take action if it is access as less than desirable, particularly given the enhancement works proposed that are likely to increase activity.


Boat access over any ocean entrance can be treacherous pending conditions, with individuals responsible for their own assessment of associated risks with movement through an entrance.


River and creek entrances to the ocean are dynamic environments, often characterised by build up of sand, that without regular maintenance intervention may impact navigation ability. Council is not responsible for the management of the current dredging/sand extraction in Back Creek, with this activity managed by the Department of Industry. The effectiveness of the operation in terms of navigation benefit is limited due to the reach of the dragline dredge.

Work through the Kempsey Coastal Management Plan and the Back Creek Boating Access Improvement Investigation (undertaken by RMS) highlighted the boating access issue due to siltation at the entrance. Both documents include options to initiate improvement to the management of the Back Creek entrance. No actions or funding to undertake further assessment or investigation have been initiated through Council’s annual Operating Plans or other government agencies, nor been raised from within the community until very recently.

To undertake any actions to improve navigation it is prudent to undertake modelling, identifying options that may be available, and an assessment of associated environmental impacts. Any such efforts would be better undertaken in partnership with other stakeholders, including Crown Lands and Roads & Maritime Services.

Resources would need to be allocated to undertake this task, so Council must consider the relative priority of investigating this issue. Current focuses of internal resources include upgrading the Macleay River Coastal Zone Management Plan, updating the Korogora Creek Estuary Management Plan, updating the Killick Creek Estuary Management Plan and the Lower Macleay Flood Study. Grant funding schemes may be available, which typically are 50% funding only.

It is noted that any actions undertaken/solutions implemented will have ongoing costs to maintain. With the scale of movement of sand with ocean events the period of effectiveness of any treatment may only be short term.

Given the complexity of the issue, Councillors may wish to workshop the matter early in 2019 prior to any decision making process.


15.7 WASTE VOUCHER USE


PURPOSE

To establish a reporting mechanism to understand the acceptance / usage of the Free Waste Voucher system within the community. I intend to move the following motion at the ordinary meeting of Council to be held Tuesday, 18 December 2018.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council provides a quarterly report, as a part of the Quarterly Budget Review concerning the usage of the Council Waste Vouchers.

BACKGROUND

Council currently provides 2 Waste Vouchers to all property owners that pay waste collection charges as a part of their rates. Whilst I personally support the retention of the Vouchers it would be beneficial to know how well these are utilised in the community. If the usage is low, Council should consider whether they should be retained or consider alternative ratepayer support. Contrastingly, if the usage is high, the cost of providing an additional voucher or investigating a kerb side bulk waste pickup could be considered/investigated.


The initial research undertaken with other councils offering ratepayers free waste vouchers, suggested a 20% presentation rate was likely. With the average waste voucher worth around $30 this was estimated to cost $180,000 pa. While the 2016-17 financial year was slightly below the estimated usage, the 2017-18 financial year and the 2018-19 financial year to date are tracking in line with the 20% presentation assumption.

This self-funded initiative within the Domestic Waste Management Charge encourages and facilitates serviced households to get items that don’t fit into their bins to their closest council waste facility for resource recovery or disposal. Kerbside bulky goods collections (BGC) can be considered unsightly, potentially dangerous, problematic and increasingly expensive such that other Midwaste member councils surveyed all recommended not to offer it. Councils that offer BGC can usually only afford to send one collection truck around which leads to many reusable items and metal/whitegoods to end up in landfill which adds additional costs to this service option.

Council may wish to consider the value of reporting on the usage of waste vouchers each quarter as part of the Quarterly Budget Review.


15.8 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - LONG TERM INCREASE IN FLIGHT ACTIVITY


PURPOSE

The continuation of, and potential for further increases in flight training activity at the Kempsey Airport is perceived by some in the community to have an environmental impact. I intend to move the following motion at the ordinary meeting of Council to be held Tuesday, 18 December 2018.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council requires an Environmental Impact Assessment to be completed prior to any long-term or permanent increase in flight activity, as evidenced in the past 12 months, at the Kempsey Airport.

BACKGROUND

Agriculture in the Macleay Valley has traditionally focused on broad acre farming, cattle and dairy. However, agriculture in Australia, including the Macleay, has seen a trend toward adding small lot horticulture to this mix with a focus on high quality produce with the potential to leverage increased return on investments from both domestic and overseas markets.

Concern has been raised by several people in the community concerning the impact on the natural environment resulting from a long term or permanent increase in training flight activity, at the Kempsey airport. Equally any other proposal that would result in a material increase in flights or a substantial change in the type of activity, such as an International or Domestic Airfreight Hub, should undergo a similar assessment.

These concerns are particularly evident in niche small lot horticulture sector such as, but not limited to, the Organic Food Industry in relation to Organic Certification and to a lesser extent, although still generally evident in the broader residential population, particularly in relation to rainwater capture and vegetable production for self-use.

Councils senior staff have stated that these concerns are exaggerated and that the impact is minimal and should be manageable by the individual land owner. These comments will appease some, but others will remain sceptical. Are these concerns real or perceived? The answer to this is largely irrelevant as even the perception will impact on the growth of food producing horticultural in the Macleay Valley and residential development in the impacted zone unless addressed in a professional manner.

Impacts on the natural environment, whether real or perceived, have the potential to turn people and investors away from capitalising on the food producing potential of the Macleay Valley. This issue has the potential to limit the agricultural opportunities and reduce the uptake of new ventures and businesses that have the potential for both population growth and jobs growth.


The assessment of the Environmental Impact of any long term or permanent increase in flight activity, by an independent consultant, is the means that is likely to address the concerns being raised in the community.

The initial assessment could focus on the potential impacts on the natural environment, although the need for a broad, robust Environmental Impact Statement and Cost Benefit Analysis to address the social and economic impacts of any long-term or permanent increase in flight activity should be considered in the future. The requirement for such assessments were highlighted by the Joint Regional Planning Panel when they considered the now withdrawn Development Application that was submitted by the Australian International Aviation College.


The assessment of any impact associated with increases in flight activity would require a detailed forecast of future movements to be completed. This modelling has not been undertaken and it is recommended that Councillors wait until the Noise Management Plan (NMP) has been finalised prior to considering the need for the modelling and any environmental impact assessment.

Additionally, the undertaking of an environmental impact assessment is not a current activity documented a s a priority in Council’s 2018-19 Operating Plan. To undertake such a project would require redistribution of resources from other projects.


15.9 SEWERAGE SERVICES - SOUTHERN INTERCHANGE


PURPOSE

The provision of a sewerage service to the Southern Interchange is impacting on the development potential for the land in this vicinity. Grant funding confirmation for this important project was imminent with an announcement expected prior to the end of 2017. Council needs to progress these works, with or without grant funding, subject to financial capacity, in the Operating Plan for 2019/2020. I intend to move the following motion at the ordinary meeting of Council to be held Tuesday, 18 December 2018

RECOMMENDATION

1 That a report investigating Councils financial capacity to fully fund the provision of reticulated sewerage to the properties in the vicinity of the Southern Interchange be considered by Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 19 February 2019.

2 In the event that grant funding is not confirmed prior to development of Councils 2019/2020 Operating Plan, that Council considers fully funding the provision of reticulated sewerage to the properties in the vicinity of the Southern Interchange on the Pacific Motorway with Kempsey in the 2019/2020 Operating Plan, after taking due consideration of the report concerning financial capacity.

BACKGROUND

The provision of reticulated sewerage to properties along the Macleay Valley Way and in the vicinity of the Kempsey Southern Interchange with the Pacific Motorway has been identified as an urgent requirement for several years. The lack of progress on this project is impacting on much needed business development to support additional jobs growth for Kempsey. The lost opportunity in continuing to wait for grant funding in my opinion cannot be justified any longer.

This project needs to be progressed as soon as possible, ideally with commencement as soon as possible, but no later than early in the new financial year.


This project is critical in enabling industrial and commercial development at South Kempsey. The outcome of Council’s application for grant funding under the NSW Government’s Growing Local Economies scheme is expected to be known in the near future. It would be prudent for Council to await the outcome of the grant application, prior to considering other funding options to progress the project construction.

The project is modelled in Council’s long term financial plan for the sewer fund as being reliant on external funding sources to be delivered. A review of the sewer fund per the recommendation is necessary prior to establishing a view on affordability to deliver all works with funding provided by Council.


16 DELEGATES REPORTS

16.1 LGNSW ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2018

Councillor Bruce MorrisFile No F18/1720Attachments 1. LGNS W-2018- Annual- Conference- Carried- Motions [16.1.1]

2. ALGA President 2018 LGNSW Annual Conference Presentation [16.1.2]3. Adam Beck Smart Cities Presentation [16.1.3]4. Geof Heydon Creator Tech Presentation [16.1.4]5. Chris Isles Place Design Group Presentation [16.1.5]

PURPOSE

Reporting on attendance at the LGNSW Conference at Albury 21 to 23 October 2018 in accordance with the requirements of Clause 6.33 of Council Procedure 5.1.5 – V 8 Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities for Councillors.

RECOMMENDATION

1 That the information be noted.

2 That Council consider enforcing the requirement within our Code of Meeting Practice to alternate with a speaker for a motion followed by a speaker against.

3 That Council consider implementing the process when reviewing our Code of Meeting Practice that the mover of a Motion does not speak to the Motion if there is no objection or amendment to the Motion moved.

4 That Council investigate the use of smart bins in high use recreational areas.

5 That Council investigates the installation of sensors when vehicle parking areas are upgraded or resurfaced.

BACKGROUND

The LGNSW Conference was held at Albury Entertainment Centre with pre-conference workshops held on the afternoon of 21 October 2018. These where optional and at additional cost for attendance.

Welcome Reception

The Conference commenced with the President’s Opening Ceremony and the Welcome Reception in an outdoor setting at Noreuil Park on the banks of Murray River. The LGNSW President Cr Linda Scott gave an address to welcome delegates to the conference. This was followed by the highlight of the Welcome Reception being an address by The Hon Gladys Berejiklian MP, Premier of NSW, which included a question and answer session after the address. The formalities culminated with a Welcome from the Mayor of Albury and an address by the Welcome Reception Sponsor the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.


The venue was appropriate and provided an excellent opportunity for conference delegates to network with other Councillors and General Managers from across the State and more importantly from within our region.

Business Session Day 1

The day started with an Address from the President LGNSW Cr Linda Scott. After the formalities of resolving Standing Orders it was down to business. The day generally flowed smoothly with 100 motions put to the vote at the meeting. Many of the motions were passed with no or minimal debate, although were more controversial, with robust debate. The motions carried at the meeting are provided as Attachment 1. Several of these motions were lead motions, with several other supporting motions from different Councils across the state outlined in the Business Paper. I would encourage anybody interested in the breadth of matters being considered by Councils across the State to read the Business Papers that are available on the LGNSW website.

The business was conducted professional with the number of speakers well controlled and the requirement for speakers to alternate for and against the motion. Kempsey Shire Council needs to better enforce this process to speed up the progress of meetings. In addition, with rare exception, if there was no objection to the motion, or no amendment proposed the motion was put with the mover not speaking to the motion. This process is very efficient and should be considered for inclusion in our new Code of Meeting Practice.

A late motion from Albury City Council in relation to varying the NSW Local Government Act to allow opt in provision for environmental works was included as a part of a motion consider in our meeting earlier today.

In addition to the business transacted an address was given by The Hon Gabrielle Upton MP, Minister for Local Government. This address outlined many of the current initiatives of the Minister and the Office of Local Government. This address was followed by a question and answer session with some robust questions.

The day concluded with Delegate networking function in the trade exhibition area, which was followed by the Conference Dinner.

Business Session Day 2

The second business day of the conference was facilitated by Ms Ellen Fanning as the Master of Ceremonies. The morning session started with an address from Mr David O’Loughlin, President of the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA). His presentation highlighted the challenges facing Local Government across the country and the initiatives that ALGA are pursuing on behalf of our communities. In my opinion the main take home message from this presentation was that ‘ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL’. The slides from the presentation are at Attachment 2.

The Office of NSW Small Business Commissioner and Service NSW then gave a short address in relation to uptake of their programs and provided details of evolving programs. The Federal Shadow Minister for Local Government Mr Stephen Jones MP then addressed the conference which was followed by a facilitated Question and Answer session.

The President LGNSW Cr Linda Scott then addressed the conference of the numerous initiatives of LGNSW. This was followed by the LGNSW Treasurers Report and a break for morning tea.


After morning tea, a presentation about SMART PLACES, which was facilitated by Simon Hunter, Executive Director, Strategic and Planning Infrastructure NSW with presentations by:Adam Beck, Executive Director Smart Cities Council Australia New Zealand titled Smart cities and towns: what, why and how?Geof Heydon, Associate at Creator Tech and Chair of Platforms and Interoperability at the Internet of Things Alliance Australia titled Smart data: what local government needs to know to thrive; andChris Isles, Executive Director, Planning, Place Design Group titled How to implement smart strategies to give your residents better options.

A copy of the slides from these presentations are included as attachments. It is important that we embrace data collection, storage and manipulation to better serve or community. This is an important functionality that our Corporate Business System needs. We also need to consider what data we need or can collect. Should we have smart bins in our high use park areas? These bins can send an electronic message that they are full and need to be emptied. You can even get solar operated bins that have compacters that increase the quantity of garbage before emptying. Should Council include parking sensors for each car park when the Clyde Street Car park is upgraded? These can record when vehicles are parked and alert Councils of parking infringements. They can also be used to monitor parking utilization and frequency of vehicle turnover. These sensors are quite economical if installed when pavements are resurfaced. What other data should we be collecting? The conference then adjourned for Lunch.

The next presentation was a short Video/address from the Department of Planning and Environment. This short address was followed by an address and question and answer session form The Hon Peter Primrose MLC, Shadow Minister for Local Government. This address outlined the initiatives proposed by the State opposition in support of Local Government. This was the last presentation prior to the two outstanding and memorable Keynote addresses.

The first keynote address was by Craig Reucassel, War on Waste host, titled Waste: Crisis or Opportunity? This a a very powerful presentation, which culminated with the LGNSW Campaign Launch, ‘SAVING OUR RECYLING’ Let’s reuse in NSW. Council resolved to endorse this campaign at its meeting in November.

The final keynote address was a very powerful and inspiring presentation by Steven Bradbury OAM, The Last Man Standing. It was a pleasure to listen to his story and experience his passion. Steven is truly an inspiration.

CONCLUSION

Participation in the LGNSW is very beneficial and provides Councillors and senior staff with the opportunity to remain abreast of current and emerging initiatives to support our communities.


It is recommended that Recommendations 2 and 3 above be addressed as part of the proposed Code of Meeting Practice workshop that is scheduled to occur in January 2019.


17 COMMITTEE REPORTS

17.1 LOCAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 4 DECEMBER 2018

Officer Robert Fish, Director Operations & PlanningFile No F18/1958Attachments 1. Minutes 4 December 2018 [17.1.1]

PURPOSE

For Council to adopt the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 4 December 2018.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council notes the minutes and adopts the recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting of 4 December 2018.

ISSUES

A copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Local Traffic Committee held on 4 December 2018 are attached.


18 DELIVERY PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Nil


19 COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS

19 COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS

Responses to questions from 20.11.2018COUNCILLOR L J HAUVILLE FILE: F18/1945 LJHQFNM1What financial contribution (including staff time) was made by Kempsey Shire Council to the Red Cedar Festival held last Saturday, 17th November?RESPONSE:The Red Cedar Festival was funded by a grant from the FACS Youth Opportunities Program. Council made no financial contribution. Staff time totalled 28.5 hours between the Community Projects Officer and Marketing Officer in advising the event coordinators, promoting the event and attending the one-day Festival.

The FACS Youth Opportunities Program aimed to deliver youth led events and activities that allowed young people to express themselves across a variety of creative outlets including visual arts, design, fashion and music. The program delivered over the course of 2018 included: Two youth led events in partnership with Macleay Valley Arts Council:

Youth Week Beach Beats Event – April Red Cedar Festival – November

Four Creative workshops Street Art Workshop with Indo the Artist (school holiday workshop at Crescent

Head and Kempsey) Screenwave Film Making Workshops (with Kempsey High, St Pauls, KAS, Melville) Indigenous Fashion Design Workshops (partnership with Red Cross, students from

Melville High and Kempsey High) Indigenous Graphic Design Workshops (partnership with Mission Australia,

students from Kempsey High and Melville High)

COUNCILLOR L J HAUVILLE FILE: F18/1945 SMM/RAFQFNM2Has there been any progress in seeking the owners removing the derelict vehicles in the compound in the middle of Smithtown, as requested at the Smithtown-Gladstone Community Catch-up meeting?RESPONSE:Two matters are currently being pursued at Smithtown in relation to derelict vehicles:

1. Cavanagh former bus depotA Notice of Intention (NOI) to give a Development Control Order, which would require the removal of the unregistered buses, was given to the owners on 22 October 2018. The owners could make representations to Council in respect to being given the Order by 30 November 2018, however no representations have been received. Further action will consist of proceeding with the issuing of a Development Control Order (DCO) under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, requiring the removal of the unregistered buses.


2. Corner of Jeffery and Rawson StreetsAt this location there are numerous issues including non-compliance with development consent and other unauthorised activity.

Necessary information has been gathered, with legal advice being sought to advise on the best course(s) of action to deal with these matters.

COUNCILLOR L J HAUVILLE FILE: F18/1945 SMMQFNM3With regard to the Kempsey Airport at Aldavilla, what has been the income and expenditure for 2015/2016, 2016/2017, 2017/2018 and what is the projected income and expenditures for 2018/2019?RESPONSE:A summary of the actual financial results for the 2015-16 to 2017-18 financial years and the forecast result for the 2018-19 financial year is detailed in the following table:

Note: the above financials results are:1. inclusive of 1 x operational staff actual time spent at the Airport;2. exclusive of the operational and management time incurred by the following Kempsey Shire

Council staff: Business Assets Officer; Manager Commercial Business; and Director Corporate & Commercial.

COUNCILLOR L J HAUVILLE FILE: F18/1945 RAFQFNM4To complement the Armidale Regional Councillors works inspection undertaken earlier this year will Councillors be invited to the inspection of Kempsey-Armidale Road by the Minister in January 2019 so as to be aware of the issues of upgrading the road to Regional Road status?RESPONSE:The submission made by the two Councils to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight was circulated to Councillors in November. The submission provides significant context in terms of the issues associated with road maintenance, upgrade needs and funding issues for the Kempsey-Armidale Road.


From the two Councils it is intended that the Mayors, General Managers and key senior staff shall attend. The majority of the inspection will be via vehicle, with the exception of meeting members of the community at Lower Creek and Big Hill. Inviting all Councillors shall make the inspection and associated activities impractical. Councillors shall be provided with information on the outcome of the inspection following the day.

COUNCILLOR L J HAUVILLE FILE: F18/1945 RAFQFNM5With reference to the small cruise ship visit in October to Trial Bay and the difficulty of landing passengers because at Back Creek blockages is there, or will be, an assessment of improving the silting over of the entrance?RESPONSE:With reference to the small cruise ship visit in October, Back Creek was never planned to be used for the landing of passengers.

Work through the Kempsey Coastal Management Plan and the Back Creek Boating Access Improvement Investigation (undertaken by RMS) has highlighted the boating access issue due to siltation at the entrance. Both documents include options to initiate improvement to the management of the Back Creek entrance. No actions or funding to undertake further assessment or investigation have been initiated through Council’s annual Operational Plans, nor been raised from within the community until very recently.

It is noted Council is not responsible for the management of the current dredging/sand extraction in Back Creek. This activity is managed by the Department of Industry. The effectiveness of the operation in terms of navigation benefit is limited due to the reach of the dragline dredge.

COUNCILLOR D F SAUL FILE: F18/1945 RAFQFNM1Why did Council bitumen pave the footpath outside of 35 Gladstone Street Kempsey and not just simply re-concrete?RESPONSE:A bitumen coating was applied to the degraded footpath as an interim measure to ensure that this section of footpath remained safe and useable until the footpath for the full length of Gladstone Street required replacement. This small section at 35 Gladstone Street has now been replaced with a new section of concrete path.

COUNCILLOR B J MORRIS FILE: F18/1945 LJHQFNM1There's been some comment on social media in regard to the artwork at the interchanges and it being grant funded. Can the source of funding please be clarified and the total cost of the two sculptures be indicated to the community?RESPONSE:The sculpture projects were identified in the Kempsey Corridor Masterplan and were funded through a combination of RMS allocation in the handover of what is now known as Macleay


Valley Way and Council contributions to landscaping, traffic management and contingencies. In November 2017 Councillors were briefed on the two projects, the EOI process and the engagement of the artists following review from the expert panel. Councillors had approved a total project cost of $155,000 at that time. The total costs for the two sculptures will be $175,000 with the overrun attributed to commissioning payments made that have been tied up in the estate of the late Matthew Harding (commissioned artist for Northern sculpture).

COUNCILLOR B J MORRIS FILE: F18/1945 SMMQFNM2The Return and Earn Scheme has Council entered into an agreement with the Materials Recovery Facility (MERF) for money to be returned to Council as part of the R&E scheme? If not, can it be done prior to the deadline of 1 December this year? If it has been done, what money has been returned to Council as a result of that action?RESPONSE:Kempsey Shire Council (KSC) has a MoU with Port Macquarie-Hastings Council (PMHC) to send comingled recycling to its Material Recycling Facility (MRF) that JR Richards (JRR) operate under contract to 2020. KSC is not a signatory to the MRF processing contract but shares in the outcomes negotiated. Port Macquarie-Hastings Council have reached an “in principle” agreement with its recycling processor, JR Richards, that incorporates the CDS (Container Deposit Scheme) Refund Sharing Agreement. The CDS accumulates eligible container deposit refunds that can be shared back to MRF operators and councils after 1 December 2018, if a CDS Refund Sharing Agreement (RSA) Notification is received from contributing councils by OEH by that deadline date. KSC and PMHC both submitted RSA notifications before the deadline. It is estimated that the returns on the CDS will balance the increased processing costs incurred by the MRF due to the recycling market crash as a result of China’s National Sword policy.

COUNCILLOR B J MORRIS FILE: F18/1945 RAFQFNM3At the Stuarts Point AGM there was an undertaking given by our local member to the community that Council would provide a community briefing within 1 month in relation to Stuarts Point Sewerage. Has this briefing been scheduled as yet and if not, when is it likely to occur?RESPONSE:A briefing occurred at the December meeting of the Stuarts Point and District Community Organisation on 5 December 2018.

COUNCILLOR B J MORRIS FILE: F18/1945 RAFQFNM4Will Council review the sewerage charges for the Stuarts Point community given the slightly over 12 month delay in the progress of the project?RESPONSE:Information is provided in the report on the Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme in the Business Paper of the December 2018 Ordinary Council Meeting.


Questions on NoticeCOUNCILLOR L J HAUVILLE FILE: F18/1945 RAFQON1What Work Health & Safety provisions are being incorporated into the design of the new footbridge at Back Creek so as to stop dangerous behaviours that have resulted in alleged severe injuries to some people over the years? What record of these tragic events are there in Council hands?RESPONSE:The new bridge will be similar in design to the existing bridge for heritage preservation by maintaining the same form. The handrail across the structure is planned to be similar in style to a pool fence, with vertical members spanning between a top and bottom horizontal member. The current railing is made up of horizontal members, which are easy to climb over. It is anticipated that signage shall be erected on the new bridge to highlight the risks of jumping from the bridge in terms of water depth, navigation use of the channel and other hazards.

No records are known to exist in Council records of injuries resulting from dangerous behaviours. It is noted that such incidents may not be reported to Council, and reporting may occur to Roads & Maritime Services rather than Council. It is noted that there were reports in the media of an accident approximately 18 months ago.

COUNCILLOR L J HAUVILLE FILE: F18/1945 SMMQON2Were there any incidents or excessive noise complaints in relation to the recent Red Cedar Music and Art Festival and were any compliance actions taken by Council staff?RESPONSE:Council received one complaint from a local resident regarding obscene language coming from the PA system between 3pm and 3.30pm. One of the youth acts began with some cursing. This was not foreseen, and the onsite Council officials quickly attended to the act and asked the artist to censor his lyrics which he abided by. There were no other incidents.

COUNCILLOR L J HAUVILLE FILE: F18/1945QON3What are the timetable and funding sources to;A. upgrade the Back Creek boat ramp area and B. the installation of the new footbridge to replace the present one?RESPONSE:In relation to the Gordon Young Drive boat ramp project funding is provided under the NSW Government’s Boating Now Program ($500,000) and from Council ($320,000). Advice has just been received from the NSW Aboriginal Land Council raising no objection to the work, subject to conditions and noting that the Aboriginal Land Claim is not yet settled. The project needs to be assessed under Native Title procedures now, however detailed design work can now commence. The deadline for completion of works under the grant is September 2019, which is the target for completion of work.


Design and investigation work is in progress for the footbridge. Environmental issues require resolution and additional funding is required for the project to be built as reported in the Carry Over and Revotes Budget report to the September 2018 Council meeting. Consideration is being given to recommending placing funds in reserve at a future quarterly review and allocating the additional funds required within the 2019/20 Operational Plan to enable the work to be undertaken. The work has no external funding sources.

COUNCILLOR B J MORRIS FILE: F18/1945 SMMQON1To date (2 December 2018) I have not seen of any action to implement Councils resolution 2018.306 in relation the LGNSW "Save our recycling" campaign. What action has been taken to implement this resolution as at 2 December 2018? If no action has been taken, what has caused the delay in implementing this resolution? Has a rescission motion been lodged?RESPONSE:In relation to Council resolution 2018.306 the following actions have been undertaken to date: Local Government NSW has been formally advised that Council has endorsed the Save

Our Recycling campaign (Item 7) on the 27 November 2018. Letters from the Mayor’s office have been sent in relation to action items 3 and 4. Works have commenced on implementing Items 2, 5, 6, and 8. These items are ongoing

and do not necessarily have an end date.

COUNCILLOR B J MORRIS FILE: F18/1945 SMMQON2What method/s did TAG undertake to correlate measured noise data with circuit training flying activity? Did TAG use flight information sourced from AvData? Did TAG use information available to Council regarding AIAC flight records for the quarter ending 30 September 2018 as required to be supplied to Council under Clauses 27 to 30 of the agreement with AIAC? If AIAC data was not why was this information not used?RESPONSE:TAG used AvData as the basis for determining aircraft movements at Kempsey Airport as it provides detail of every recorded movement at the Airport. This provided movement data including determination of the type of movement (e.g. circuit training), the time of each movement, the aircraft type and registration, and operator. The noise events captured in the monitoring period were correlated with the aircraft movement data.

Council has not yet received the flight records from AIAC for the quarter ending 30 September 2018. Council has requested this information from AIAC and once received the data will be sent to TAG for analysis. The final report will include reference to the AIAC flight records and any material inconsistencies between the Avdata records and AIAC flight data records will be addressed by TAG in their final report.

COUNCILLOR B J MORRIS FILE: F18/1945 SMMQON3Has TAG undertaken any analysis of potential noise generation and the likely impact on properties, both business and residential, resultant from varying levels of increased activity, particularly circuit training? If they have what level of increased activity have been modelled?


RESPONSE:No modelling of future potential aircraft noise generation was undertaken as this was outside the scope of the NMP and FNA. The analysis and report are based on the data collected during the noise monitoring period.


20 CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

MOTION FOR CONFIDENTIAL SESSION

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in section 10A(2) of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the media and public.

Set out below is section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 in relation to matters which can be dealt with in the closed part of a meeting.

The matters and information are the following: (a) personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors)(b) the personal hardship of any resident or ratepayer(c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom

the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business(d) commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed;

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

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

(iii) reveal a trade secret(e) information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law(f) matters affecting the security of the Council, councillors, council staff or Council property(g) advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in

legal proceedings on the grounds of legal professional privilege(h) information concerning the nature and location of a place or an item of Aboriginal significance

on community land.

Councillors are reminded of their statutory obligations in relation to the non-disclosure to any outside person of matters included in this section.

That Council form itself into the Confidential Session, and at this stage, the meeting be closed to the public to permit discussion of the confidential business items listed for the reasons as stated in the Agenda.


20.1 LEGAL MATTERS

Contact Person: Daniel Thoroughgood – Manager Information and GovernanceFile: F18/1960

Section 10A(2)(g) – Legal Proceedings

This report is submitted on a confidential basis as it involves advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege. (Local Government Act 1993, Section 10A (2)(g))

On balance, the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of the advice outweighs the public interest in openness and transparency in Council decision making by discussing the matter in open meeting.

20.2 TENDER FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TURNERS FLAT BRIDGE

Officer Robert Fish, Director Operations and PlanningFile No TQE18/18

Section 10A(2)(d)(i) – Commercial Position This report is submitted on a confidential basis as it involves commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed, prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it. (Local Government Act 1993, section 10A(2)(d)(i)) On balance, the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of the commercial information supplied, outweighs the public interest in openness and transparency in council decision making by discussing the matter in open meeting. PURPOSE

To advise on the assessment of tenders for the design and construction of the replacement of Turners Flat Bridge.

21 CONCLUSION

commencing at 9:00 am elbow street west …...2018/12/18 · council can consent to development...

Documents