E: 1 · For: Crs McKenzie, Knudsen, Booth, Bowden, Bale, Norman. Against: Crs Johnston, Wall,...

E: 1

Ordinary Meeting of the Council of the Shire of Dungog, to be held Tuesday 16 May 2017 commencing 6.00pm.

NOTICES OF MOTION

1. NOTICE OF MOTION OF RESCISSION – 1/2017

I hereby give notice of my intention to move at the next General Meeting of the Council the following rescission motion: That Council rescind the Notice of Motion carried at the Extraordinary Meeting held on the 01 May 2017 regarding the Dungog – Port Stephens Voluntary Merger.

Minute No. 37403 A MOTION was moved by Cr Knudsen and seconded by Cr Bowden that: 1. A delegation of General Manager, Mayor and Deputy Mayor approach and enter into negotiations to achieve the best possible outcomes for the residents of Dungog Shire and Council staff in a potential merger with Port Stephens. 2. A delegation of General Manager, Mayor and Deputy Mayor approach and seek expressions of interest from Maitland Council as to their view on a merger, and negotiate to achieve the best possible outcomes for the residents of Dungog Shire and Council staff. 3. A delegation of General Manager, Mayor and Deputy Mayor approach the Boundaries Commission and enter into negotiations to achieve the best possible outcomes for the communities of Dungog Shire and Council staff in a potential splitting of the Shire between surrounding Shires. 4. A delegation of General Manager, Mayor and Deputy Mayor approach and enter into

negotiations with officers of State Government to achieve the best possible outcomes for the residents of Dungog Shire for the Shire to retain its independence.

5. A Councillor workshop be held within 14 days from today to determine (a) discussion

and negotiation points for 1-4, and (b) a reporting mechanism to Councillors regarding outcomes of the meetings; and that all information will be made public before the next Council election.

6. A Poll be conducted at the next Council elections with regard to each of the options

mentioned in 1 to 4 above to democratically gauge the opinions of the residents of the Shire.

On being put the motion was carried. Cr Wall requested that the Mayor call a Division. The Division resulted in 6 for and 3 against as follows:

For: Crs McKenzie, Knudsen, Booth, Bowden, Bale, Norman. Against: Crs Johnston, Wall, Farrow.

************* Précis The Resolution of Council above is erroneous and misleading in that it requests that the Council General Manager, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor undertake actions that are completely unachievable.

*************

E: 2


Dot Point One requests that the Delegation enter into negotiations with Port Stephens Council. – This not achievable. The Local Government Act Sec 218F is clear and concise stating: If a proposal that is not supported by one or more of the Councils affected by it, or that is an amalgamation proposal, has been referred to the Departmental Chief Executive under subsection (1): (a) the Departmental Chief Executive must furnish the Departmental Chief Executive’s report to the Boundaries Commission for review and comment, and (b) the Boundaries Commission must review the report and send its comments to the Minister. Therefore there is no scope for Negotiations with the Port Stephens Council given the Public Enquiry delegate has completed his findings and recommendations and these have been referred to the Boundary Commission who have in turn made their recommendations. Dot Point Two requests that the Delegation approach and seek expressions of interest from Maitland Council as to their view on a merger, and negotiate to achieve the best possible outcomes for the residents of Dungog Shire and Council staff. This is impossible as elected representatives do not deal with Expressions of Interest as regards mergers. Requests are made formally to the Council (in this case Maitland) who will then resolve a determination either opposed or in favour. Dot Point Three requests that the Delegation approach the Boundaries Commission and enter into negotiations to achieve the best possible outcomes for the communities of Dungog Shire and Council staff in a potential splitting of the Shire between surrounding Shires. – This not achievable as the Local Government Act Sec 218F is clear and concise stating -: (1) On making or receiving a proposal, the Minister must refer it for examination and report to the Boundaries Commission or to the Departmental Chief Executive. (2) Sections 263, 264 and 265 apply to the examination of a proposal by the Departmental Chief Executive in the same way as they apply to the examination of a proposal by the Boundaries Commission. (3) For the purpose of examining a joint proposal of 2 or more councils for the amalgamation of two or more areas under section 218A, the Boundaries Commission or Departmental Chief Executive, as the case requires, must seek the views of electors of each of those areas: (a) by means of: (i) advertised public meetings, and (ii) invitations for public submissions, and (iii) postal surveys or opinion polls, in which reply-paid questionnaires are distributed to all electors, or (b) by means of formal polls. (4) The period over which the views of electors are to be sought as referred to in subsection (3) must be a period of at least 40 days. (5) Part 3 of Chapter 4 applies to a formal poll taken by the Boundaries Commission or Departmental Chief Executive in the same way as it applies to a council poll referred to in that Part.

E: 3


(6) If a proposal that is not supported by one or more of the councils affected by it, or that is an amalgamation proposal, has been referred to the Departmental Chief Executive under subsection (1):

(a) the Departmental Chief Executive must furnish the Departmental Chief Executive’s report to the Boundaries Commission for review and comment, and

(b) the Boundaries Commission must review the report and send its comments to the Minister. (7) The Minister may recommend to the Governor that the proposal be implemented: (a) with such modifications as arise out of: (i) the Boundaries Commission’s report, or

(ii) the Departmental Chief Executive’s report (and, if applicable, the Boundaries Commission’s comments on that report), and

(b) with such other modifications as the Minister determines, but may not do so if of the opinion that the modifications constitute a new proposal. (8) The Minister may decline to recommend to the Governor that the proposal be implemented. Therefore there is no scope for Negotiations with the Boundary Commission as regards Boundary Adjustments Cr. Glenn Wall Cr. Harold Johnston Cr. Stephen Farrow

E: 4


Councillor G D Wall 2. NOTICE OF MOTION 2/2017 Should the rescission motion be ADOPTED I give notice that it is my intention to move the following motion in lieu thereof of which due notice is hereby given: That: In support of Mr. Peppin’s Public Inquiry Report and Recommendations and the NSW Boundary Commission’s Recommendations that Dungog Shire Council advise Port Stephens Council and the Minister for Local Government that Council is willing to voluntarily amalgamate with Port Stephens Council conditional upon the written commitment of the NSW Government to financially support the merged entity.

Cr G D Wall

********** Precis: To provide further weight to the General Managers report (Annexure ‘A’) to Council at the Extra Ordinary meeting held on the 01 May 2017 at the Doug Walters Pavilion, the information provided below encapsulates points raised at the Extra Ordinary meeting.

********* Attitudes of residents and ratepayers: At a council workshop on May 27, 2013 and a subsequent Dungog Shire Meeting of Council on June 18, 2013; Council adopted a Notice of Motion that I introduced, that articulated and expanded on what options needed to be explored by the Mayor and General Manager. This included:

Do nothing

Look at a consolidated amalgamation of all Hunter Councils, from a Brisbane City Council or Auckland Council perspective

A Hunter Councils’ model with legislative framework that supports the entity of Hunter Councils and the council of mayors, and enables the councils to stand alone to represent their communities and provide local services.

Amalgamation model options including: 1. Dungog – Maitland – Cessnock 2. Dungog – Maitland 3. Dungog – Gloucester - Greater Taree – Great Lakes 4. Dungog - Port Stephens – Maitland

Then on the 28 June 2013, only ten days after my above notice of motion and subsequent Council resolution, a Mayoral Minute was adopted by council stating: "After exploration of the above options, detailed discussions with other Hunter Councils, and informal community consultation within the restricted timeframe, Dungog Shire Council sees no merit in amalgamation with any other Hunter Council/s at this stage". Given this stance, it was always going to be difficult to present the community with an array of options and it was not until IPART handed down their recommendations that our Council tried, without great success to engage the community.

E: 9


ANNEXURE ‘A’ TO ITEM NO. 2 – NOTICES OF MOTION

GENERAL MANAGER

Craig Deasey 1. PORT STEPHENS VOLUNTARY AMALGAMATION EF16/22 Precis: Councils consideration of the Port Stephens Council Voluntary Amalgamation proposal.

****** Councillors, further to the Mayoral Minute to the 21 March 2017 Ordinary meeting of Council, the meeting with the Deputy Premier The Hon. John Barilaro MP on 5 April 2017 was attended by the Mayor Clr Johnston, Deputy Mayor Councillor McKenzie and myself. On 22 March 2017 a letter was forwarded to the Deputy Premier outlining the questions to which the Council was seeking a response from the NSW Government. The questions were as follows:

1. If Council resolves to stand alone, is the NSW Government willing to financially support Dungog Shire Council into the future with additional grants?

2. If the Council determines to stand alone, will the NSW Government support the Councils submission to IPART for a substantial rate variation to achieve “fit for the future” status?

3. If the Council determines to voluntary merge with Port Stephens Council will the NSW Government financially support the merged entity into the future to assist with the infrastructure backlog?

4. If Council determined to voluntary merge with Port Stephens Council would the initial $15Mil assigned previously to the merger process be allocated to the merged entity to assist with the implementation and provide for investment in community infrastructure?

5. Would the NSW Government be prepared to not apply the four year rates moratorium on the voluntary merger of Port Stephens and Dungog Councils?

6. Would a voluntary merger between Dungog & Port Stephens Councils require a fresh merger inquiry process to occur or would the existing delegates and Boundary Commission reports undertaken in 2016 suffice?

At the meeting the Deputy Premier committed to providing the Council with a written response to these questions, however at the time of preparation of the report the responses have not as yet been received. Whilst I envisage that the response by the Deputy Premier will be received prior to the meeting and will be circulated to all Councillors upon receipt, in the interests of transparency to the community this report has been prepared on the basis of consideration of the Port Stephens Council voluntary amalgamation proposal. Whilst I was in attendance at the meeting it is not my intention to provide feedback on the Deputy Premiers’ initial verbal responses to the questions posed, however I did come away

E: 10


with an appreciation of the Governments position in relation to a number of the points, the Deputy Premier advised he would need to seek responses from other parties including the Minister for Local Government in relation to question 6. It is not my intention to repeat all the past processes associated with the Destination 2036 process, as by now Councillors should fully understand the outcomes of the merger inquiry reports as published for Dungog Shire Council, the financial costs to the community of a merger and the potential opportunities for our communities into the future. At present there is only one voluntary amalgamation proposal on the table, there are no other alternatives. To accept the Port Stephens proposal would result in the amalgamation of the two LGA’s subject to the Minister for Local Governments concurrence, to reject the Port Stephens proposal the Council would be standing alone. Councillors must look at this proposal objectively and not be influenced by the politics or the lobbying processes that have been underway and determine what is the right decision in terms of the future of our communities and the generations that are to come. This Council has had carriage of the Destination 2036 process and the various programs (Independent Review of Local Government, Fit for the future, Local Government Act review etc.) as a consequence and it should be this Council that has the final say on behalf of the community that you were elected to represent in terms of the future of this Council. I have previously reported to Council on the staffing situation and have reported over many years that the long term financial position of the Council is at risk, the short term position is showing that this Council is in a deficit cash budget position for 2016/17 which will escalate further as a consequence of the current Martins Creek Quarry case. There is no contingency fund to meet these costs and there is the very real risk that if the Council is awarded a decision in its favour that the operators may appeal. The projected 2017/18 budget position is again one of a deficit cash position with no potential for any additional projects unless they are funded by outside sources. Irrespective of these matters it is the strategic capacity of the organisation to plan for the future and look at deliverable outcomes to our communities that is lacking. Councils management team addressed the Councillors some 18 months ago to discuss elements of the fit for the future process in particular the workloads and the issues which they all face as a consequence of a lack of resources. I have stated in various reports on the implementation of the delivery program the management team is dealing with countless operational elements and they have very little if any time for the strategic elements. This is showing up time and again and the list of unfinished or not started strategic projects is growing, Sec 94 plan, rural lands strategy, roads strategy, asset management strategy, shire wide DCP review, social media strategy, workforce strategy, financial strategies to name but a few of the outstanding elements. The Shires population is growing but also ageing and we are not undertaking any assessment as regards these impacts into the future as we have no strategic planners or staff within areas to look at these emerging issues in terms of adaptive housing, infrastructure planning, social and community services. Our infrastructure is ageing and the stark reality is that some elements of the infrastructure are at or beyond their “useful life”. The timber bridge issue is one example, but there are others for instance the Dungog swimming pool that is nearing the end of its useful life we have no strategy or planning in place as regards addressing this at present. The improvement plan that was developed for submission to IPART placed before the Council an increase in the general rates of 13% for six years to meet the financial benchmarks as determined by the NSW Government. However, that improvement plan did not address the strategic capacity element, where are we going to secure the resources

E: 11


required to address this issue? Consultants can only do so much and come at a cost and this still does not address the workforce shortages in other key areas. The financial implications could add another 20% to what is required aside from the need for additional office accommodation. For us to impose on our community rates increases well in excess of what the community could anticipate from a newly merged entity has to be one of the significant considerations for this Council. The Port Stephens Council is a “fit Council” it has a diverse revenue base and a growing population which gives rise to their ability to meet the other elements in relation to the fit for the future process, including scale and capacity. This is best reflected in the Port Stephens Councils annual report and state of the environment reporting. The Council has dedicated officers working in areas which would significantly benefit our local community and environment, whereas this Council just simply does not have that capacity (manpower) and never will. Scale and capacity brings opportunities to not only staff but also communities with specialist staff available to work with communities on various projects or initiatives, it also brings elements of expertise together within the organisation when assessing complex development applications for example. Conclusion: Dungog Shire Council has been left stranded on one hand but on the other it now has an opportunity to self determine its future without the Minister for Local Government making that decision for you. The loss of local democracy has been raised by some people throughout the process, but in reality how often would the majority of our population have an interest in what the Council is doing? It is quite evident that the majority of services which the Council undertakes or provides are not known by the broader community, if the community is receiving the services which they expect from the rates they pay do they care whether the administration base is local or city based? Ignoring the petition it is fair to say that a very small percentage of the Shires community has been actively engaged in the fit for the future process. I am aware that some Councillors are contemplating the conduct of a Council poll on the matter of mergers in conjunction with the deferred local government elections in September 2017. It is my view that the conduct of the poll would be a fruitless exercise and would appear to be against the principles upon which each Councillor would have been elected to office. Community leadership needs to be displayed and this Council has had carriage of this process since September 2012. A poll provides no enforceable outcome and this Council would effectively be deferring this matter to the next Council. To defer or delay determining a position is not in the best interests of the community or the staff. In March 2017 I reported on staffing levels, continuing uncertainty is making it nigh on impossible to recruit professional/specialist staff and this would linger on indefinitely as there are limited progression opportunities within this organisation as it stands now. Recruitment has always been difficult due to Councils limited financial resources and proximity to the larger Councils and we have to continue to rely upon a migration of staff into the Shire on a daily basis which has grown over the past 15 years. Also this Council has already not fulfilled an obligation to staff to address the office accommodation situation, effectively deferring the matter until the outcome of the fit for the future process. The staff amenities including the kitchen facility in my opinion are quite frankly “a bloody disgrace” and my staff to their credit have continued to endure these archaic facilities.

E: 12


When Dungog Shire Council divested the water and sewer operations to Hunter Water in 2008 I stated that it would be a hard decision for the Council as effectively it was placing the Council in a position that would compromise the future of the Council. Councillors are the users of the water and sewerage services better or worse off under Hunter Water? The people of Clarence Town now have an affordable sewerage service, Hunter Water has invested millions into local infrastructure to meet their compliance guidelines and the pricing impacts have been negligible as a consequence. I now ask the following question, will the community of Dungog Shire be better off under a merged entity or not? My personal responses are as follows: Financially- yes, socially – no change, local economy – improving with greater opportunities into the future through the tourism arm and economic development unit, sense of community & place – no change if not opportunities for enhancement, local service provision – dependent upon accepted levels by the community, advocacy – improved due to larger population base. IMPLICATIONS Financial Should Council determine to stand alone the community can expect annual rate increases of 13% for six years as the Council endeavours to generate sufficient revenues to maintain the Councils infrastructure subject to the relevant requirements of IPART and the Office of Local Government. The Council will also have to undertake to replace the current administration facility or expend between $3-$4Mil to adapt the facility to meet current standards and to accommodate additional staff resources into the future. The current building does not even pass basic disability access arrangements for staff at present. The Council will also have to increase general rates by at least an additional 20% to ensure that the staffing levels within the critical areas of Council can meet community expectations and provide strategic capacity to the organisation, in particular, IT Systems Management, Development Compliance, Strategic Land Use Planning, Development Engineer, Risk & WHS, Human Resources, Community Engagement/ Liaison Officer. If the $15Mil is still on the table from the NSW Government this can be invested into vital infrastructure upgrades and community infrastructure and whilst obviously shared between the two Councils the communities of Dungog Shire would benefit. Statutory The Local Government Act (NSW) 1993 Chapter 9 outlines the requirements in relation to voluntary amalgamations. However until the Council has a response from the Deputy Premier there is still uncertainty as to whether a further Boundaries Commission Inquiry is required or as to whether the Minister for Local Government can review her previous decision to enable the process to proceed without further delay. The Act at Chapter 3 outlines the principles for local government however in terms of Council decision making the following principles apply: (a) Councils should recognise diverse local community needs and interests. (b) Councils should consider social justice principles. (c) Councils should consider the long term and cumulative effects of actions on future generations. (d) Councils should consider the principles of ecologically sustainable development. (e) Council decision-making should be transparent and decision-makers are to be accountable for decisions and omissions.

E: 13


Community Councillors have witnessed the community’s response to the merger inquiry process, through the hearings and submissions made. Those individuals within the community that want to be informed have made that attempt and have expressed their views, however, the process reflects that the majority of people within the Dungog LGA are not interested in local government. The Council did receive a petition in relation to merging with Port Stephens Council which was signed by 1805 residents of the Shire, there are some 6,820 people on the electoral roll for the Dungog LGA. The biggest loss to the community from an amalgamation process would be local representation and in the scheme of things what weight should that be given. The community’s of Gresford (Gresford Community Group), Paterson (Paterson Progress Association) and Clarence Town (Clarence Town Progress Association) all have local bodies that can advocate and advance the community’s views on matters. It is something that the community of Dungog may need to consider in the future. Staffing The employment protection provisions still apply in a voluntary merger situation as Dungog being the major employment centre for the Shire has a population of less than 5,000 which protects local employment numbers in the town. The morale of the organisation over the past 10 months in particular has been on the decline, losing some key staff within the organisation has also impacted upon this element but the waiting process and the indecisiveness has frustrated the staff more than ever. Staff were provided with training in relation to adapting to change etc., but the effectiveness of the training has been wasted as nothing has come to fruition. The continuing uncertainty needs to be resolved so that they can get on with their lives. GENERAL MANAGERS RECOMMENDATION That Dungog Shire Council advise Port Stephens Council and the Minister for Local Government that Council is willing to voluntary amalgamate with Port Stephens Council conditional upon the written commitment of the NSW Government to financially support the merged entity.

lbrighton.dunFile AttachmentNOM 2 A.pdf

E: 5


At an Ordinary meeting of Council held on the 17 November 2015, I attempted to introduce a foreshadowed motion to consider a voluntary merger or major Boundary adjustment with not only Maitland City Council, but also Port Stephens and Singleton Councils. I did this, because in my opinion our Community consultation had virtually been non-existent and we had absolutely no mandate from the community as to what their expectations were. At the Dungog Public Inquiry session as regards the Dungog – Port Stephens merger, I advised Councils continuing position and as I implied, no one in our community had been consulted as to this merger proposal and I would estimate that a great portion of our community had only gleaned certain and very limited aspects of the Morrison Low - Dungog / Port Stephens Merger report. I then asked that the Delegate to give the community efforts, particularly the petitions and poll results due consideration when deliberating his report as regards the Dungog Port Stephens merger proposal. Obviously Mr. Peppin took the information into his deliberations and as such made recommendations accordingly (Annexure ‘B’). The point I would make here, is that a Public Inquiry is one of the most significant methods of consultation available, with exception of a constitutional referendum and Councillors should not dismiss the recommendations from the Inquiry.

However, to briefly encapsulate those responses from our community towards the Port Stephens merger proposal, I provide the following:

At the hearing at Dungog on 9 June, 2016, where 95 people were present, 22 people spoke with only 4 Dungog LGA residents speaking against the proposed Port Stephens merger.

From the public consultative process 229 submissions were received on this merger proposal. This was made up of 174 written submissions and 55 verbal submissions at the Public Inquiry sessions. Most submissions received were in support of this merger proposal (76% in support; 17% in opposition; 7% no position for or against).

Almost 1800 residents and ratepayers of the Dungog LGA have signed a petition supporting the proposed merger with Port Stephens Council.

The poll conducted by the Dungog Chronicle had 484 respondents with over 76% support (367) for the Port Stephens merger proposal.

By comparison the Maitland merger proposal revealed the following statistics: Over 80% of the published submissions on the Government website opposed the

merger of Dungog and Maitland. Over 90% of speakers at the public inquiry into the proposed Dungog / Maitland

merger opposed the merger. To further emphasise the critical importance of the delegates report in a merger process, I would cite Dr. Ian Tiley’s comments from within his Dungog / Maitland Merger Report as follows - “At best, one could conclude that perhaps due to this lack of engagement, the community is either apathetic about the merger proposal, or is in general, tacit agreement”. In adopting this philosophy to the Port Stephens merger results, including consideration of the petition and poll results above, applying Dr. Tiley’s assumption that an apathetic response could be interpreted as tacit agreement, it is reasonable to extrapolate that the level of community support given to the Dungog – Port Stephens Merger, indicates that the proposal has a very high level of community support.

E: 14


ANNEXURE ‘B’ TO ITEM NO. 2 – NOTICES OF MOTION

E: 15


E: 16


lbrighton.dunFile AttachmentNOM 2 B.pdf

E: 6


Financial Implications The table below is a direct compilation of figures from the Morrison Low reports as regards both the Maitland and Port Stephens merger proposals.

Service / position / item Maitland Port Stephens Rates Comparison Increase in rates for DSC

residents projected at 66.4% and will escalate as MCC on a pricing path of 7.25% pa for next 4 years.

Increase in rates for DSC residents projected 28.95%, however yield would not be sufficient to address I/F backlog and AMP renewals $3,300,000 short.

Infrastructure backlog $92,000,000

$18,300,000

Loan Borrowings $23,000,000

$23,000,000

Employee Costs $33,300,000 (369 staff =

$90,423 per employee)

$41,700,000 (419 staff = $99,489 per employee)

NPV – 9 years LTFP $4,700,000 $7,400,000 Note: NPV – Net Present Value AMP – Asset Management Plan The districts of Port Stephens and Dungog are both facing considerable economic and social change. In order to meet such challenges, it is necessary to develop strategic planning and financial responses that need to be created by an awareness of local cultures and the issues that are important to our communities. Significant benefits can flow from such an integrated ‘cultural planning’ approach to the new LG entity. The Dungog/Port Stephens merger proposal highlighted that the rates of DSC residents would increase marginally in most cases. There is a high probability that a new merged Council entity would introduce a differential rating system to resolve the disproportion in property rates levied on the various land zones between the larger areas of population, particularly the Business category for the current Dungog LGA. As implied above, due to the rates variations between Port Stephens and Dungog, there will need to be a complete analysis as regards rates versus public services; and levels of needs as regards services. It would be a reasonable assumption that those areas and residents whose rates were modest in comparison to similar land uses, will have to contribute more equitably to public infrastructure and services. The success of a merged entity will be its ability to reconfigure or maintain systems to ensure that the new Council is fulfilling all of its obligations within the law and within its restructured financial capacity. As I articulated at the May 2017 Extraordinary Council meeting, there are clear financial advantages and enhancements to funding programs under a merged entity. In the long term, this will assist immensely with the IF backlog, particularly roads within the current Dungog LGA. The Financial Assistance Grant and RMS Block Grant improvements are illustrated in the table below:

E: 7


Financial Assistance Grant 2016 / 2017 – Estimated Entitlement (Source – NSW Local Government Grants Commission 2015 – 2016 Report).

Council Pop’n General Purpose Component

Local Roads Component

Total

Dungog 9,195 $1,493,226 $850,711 $ 2,343,937 Port Stephens 70,447 $5,074,912 $1,159,847 $6,234,759 Dungog / Port Stephens merged

79,642 $6,568,138 $2,010,558 $8,578,696

Shoalhaven 14/15 97,694 $8,212,038 $3,113,587 $11,325,625 Tweed 14/15 90,114 $6,727,476 $2,637,918 $9,365,394

Note -: Shoalhaven and Tweed Council comparisons have been used for the FY 2014 / 2015 so as not to distort the population figures.

Under a merged entity for the first four years the financial assistance grant equates to $8,578, 696 and after four years as a merged entity this would then rise to $10,111,432 per annum (inclusive of $2,876,000 for local road / timber bridge component) if the Financial Assistance Grant is still calculated using full horizontal equalisation basis and calculating for increases in Expenditure Allowances. (Shoalhaven and Tweed Councils have been included due to their similarities, particularly with local road lengths)

RMS Block Grant 2014 – 2015 (Source – Block Grant Allocations FY 2014 – 2015).

Note: Amount $ = (Sum of (length of each road traffic 0.35 0.5018)) + (0.36 length of timber bridges) RAL (Rural Agricultural Large – Pop’n 3001 – 20,000); URM (Urban Regional Medium – Pop’n 30,001 – 70,000); URL (Urban Regional Large Pop’n 70,001 – 120,000). State Roads Port Stephens Council has single invitation contracts to maintain the following State Classified Roads:

Nelson Bay Road, Cabbage Tree Road, Tomago Road, Richardson Road Parts of Adelaide, William Bailey, Seaham and Raymond Terrace Roads.

For the financial year 2015 / 2016 RMS contracted Port Stephens Council to undertake works to the value of $3,196,000. As Councillors are aware we have no State roads in Dungog Shire and to merge with Port Stephens Council will provide a greater capacity for us to be part of an organization that is guaranteed funded work, stable project management and greater capacity for increased plant and machinery. Conclusion If Councillors are of the opinion that Dungog Council can stand alone, then I would ask them into the future; what basis of documentation or argument they would use to secure additional funding.

Council ACLG Code

Block Grant $ Length of Regional Road

$/km

Dungog RAL $1,172,000 124 $ 9,451.61 Port Stephens URM $919,000 56 $16,410.71 Dungog / Port Stephens merged

URL $3,056,400 180 $16,980.00

Shoalhaven URL $2,133,000 151 $14,125.83 Tweed URL $2,241,000 148 $15,141.89

E: 8


There would no longer be any justifiable argument that we don’t have a State Road, because if we take this merger opportunity we will inherit that asset.

There are no long term State Significant developments on the horizon, therefore we can’t argue for any one-off funding into the future as we have achieved with the success of our Route Access Study when we received $13 Million and Port Stephens Council received $7 Million to upgrade MR 301 by utilising the Tillegra Dam project as leverage.

As such, we will be limited to our Financial Assistance Grant, RMS Block Grant, Roads to Recovery Funding and about $200,000 pa we receive through the RMS Repair Program. We already know that we are not fit for the future, therefore any specific program funding will not be available to us, so options to secure additional funding for our roads and bridges will be very limited, and our infrastructure backlog will only increase into the future without any means to combat that trend. In summation, given the process, dialogue and information gathering over the past 12 years relating to Strategic Alliances, Sustainability of LG and Reform of LG; I am more than convinced that a merger between Port Stephens and Dungog can provide significant economic benefits into the future and should be supported. I would also advocate that long term additional services and opportunities can be afforded to the greater community, being achieved by initiatives and programs (due to greater population and Staff) that leverage greater funding from both the Federal and State Government. Greater resources, staff numbers and the ability to have greater strategic capacity can only enhance our LGA’s. Whilst a complex, multi-functional organisation such as a newly formed council, with differing perspectives on policy and priorities, will provide some tensions between political and management viewpoints, these are not insurmountable problems. Any organisation administered under the right stewardship can inspire leadership while providing effective local and community democracy. Our own Council has clearly demonstrated this since 1958 evolving from a merger process.

B: 1


PLANNING DEPARTMENT MANAGER’S REPORT

Anne Moore 1. LOTS 1- 4 DP 758366, LOT 3 DP 129019 & LOT 88 1183633 NO. 16 RENS

STREET & NOS. 18-26 BAIRD STREET DUNGOG – CONSOLIDATION OF SIX (6) LOTS AND RESUBDIVISION INTO TEN (10) LOTS DA 66/2016

Development Application No. 66/2016

Owner: Dungog Shire Council

Applicant: Dungog Shire Council

Land: Lots 1- 4 DP 758366, Lot 3 DP 129019 & Lot 88 DP1183633 No. 16 Rens Street & Nos. 18-26 Baird Street Dungog

Current Zone: R1 General Residential

Area: 17,406m2

Proposal: Consolidation of six (6) lots and re-subdivision into ten (10) lots

Issues Imposition of restrictive covenant in terms of future dwelling type; Drainage facilities on site

********** Precis

The following report considers Development Application No. 66/2016 that seeks approval for consolidation of six (6) lots, being at Lots 1- 4 DP 758366, Lot 3 DP 129019 & Lot 88 DP 1183633, No. 16 Rens Street and Nos. 18-26 Baird Street Dungog, and the re-subdivision into ten (10) lots to be undertaken in two stages. The development application was notified to adjoining land owners and advertised for a period of 14 days and two (2) submissions were received by Council. The applicant amended their application via request to stage the subdivision after exhibition was completed however this is more for administrative purposes and does not materially change the proposal.

The subdivision of this land is the last stage of Council’s subdivision of residential land in the vicinity of Rens and Baird Streets Dungog and commonly known as the Melbee Residential Subdivision.

Council officers have undertaken a thorough assessment of this DA in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act) and recommend that Council approve the application subject to appropriate conditions.

BACKGROUND

The first stage of the Melbee Residential Subdivision was registered in 1980 that involved the creation of residential lots along Baird Street, Melbee Circuit and Robertson Close. Subsequently Stages 2, 3 and 4 have allowed the creation of Wilkerson Place and the extension of Melbee Circuit linking to Rens Street. Most of these residential lots are now

REPORTS BY DEPARTMENT REQUIRING COUNCIL DECISION

B: 2


occupied by detached dwellings. This proposal constitutes Stage 5 of the Melbee Estate subdivision which will be completed in two sub stages 5(a) and 5(b) Restrictions were imposed on the titles of lots within Stages 1, 2 and 3, some were in respect of building restrictions (minimum size of dwellings, building setbacks) and some related to usage (keeping of domestic animals and erection of fences etc.). Restrictions in respect of building setbacks and fencing only were imposed on Stage 4 allotments SUBJECT SITE The real property description of the subject site is Lots 1 - 4, Sec 14 DP 758366, Lot 3 129019, Lot 88, DP 1183633 being No. 16 Rens Street & Nos. 18 - 26 Baird Street Dungog. The site comprises a total of six (6) lots with four (4) lots fronting Baird Street, one (1) lot being located along the western side of Rens Street and one (1) lot being positioned along the eastern side of Rens Street which also has a frontage to Wilkerson Place. The approx. area of the site has been calculated at 17,406m2. A locality plan is provided in Figure 1 below and an aerial photograph as Figure 2. The subject site is located at the north western and south western corners of Baird and Rens Streets opposite the north coast railway line. The site is described as being vacant land with a covering of grass including a large clump of existing trees occupying the centre of Lot 88 that will be retained and a number of isolated immature trees upon Lots 3 and 4 along Baird Street. Lot 88 slopes towards Rens Street with a natural gully bisecting this lot and connecting to an existing stormwater culvert that runs beneath Baird Street. A gully also traverses Nos. 18 – 20 Baird Street with a second culvert running beneath Baird Street. Lots with frontage to Baird Street were affected by a road reserve, however these affected lots have now been subject to a road closure application and incorporated into proposed Lots 7, 8 and 9. The north coast railway line is located directly opposite the site being on the eastern side of Baird Street. Properties to the north facing Mary Street are occupied by detached dwellings with a laneway positioned adjacent to the western boundary of the site and then vacant land. Lots surrounding Lot 88 are occupied by detached dwellings.

Figure 1: Subject Site – No16 Rens Street & 18-26 Baird Street Dungog

Subject site

B: 3


Figure 2 Aerial Photograph of site PROPOSAL The development proposal involves subdivision of six (6) lots into ten (10) lots including realignment of the road reserve as follows:

Lot No. Area (m2) Dimensions (m) 1 1011 26.9 x 42 2 6240 97.0/105.8 x 11.1/ 115.3 3 938 18.5 x 38/42 4 908 21.6 x 42 5 908 21.6 x 42 6 908 21.6 x 42 7 894 21/17.9x 42/38.4 8 3692 36.6 x 105.3/97.2 9 1905 20.8 x 97.2 10 7.8 4/3.9 x 5.6

Proposed Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have been designed to accommodate a detached dwelling with building envelopes being located upon Lots 7, 8 and 9 to depict an appropriate buffer from the railway line, building setbacks from Baird Street frontage and to allow retention of an existing gully for drainage purposes upon Lot 8. Lot 2 will be used for the maintenance of an existing drainage channel with no dwelling entitlement and Lot 10 allows for the creation of a small spray corner to allow better access to the existing laneway that runs along the western boundary of the site. The development will be constructed in two (2) sequential stages. The proposed subdivision layout plan submitted with the DA provides details of the proposed staging as follows: Stage 5(a) 6 Residential Lots (1, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7)

1 Lot (2) to be dedicated as Drainage Reserve 1 Lot (10) to be dedicated as Road Reserve

Stage 5(b) 2 Residential Lots (8 & 9) Plans of the proposal are attached at Annexure ‘A’ (B:17). STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EP&A) stipulates key heads of consideration for the assessment of development applications. The application has

Subject site

Subject site

B: 17


ANNEXURE ‘A’ TO ITEM NO. 1 – MANAGER PLANNING’S REPORT

lbrighton.dunFile AttachmentMP 1 A.pdf

B: 4


been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration (refer to Annexure ‘B’ (B:18)). The main considerations are addressed as follows: Provisions of any environmental planning instrument. State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP’s) The following SEPP’s are considered to be relevant to this development proposal:

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land; and State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure.

Detailed consideration of the proposed development in the context of the objectives and provisions of these planning instruments is provided below. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land The applicant has indicated that the land has been vacant for over 60 years. There is no evidence to suggest the land has been used for any potential contaminating activities in the past and this has been confirmed by site inspections of the locality. Therefore no further investigations are considered necessary for the creation of this residential subdivision. State Environmental Planning Policy - Infrastructure Clause 87 - Impact of rail noise or vibration on non-rail development of this SEPP requires Council to consider the impact of potential rail noise on buildings used for residential purposes. Whilst this application does not involve any residential building works at this stage the subdivision needs to demonstrate whether appropriate building envelopes can be accommodated upon each lot so as satisfy relevant noise criteria established for residential purposes under this SEPP. The SEPP makes reference to relevant noise criteria within a document entitled Development near rail corridors and busy roads: interim guideline, which does not require the completion of an acoustic report for residential subdivision where building envelopes are setback over 60m from the railway line based on trains speeds such as along Baird Street. Notwithstanding a condition will be imposed on any development approval that a S88b restriction be imposed on the title of each lot that any future dwellings be designed to satisfy SEPP noise criteria adjacent to a rail corridor. This will alert potential purchasers of Lots 7, 8 and 9 of applicable noise criteria for future dwellings given its close proximity to an existing rail corridor. Local Environmental Planning Instrument Dungog Local Environmental Plan 2014 The subject site is zoned R1 General Residential pursuant to Dungog Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014. Clause 2.6 Subdivision consent requirements of Dungog LEP 2014 permits subdivision of land with consent of Council. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the R1 General Residential zone as:

The proposed subdivision will provide additional lots within Dungog for housing purposes; and

Lots of varying sizes will be created to accommodate new dwellings.

B: 5


Other clauses of relevance within Dungog LEP 2014 include:

a) Clause 4.1- Minimum subdivision lot size No minimum allotments sizes apply to this land.

b) Clause 6.5 Water Drinking catchments and Clause 6.10 - Williams River

catchment The clause requires Council to assess the likely impacts of any development proposal onto the Williams River drinking water catchment in terms of water quality and quantity. Reticulated water and sewer services are available to the site and stormwater can be directed to an existing stormwater system including channel within this locality. Consequently the proposed subdivision is not likely to adversely impact onto the water quality of the Williams River given provision of existing services and that the site is well separated (i.e. over 500m) from the river itself. Potential impacts will be further considered once development applications are lodged for individual dwellings on each lot.

Provision of any draft environmental planning instrument There are no draft instruments applying to this site. Any development control plan, Dungog Development Control Plan No.1 Dungog Development Control Plan No.1 (DCP No.1) complements Dungog LEP 2006 and sets out Council’s policies in respect of certain types of development within the Shire, together with detailed guidelines intended to assist in achieving the aims and objectives of Dungog LEP 2014. The relevant sections of DCP No.1 are listed below: Part C – General Section 1 – Residential Development; Section 3 – Building Line Setbacks; and Section 15 – Contamination. A detailed assessment of this subdivision proposal has been undertaken in respect to each of the above sections of the DCP No.1 with a comprehensive assessment being completed within Annexure ‘B’ attached to this report and the following summary is provided below: Section 1 – Residential Development The development application is for subdivision works only. The design of dwellings for each lot will be further considered when separate applications are lodged for erection of a dwelling upon each lot. As outlined previously within this report, appropriate building envelopes have been designated for Lots 7, 8 and 9 taking into consideration the buffer from the railway line and front building alignments from Baird Street. Also there is sufficient buildable land upon proposed Lot 8 that is not affected by an existing drainage gully. Section 3 – Building Line Setbacks Proposed lots are of a relative large size and being of a sufficient size to accommodate a reasonable sized dwelling that satisfies DCP front, side and rear setback requirements. This matter will be further considered when development applications are lodged for dwellings on individual lots. Section 15 – Contamination This matter has been discussed in another section of this report.

B: 18


ANNEXURE ‘B’ TO ITEM NO. 1 – MANAGER PLANNING’S REPORT

CONSIDERATION UNDER SECTION 79C The following assessment is based on the matters listed for consideration under Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. a) The provisions of:

(i) any environmental planning instrument; State Environmental Planning Policies 1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land This Policy requires Council to be satisfied that

the subject land is suitable for residential development and provides planning guidelines for remediation of contaminated land. SEPP 55 also requires that any remediation works must be carried out in accordance with a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) as approved by the consent authority and any guidelines enforced under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997

The site has not been used in the past for activities which could have potentially contaminated the site being vacant zoned residential land and a site inspection indicates no evidence of potential contamination. Based on historical data and site inspection it is considered that the site will not require remediation in accordance with SEPP 55 guidelines.

2 State Environmental Planning Policy (infrastructure) 2007 As the subject site is located adjacent to a rail

corridor and being for future residential development, Clause 87 - Impact of rail noise or vibration on non-rail development of this SEPP is considered to be relevant to this development proposal. Sub clause 87(2) requires Council to take into consideration any guidelines that are issued by the Secretary for the purposes of this clause. The relevant guideline for noise assessment is known as Development near rail corridors and busy roads: interim guideline. Sub clause 87(3) of this SEPPP states that the consent authority must not grant consent to development unless it is satisfied that appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that the following LAeq levels are not exceeded: (a) in any bedroom in the building—35 dB(A) at

any time between 10.00 pm and 7.00 am; (b) anywhere else in the building (other than a

garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway)—40 dB(A) at any time.

Development near rail corridors and busy roads: interim guideline states: Where proposed residential development is positioned over 60m from a rail corridor which is used for passenger/freight services (less than 80kms) then no acoustic assessment is necessary if future dwellings are design to incorporate adequate mitigation to reduce internal noise levels to an acceptable level. The proposal is for subdivision only and building envelopes have been positioned over 60m from the railway line. Therefore no acoustical report needs to accompany the application, as adequate setbacks are achieved from the railway taking into consideration relevant noise criteria and that dwelling designs for each lot are unknown. Notwithstanding the above comment, a Section 88B restriction will be attached to any development approval that future dwellings upon proposed Lots 7, 8, and 9 satisfy relevant noise criteria of this SEPP outlined within this table. This will alert any future purchasers that the proposed lots are potentially affected by noise from the railway line and resultants dwellings are designed with good amenity.

B: 19


Local Environmental Plan DUNGOG LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2014 1 Clause 1.9A - Suspension of covenants,

agreements and instruments For the purpose of enabling development on land in any zone to be carried out in accordance with this Plan or with a consent granted under the Act, any agreement, covenant or other similar instrument that restricts the carrying out of that development does not apply to the extent necessary to serve that purpose. Hence any covenant imposed on the title of a lot does not need to be considered by Council in assessment of a development application where the use is permissible. Therefore imposition of restrictions on title of land is not enforceable under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. . However imposition of a restrictive covenant alerting future purchasers of noise criteria for dwellings is considered beneficial so as to ensure dwellings are designed to achieve a good amenity outcome and comply with the recommended standard. A covenant regarding the placement or erection of relocated or transportable dwellings on the proposed allotments is regarded as appropriate to safeguard the existing residential amenity.

2 Clause 2.1 - Zoning Land zoned: R1 General Residential

3 Clause 2.3 - Zone objectives and Land Use Table Objectives of the zone:

To provide for the housing needs of the community.

To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.

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

To allow a mix of community, service and employment activities that are compatible in scale and impact with a residential environment.

Land use table 2 Permitted without consent Home occupations; Markets; Roads; Roadside stalls

The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zone objectives as: The subdivision will provide additional

housing stock for the Dungog community; and

A variety of housing types and densities can be established upon future lots.

B: 20


3 Permitted with consent Attached dwellings; Boarding houses; Child care centres; Community facilities; Dwelling houses; Funeral homes; Group homes; Hostels; Multi dwelling housing; Neighbourhood shops; Places of public worship; Residential flat buildings; Respite day care centres; Semi-detached dwellings; Seniors housing; Shop top housing; Veterinary hospitals; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4 4 Prohibited Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Airstrips; Amusement centres; Animal boarding or training establishments; Boat building and repair facilities; Boat sheds; Bulky goods premises; Business premises; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Correctional centres; Depots; Eco-tourist facilities; Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Farm stay accommodation; Food and drink premises; Forestry; Freight transport facilities; Garden centres; Hardware and building supplies; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Helipads; Highway service centres; Home occupations (sex services); Industrial retail outlets; Industrial training facilities; Industries; Landscaping material supplies; Marinas; Mooring pens; Moorings; Office premises; Open cut mining; Passenger transport facilities; Plant nurseries; Port facilities; Public administration buildings; Registered clubs; Research stations; Resource recovery facilities; Restricted premises; Rural industries; Rural supplies; Rural workers’ dwellings; Service stations; Sex services premises; Shops; Storage premises; Timber yards; Transport depots; Truck depots; Vehicle body repair workshops; Vehicle repair stations; Vehicle sales or hire premises; Warehouse or distribution centres; Waste disposal facilities

Dwelling houses permissible with consent.

4 Clause 2.6 - Subdivision—consent requirements Subdivision can only be carried out with consent of Council

Consent is being sought from Council for this subdivision.

5 Clause 4.1 - Minimum subdivision lot size Any proposed shall satisfy minimum lot sizes as shown on the map.

No minimum lot size applies to the subject land

6

Clause 6.5 Drinking water catchments The objective of this clause is to protect drinking water catchments by minimising the adverse impacts of development on the quality and quantity of water entering drinking water storages. In deciding whether to grant development consent for development on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must consider the following:

An assessment of this development application in terms of potential impacts onto the Williams River has been undertaken. The Williams River is located over 600m being a significant distance from the site with the rail corridor, vacant land and existing residential development providing substantial buffers. Stormwater from the subdivision will be directed to Council’s existing stormwater

B: 21


(a) whether or not the development is likely to have any adverse impact on the quality and quantity of water entering the drinking water storage, having regard to the following:

(i) the distance between the development and any waterway that feeds into the drinking water storage, (ii) the on-site use, storage and disposal of any chemicals on the land, (iii) the treatment, storage and disposal of waste water and solid waste generated or used by the development,

(b) any appropriate measures proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the impacts of the development.

system for the locality. Little or no subdivision works are necessary as existing roads are already constructed within this locality. An inter allotment drainage system will need to be implemented to provide drainage facilities for some individual lots. Future dwellings will need to install rainwater tanks and will be connected to reticulated water and sewer services. As an appropriate stormwater system is to be implemented and with future dwellings being connected to services, minimal, if any impacts are likely to result onto any waterways, particularly the Williams River.

7 6.10 Williams River catchment (1) The objective of this clause is to protect

and improve the environmental quality of the Williams River Catchment.

(3) Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority has considered whether the development: (a) promotes the sustainable use of land, water, vegetation and other natural resources within the Williams River Catchment, and (b) promotes the protection and improvement of the environmental quality of the Williams River Catchment, and (c) will have any significant adverse impacts on water quality within the Williams River Catchment, and (d) is consistent with the Williams River Catchment Regional Planning Strategy published in September 1997 by the Department of Planning and Environment.

Above comments are applicable to this clause.

(ii) any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on

public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority; There are no draft environmental planning instruments applying to the site of proposed subdivision.

(iii) any development control plan;

B: 22


Dungog Development Control Plan No. 1 1 Part C, Section 1 – Residential

Development of DCP No.1 The aims of this section of the DCP are: To promote residential development,

including tourist accommodation, which is of a high design standard and which is sensitive to and enhances the physical environment and the social fabric particular to Dungog Shire.

To accommodate a variety of residential forms to reflect the growing diversity of household types and incomes, lifestyles and tourist needs.

To encourage infill residential development which is compatible with the existing character and which enhances its surroundings.

To optimise the provision of infrastructure services in the most efficient and effective manner.

To ensure adequate access for the disabled, particularly to medium density and non private residential accommodation.

To provide clear guidelines for residential development in the Dungog Local Government Area

To ensure that residential development does not adversely effect the amenity of the locality

To ensure that residential development meets the expectations of the community and provides health and safety in housing

To ensure that development is in keeping with adjacent and surrounding properties and does not detract from development in the locality

To encourage energy efficient design in residential development

1.3 Set Backs Refer to Section 3 for further details. 1.4 Water Supply Subdivision should be connected to existing reticulated water service in the locality. 1.5 Sewerage Subdivision should be connected to existing reticulated sewer service in the locality. 1.6 Property Access Future driveways will need to comply with relevant Council standards.

The following comments are provided in respect to the aims of this section of the DCP:

The proposal is for a residential development that is in close proximity to the centre of Dungog and has been designed to be compatible with surrounding residential subdivisions;

The subdivision proposal will provide lots that can accommodate a variety of housing stock providing residents of Dungog a choice and variety of housing stock;

The proposal is for subdivision of existing zoned residential land that is readily located to the centre of Dungog including retail, commercial and other facilities including Dungog Railway Station. The development proposal is compatible with the character of nearby residential development;

Existing infrastructure services are available and can be connected to the site. The subdivision has been designed to minimise adverse amenity impacts onto the surrounding locality;

This residential development has been designed to satisfy community expectations being for additional residential zoned lots in a central location of Dungog;

The proposed subdivision is in keeping with nearby residential subdivisions in terms of lot sizes.

The subdivision can satisfy relevant setback provisions.

All proposed residential lots will be connected to a reticulated water system servicing this locality.

All proposed residential lots will be connected to a reticulated sewer system servicing this locality

Driveways to lots will be constructed when dwelling construction occurs.

2. Part C, Section 3 – Building Line Setbacks A review of the subdivision plan indicates that all

B: 23


of DCP No. 1 sets out the general requirements for building line setbacks in the Residential 2(a) zones. For Residential zoned land dwellings are required to be set back 6m from front property boundary and 3m from side boundary on corner site. Side and rear setbacks 900mm for single storey.

proposed lots can satisfy relevant building setbacks of this DCP. Building envelopes have been shown upon proposed Lots 7, 8 and 9 given their positioning along Baird Street and opposite the railway corridor and satisfy relevant DCP requirements.

3. Part C, Section 15 – Contamination of DCP No. 1 provides requirements for potentially contaminated lands.

As outlined above, historical data and given that the land has been vacant for many years, there is no evidence to suggest that the land is contaminated.

(iiia) any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 93F, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 93F;

There are no planning agreements or draft planning agreements applying to the

land.

(iv) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph);

The application has not been submitted in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 1 of the Regulations.

b) The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both

the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,

The likely impacts of the subdivision have been considered in the main body of this report, under the heading ‘Consideration of Environmental Impacts’.

c) The suitability of the site for the development,

For the reasons discussed in the body of this assessment and the Council report, the subject land is considered suitable for the residential subdivision.

d) Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or the regulations, Two (2) submissions were received by Council during the advertising period. Issues raised are outlined in the Council report including a response to issues raised.

e) The public interest. The proposed subdivision is considered to be in the public interest.

lbrighton.dunFile AttachmentMP 1 B.pdf

B: 6


The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality, The key issues associated with this proposed subdivision are addressed below: Traffic and Access The subject site has frontage to both Rens and Baird Streets which comprise two lane bitumen sealed formations with upright kerb and gutter. Therefore proposed lots will be provided with access from the existing road network that has spare capacity to cope with additional traffic movements generated from these lots. Access from the roadway will be via laybacks in the existing concrete kerb. Servicing and Drainage Existing water, sewer, telephone and electricity services are available to proposed lots. Based on existing site contours all proposed lots will be able to be drained to Council’s existing stormwater system. Necessary drainage easements will need to be created over various lots including proposed Lot 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and a condition will be attached to any consent that proposed Lot 2 is dedicated as a drainage reserve. Council’s engineering advisor has raised no concerns in respect to servicing and drainage of the proposed subdivision. Covenants Restrictive covenants can be imposed on the title of any proposed lots for a number of reasons including the type of dwelling construction, use of certain materials, height, limits on the size of any dwellings, fencing, etc. However, Clause 1.9A - Suspension of covenants, agreements and instruments of Dungog LEP 2014 means that Council does not recognise any private covenants imposed on the title of the land from a planning perspective. Non compliance with a restriction has to be enforced via private means. Any dispute regarding extinguishing, modification and enforcement of restrictive covenants is via the Supreme Court. Despite this however, imposition of a restrictive covenant alerting future purchasers of noise criteria for dwellings on affected allotments is considered beneficial so as to ensure future dwellings are designed to achieve compliance with the required standard and to promote good amenity outcomes for future residents. As stated earlier, positive restrictions where placed on the minimum size of a dwelling in earlier stages of the subdivision so as to encourage a reasonable standard of development within the estate. Whilst aesthetic, amenity and streetscape issues will all form future considerations for development applications received on the newly created allotments the rise of complying development means that Council may have less of an influence on the final built form. Concern has been expressed by the public both in written submissions and verbal form about the types of development recently permitted within the estate and the potential impact on existing residential amenity and property prices. It may be prudent for Council to place a covenant on the new allotments discouraging relocated or transportable homes from being placed on these proposed lots. The suitability of the site for the development, The site is considered to be of an appropriate size to allow re- subdivision of existing lots to create eight residential lots that can accommodate adequate sized building envelopes whilst still retaining the existing residential character of this locality. Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, The development application was notified to all adjoining landowners in accordance with Council’s policy. Three (3) submissions have been received by Council within the specified

B: 7


exhibition period. A further two submissions have been lodged stating concerns about ongoing development quality within the Melbee estate. Below is a summary of the issues raised by these landowners in respect of the subdivision and the respective Planners response. A full copy of all submissions received is contained in Attachment ‘1’. The following concerns have been raised and a response to these concerns provided: Where is the building envelope on Lot 2? Or where is a dwelling to be located given that a watercourse traverses the site Planners Response No building envelope is designated for Lot 2 as this lot will be retained and dedicated as drainage reserve Who’s responsible for maintenance of the existing drain? Once sold who will maintain the drain. Planner response: Council will be responsible for maintenance of the existing drain upon proposed Lot 2 as this lot will not be sold by Council and retained within a designated drainage reserve. What use is the land zoned for on Proposed Lot 2. Planners Response: Proposed Lot 2 is zoned R1 General Residential, however the lot will be retained as drainage reserve Whose responsibility will it be to maintain the removal of grass to reduce any fire hazards? Planners Response: Council is responsible for the maintenance of the drainage reserve in the long term whilst individual lots will be maintained by owners once sold by Council. Will a covenant be placed on the subdivision to ensure appropriate building standards are adhered to? Planners Response: It is intended to place a covenant on the subdivision to restrict the placement of relocated or transportable dwellings on the proposed allotments. This has been conditioned accordingly. The public interest The public interest is best served by the consistent application of the requirements of the relevant Environmental Planning Instruments and by Council ensuring that any adverse effects on the surrounding area and the environment are appropriately managed. The proposal is not contrary to the public interest as it satisfies relevant Dungog LEP and DCP requirements as outlined within other sections of this report. CONCLUSION This development application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and all relevant instruments and policies. The proposal is satisfactory in respect of objectives and provisions of Dungog LEP 2014 and provisions of Dungog DCP such as Section 1 – Residential Development and Section 3 – Building Line Setbacks. Council can be satisfied that this proposed ten (10) lot subdivision will not result in any substantial adverse environmental, social or economic impacts subject to the attachment of appropriate conditions. The imposition of a restrictive covenant to limit the types of dwelling construction is unnecessary as further DA’s can address this issue and

B: 8


the restriction would not be enforced by Council or the Land & Environment Court in this case. Accordingly, the application is supported. OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION That Council, as the consent authority pursuant to s80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, approve Development Application No. 66/2016 being over No. 16 Rens Street and Nos.18 - 26 Baird Street Dungog for consolidation of six (6) lots and a two staged subdivision into ten (10) lots subject to the following conditions of consent:

THIS CONSENT IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:- General 1. This development consent incorporates plans/and or documents referenced and

stamped:

(a) Plans Reference: Drawings prepared by: Dungog Shire Council

Drawing No. Issue Name of Plan Date Sheet 1 Rev D Melbee Subdivision 5/5/2017

(b) Document Reference:

Document Reference Author Date Statement of Environmental Effects

- Tom Gaff 30/5/2016

2. All fees, Section 94 and other Contributions will need to be adjusted in accordance with

Councils Fees & Charges applicable at the time of payment.

3. All existing trees shall be retained upon the site and adjoining road reserve. Any trees to be removed shall require the prior approval of Council.

4. The applicant shall ensure that arrangements are made for the Principal Certifying Authority, Council or Private Certifier, to carry out STAGE INSPECTIONS indicated as follows in bold.

Request for Council inspections may be made either by telephone or in person. Council requires forty eight (48) hours notice for inspections.

Applicants are required to nominate the relevant Construction Certificate Number and location prior to the inspection request being granted. Note: STAGE INSPECTIONS are required to be carried out in order to ensure that a Subdivision Certificate can be issued. In the event that any stage inspection is not carried out, a Subdivision Certificate cannot be issued.

(a) After stripping of topsoil from roads and fill areas, all Erosion &

Sediment Control devices and Traffic Control signs shall be installed at this stage.

(b) After completion and compaction of the road sub grade. (c) After placement and compaction of each layer of gravel pavement

material prior to sealing. (d) After laying and jointing of all stormwater drainage pipelines prior to

backfilling. (e) During application of bitumen seal or asphaltic concrete wearing

surface.

B: 9


(f) After restoration and completion of all works. (g) As otherwise required to confirm that the works are satisfactorily

executed and in conformity with environmental controls and conditions of Development Consent.

It should be noted that Council charge fees for inspections. These inspection fees must be paid prior to release of the Construction/Subdivision Certificate associated with the Development Consent. Inspection Fees will be adjusted in accordance with Council’s Fees & Charges operating at the time of inspection. In the event further additional inspections are required those inspections will attract inspection fees at the rate when the inspections were carried out.

5. The developer shall arrange for detailed engineering design plans to be submitted to

Council for approval to provide: -

Erosion and Sediment Control facilities to deal with all aspects of earthworks associated with the development. The detailed plans shall be in accordance with Dungog Council's Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Guidelines and the latest edition of Managing Urban Stormwater publication (the blue book). Sediment control measures shall be provided for the duration of the works and until the site is stabilised.

6. The developer shall arrange for detailed engineering design plans to be submitted to

Council for approval to provide: - An inter allotment drainage scheme for all lots that cannot discharge stormwater direct

to Council’s street or an approved stormwater drainage scheme. Prior to Commencement of Works for Each Stage 7. A Construction Certificate is to be issued by the Certifying Authority prior to

commencement of any works. The application for this Certificate is to satisfy all of the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

Prior to Release of Subdivision Certificate for Stage 5(a) 8. The plan of subdivision shall include the dedication as Public Road of proposed Lot 10

as is necessary to contain the constructed road in use. In the event existing fencing is located within the dedicated road reserve the developer will be responsible for relocating those fences onto the surveyed alignments. The registered surveyor who prepares the plan of subdivision shall certify to the Principal Certifying Authority that the existing constructed road is wholly contained within the road reserve boundaries shown on the plan of subdivision.

9. The applicant shall dedicate proposed Lot 2 as a drainage reserve at no cost to

Council. 10. The applicant shall provide a 1.5m wide inter allotment drainage easement over

proposed Lots 4, 5, 6 & 7 to drain proposed Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7. Construction of the drainage line, together with the necessary grated yard inlet pits, shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s Engineering Requirements for Development – full details shall be submitted to, and approved by, Council prior to release of the Subdivision Certificate.

Note:

a) A suitable 88B instrument creating easement, in accordance with the requirements of the Conveyancing Act 1919, shall be submitted to Council prior to endorsement of the surveyor’s transparency; and

B: 10


b) Construction shall be completed prior to endorsement of the surveyor’s transparency.

11. The applicant shall provide a 3.0m wide inter allotment drainage easement over

proposed Lot 1 to drain existing Lots 80 - 87 of DP 11836331. Construction of the drainage line, together with the necessary grated yard inlet pits, shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s Engineering Requirements for Development – full details shall be submitted to, and approved by, Council prior to release of the Subdivision Certificate.

Note:



12. The applicant shall provide a drainage easement over Lot 3 Section 14 DP 758366 to drain proposed Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7. Construction of the drainage line, together with the necessary grated yard inlet pits, shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s Engineering Requirements for Development – full details shall be submitted to, and approved by, Council prior to release of the Subdivision Certificate.

Note:



13. Pursuant to Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act a restriction as to user shall be

created to achieve the following: a) A designated building envelope is to be delineated and fully dimensioned on

proposed Lot 7 on the final plan of survey and be setback 60m from the rail corridor;

b) Any future dwellings constructed upon Lot 7 shall satisfy the following noise criteria: (a) in any bedroom in the building—35 dB(A) at any time between 10.00 pm and

7.00 am; (b) anywhere else in the building (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or

hallway)—40 dB(A) at any time. Prior to Release of Subdivision Certificate for Stage 5(b) 14. The applicant shall provide a drainage easement over proposed Lot 8 to drain

proposed Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7. Construction of the drainage line, together with the necessary grated yard inlet pits, shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s Engineering Requirements for Development – full details shall be submitted to, and approved by, Council prior to release of the Subdivision Certificate.

Note:

a) A suitable 88B instrument creating easement, in accordance with the requirements of the Conveyancing Act 1919, shall be submitted to Council prior to endorsement of the surveyor’s transparency; and b) Construction shall be completed prior to endorsement of the surveyor’s transparency.

B: 11


15. Pursuant to Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act a restriction as to user shall be created to achieve the following: a) A designated building envelope is to be delineated and fully dimensioned on proposed Lots 8, and 9 on the final plan of survey and be setback 60m from the rail corridor;

b) Any future dwellings constructed upon Lots 8 and 9 shall satisfy the following noise criteria:

(a) in any bedroom in the building—35 dB(A) at any time between 10.00 pm and

7.00 am; (b) anywhere else in the building (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or

hallway)—40 dB(A) at any time. Prior to Release of Subdivision Certificate for Each Stage 16. Application for a Subdivision Certificate is to be submitted to and approved by Council

prior to release of the final linen plan of subdivision. 17. Prior to issue of the Subdivision Certificate, a certificate of compliance under Section

50 of the Hunter Water Act 1991 for this development shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

18. Suitable arrangements being made with an energy provider to ensure that:-

(a) electricity will be available to each allotment created by the subdivision when and if development is proposed on the land;

(b) that any transmission lines or other assets of an energy provider on private land be “protected” by an easement; and

(c) where development requires the relocation of transmission lines or other assets, the applicant is required to make satisfactory arrangements with an energy provider for such relocation to be carried out.

Advice: An energy provider is responsible for the supply of electricity to this land. The applicant must contact an energy provider on all matters concerning electricity supply.

19. A letter from an energy provider stating that satisfactory arrangements have been

made for the supply of electricity in the subdivision is to be submitted to Council, and accepted, prior to the release of the linen plan of subdivision.

20. Suitable arrangements being made with a telecommunications carrier to ensure that:- (a) communication will be available to each allotment created by the subdivision

when and if development is proposed on the land; (b) that any transmission lines or other assets of a telecommunications carrier on

private land be “protected” by an easement; and (c) where development requires the relocation of transmission lines or other assets,

the applicant is required to make satisfactory arrangements with a telecommunications carrier for such relocation to be carried out.

Advice: For details of arrangements pertaining to the land, applicants must contact telecommunications carrier direct.

A letter from a telecommunications carrier stating that suitable arrangements have been made is to be submitted to Council, and accepted, prior to release of the linen plan of subdivision.

21. Submission of an original plan of survey by a Registered Surveyor and six (6) copies to

Council for subdivision approval.

B: 12


Advice: The final plans must conform generally with the subdivision proposal shown on the concept plan submitted with the Development Application dated 1/7/2016, Rev C and incorporate Council’s requirements.

Council’s fee covers the cost of providing copies of the plan of survey to relevant

internal Council departments and to Government departments as required 22. The making good to the satisfaction of Council, or payment of the costs incurred by

Council

Date post:	11-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

E: 1 · For: Crs McKenzie, Knudsen, Booth, Bowden, Bale, Norman. Against: Crs Johnston, Wall,...

Documents