MAITLAND CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an Ordinary Meeting of the Council will be held, on 26 June 2001, commencing at 5:30 pm.
David Evans General Manager
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO
1 INVOCATION ...... 1
2 APOLOGIES ...... 1
3 DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST ...... 1
4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING...... 1
5 BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES...... 1
6 MAYORAL MINUTES ...... 2
6.1 FRAN DAWSON MEMORIAL TOURISM DISPLAYS ...... 2
7 PUBLIC ACCESS ...... 4
8 WITHDRAWAL OF ITEMS AND ACCEPTANCE OF LATE ITEMS OF BUSINESS ...... 4
9 ITEMS FOR INFORMATION...... 5
9.1 CULTURAL SERVICES - MAITLAND CITY LIBRARY ...... 5
9.2 STATUS REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION WORKS ...... 6
9.3 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - MAY 2001...... 11
9.4 ACHIEVEMENT OF 2000/01 WORKS PROGRAMME...... 12
9.5 DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE APPROVALS ...... 21
10 MAITLAND YOUTH COUNCIL ...... 22
11 OFFICERS REPORTS ...... 22
11.1 GENERAL MANAGER...... 22
11.1.1 SALARY PACKAGING ...... 22
11.1.2 CONTRACTS FOR SENIOR STAFF...... 25
11.1.3 DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 2001-2005...... 26
11.1.4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGERS AUSTRALIA NATIONAL CONGRESS ...... 30
Page i COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.2 COMMUNITY AND CORPORATE GROUP...... 32
11.2.1 MAITLAND COMMUNITY OPTIONS PROJECT...... 32
11.2.2 FUNDING AGREEMENT...... 34
11.2.3 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT ASSISTANCE SCHEME...... 36
11.2.4 MAITLAND COMMUNITY OPTIONS PROJECT...... 38
11.2.5 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL...... 39
11.2.6 YOUTH STUDY...... 41
11.2.7 LEASE OF PART OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - HUNTER WATER CORPORATION ...... 43
11.2.8 TENDER - LAND IN MAITLAND CBD...... 45
11.2.9 ENDORSEMENT OF COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION PLAN ...... 46
11.2.10 FUNDING FOR PARENTING KITS PROJECT ...... 49
11.3 BUSINESS AND FINANCE GROUP ...... 51
11.3.1 STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS HELD AS AT 31 MAY 2001. 51
11.3.2 INTERNAL RESTRICTED ASSETS...... 53
11.3.3 MAKING OF RATES AND CHARGES 2001/2002 ...... 55
11.4 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT GROUP...... 64
11.4.1 FEEDBACK ON THE MAITLAND ENVIRO YOUTH FORUM .... 64
11.4.2 MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVE - LOCHINVAR/RAWORTH SEWAGE ...... 67
11.4.3 REGULATION OF SKATEBOARDS IN PUBLIC PLACES...... 69
11.4.4 TRANSFER OF STREET PARKING RESPONSIBILITIES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT ...... 73
11.4.5 0010024 TO CONVERT AN EXISTING RESIDENCE INTO A DOCTORS SURGERY, LOT 13 DP 218786 AND LOT 103 DP 623458, 7 ARTHUR STREET, RUTHERFORD RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL ...... 78
Page (ii) COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.4.6 010678 CAFE AND RETAIL SHOP LOT 101 DP 867100, UNIT 2/145 SWAN STREET, MORPETH RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL...... 93
11.4.7 010681 CAFE AND RETAIL SHOP LOT 2 DP 780422 UNIT 2 129 SWAN STREET, MORPETH RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL ...... 103
11.4.8 AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 6 - RAWORTH...... 109
11.4.9 BULL STREET DRAINAGE CONCEPTS...... 112
11.4.10 MAITLAND RURAL STRATEGY...... 114
11.4.11 K-MART CAR PARK ...... 116
11.4.12 SECTION 94 - GREENHILLS...... 121
11.4.13 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON STREETON DRIVE, METFORD...... 124
11.5 ASSET PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT GROUP ...... 127
11.5.1 COMMUNITY ROAD SAFETY STRATEGIC PLAN ...... 127
11.5.2 ROLLING WORKS PROGRAM VARIATIONS 2000/2001 ...... 130
11.5.3 CITY GATEWAYS ...... 132
11.5.4 CORPORATE TRUSTEE MANAGEMENT OF MAITLAND CEMETERIES ...... 134
11.5.5 SILTATION AT OAKHAMPTON CEMETERY ...... 136
11.6 OPERATIONS GROUP...... 139
11.6.1 OAKHAMPTON WATER BODY ...... 139
11.6.2 PROGRESS REPORT ON AMENITIES CONSTRUCTION AT BISHOPS BRIDGE RURAL FIRE BRIGADE STATION ...... 141
11.6.3 TRANSFER OF STAFF FROM COUNCIL'S RURAL FIRE SERVICE SECTION TO THE STATE RURAL FIRE SERVICE (RFS)...... 142
12 REFERRED COMMITTEE REPORTS ...... 147
13 NOTICE OF MOTION/RESCISSION...... 148
13.1 NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR ARCH HUMPHERY ...... 148
Page (iii) COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
13.2 NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY CO UNCILLOR CLR STEVE PROCTER ...... 151
13.3 NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN ...... 152
14 URGENT BUSINESS ...... 172
15 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 172
16 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE...... 173
16.1.1 EXPRESSION OF INTEREST - SUPPLY OF MOTOR VEHICLES...... 173
16.1.2 REGIONAL HOCKEY FACILITY AND LONG TERM OPEN SPACE STRATEGY ...... 174
16.1.3 CEMETERIES MAINTENANCE CONTRACT ...... 175
16.1.4 REVIEW OF COUNCIL'S ORGANISATION STRUCTURE...... 176
17 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE .. 177
18 CLOSURE...... 177
Page (iv) COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
1 INVOCATION
2 APOLOGIES
3 DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
• The minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 22 May 2001 be confirmed.
5 BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES
Page 1 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
6 MAYORAL MINUTES
6.1 FRAN DAWSON MEMORIAL TOURISM DISPLAYS
FILE NO: 151/1
AUTHOR: Cr Peter Blackmore Mayor
Council proceed with the construction of a permanent memorial to Fran Dawson in recognition of her pioneering role, in association with the Maitland District Tourism Association, in the development of tourism within Maitland City
It was with great sadness that the City learnt of the passing away on Monday 7 May 2001 of Frances Barbara Dawson OAM, former Deputy Mayor, Councillor and Freeman of Maitland City.
In a life characterised by an absolute commitment to her community and its residents it is difficult to isolate a single area of achievement that truly encapsulates Fran’s energy, vision and compassion.
One area, however, that held particular interest for Fran was the growth of tourism within Maitland City.
In an article in the Maitland Mercury on Tuesday 8 May Fran was described as being “Mrs Tourism of Maitland”. Such an accolade was richly deserved given her pioneering work as President of the Maitland District Tourist Association and her ability to see – long before most residents and business – the potential of tourism both as a boost to our local economy and also as a source of community pride and recognition.
It would be fitting that Council recognise Fran Dawson’s central role in the development of tourism within our City and that this recognition also take into account the activities and achievements of the Maitland District Tourist Association.
General Manager’s Comment:
A review of display area capacity within the Visitor Information Centre has identified a need for the construction of display spaces within the Centre exhibition area to house historical material relating to tourism within the City as well as regularly changing presentations on current attractions, events, operators and venues.
These opportunities have arisen out a lack of secure display space and have resulted in the development of a proposal for the construction of two “shopfront” style exhibition areas adjacent to the wall separating the meeting room from the current display space.
Page 2 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
(Cont.)
It has been suggested that Showcase 1 be devoted to rotating displays. Showcase 2 could be devoted to an account of the development of tourism with the City, the achievements of the Maitland District Tourist Association and Fran’s role in particular. A plaque strategically placed between the showcases would then indicate that together they form the Fran Dawson Memorial Tourism Displays.
A review of current budget allocations indicates that funds are available to enable the above project to proceed.
Page 3 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
7 PUBLIC ACCESS
8 WITHDRAWAL OF ITEMS AND ACCEPTANCE OF LATE ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Page 4 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
9 ITEMS FOR INFORMATION
9.1 CULTURAL SERVICES - MAITLAND CITY LIBRARY
FILE NO: 35/61
Responsible Officer: Henry Wilson Group Manager Community & Corporate
Author: Jean McBride City Librarian
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report contains relevant statistical and performance data for Council. Besides being a valuable management tool, it is a performance reporting mechanism to the general community.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT the information contained in this Report be noted.
REPORT See attachment to the report.
Page 5 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
9.2 STATUS REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION WORKS
FILE NO: 122/813
Responsible Officer: Wayne Cone Group Manager Operations
Author: Ian Wakem Manager Civil & Building Works
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A report on the status of major construction works and projects within the 2000/2001 Capital Works Program is submitted for Council’s information.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT the report be received and noted.
REPORT The status of the construction projects within the 2000/2001 Rolling Works Program, as of 14th June 2001, is as follows. A copy of the works program for the period July 2000 to June 2001 is attached to this report as Attachment 1.
1. Cycleway Construction
1.1 New England Highway, East Maitland
A concrete cycleway is presently being constructed along the New England Highway between Melbourne Street and King Street. The work incorporates the replacement of sections of the existing concrete footpath with wider concrete slabs and is jointly funded from the Access Priority Program and the Cycleway Construction Program. Work commenced on the project on 19th March 2001 and is approximately 80% complete. Estimated cost $71,920.
1.2 Willow Close Cycleway, Metford
This project consists of the widening of several of the existing concrete footpaths to establish them as cycleways, installing new kerb ramps and extending some existing concrete cycleways with gravel and asphalt cycleway pavement. Work commenced on the project on 10th May 2001 and is scheduled for completion by 30th June. Estimated cost $95,500.
Page 6 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Status Report on Construction Works (Cont.) 2. Drainage Construction
2.1 Norm Chapman Oval, Rutherford
An earth mound is being constructed around the rear of several properties in Fairfax Street to divert stormwater flow towards the natural water course. The mound will be completed by the 16th June, 2001 at an estimated cost of $2,000.
2.2 Houston Avenue, Tenambit
An additional kerb inlet pit and associated pipeline is being installed in Houston Avenue to alleviate a stormwater ponding problem. The work will be completed in late June at an estimated cost of $15,000.
2.3 Raymond Terrace Road, East Maitland
An additional pipe culvert is to be installed under Raymond Terrace Road at 3 mile Creek. Only one lane of traffic will be closed at any one time, to facilitate continuous traffic flow through the worksite. The pipeline construction will take two working days, with the sealing of the road surface to follow several days later. The project will be completed in late June at an estimated cost of $35,000.
3. Footpath Refurbishment
3.1 Swan Street, Morpeth
A section of concrete footpath in front of the fire station in Swan Street is currently being replaced. Work commenced on the project on 14th June and will be completed by 19th June at an estimated cost of $5,500.
4. ‘Urban Local Roads’ Reconstruction
4.1 Green Street, Telarah
The section of Green Street from Lismore Avenue to 100 metres west of Taree Ave was reconstructed. The work included the amplification of the drainage system with the construction of a stormwater pipeline and new kerb and guttering in the vicinity of Taree Avenue, and the full reconstruction of the road pavement for the full length of the project. Work commenced in early April and was completed by 4th June 2001. Approximate cost was $138,000.
4.2 Lawes Street, East Maitland
Work is progressing on the construction of the balance of kerb and guttering and the rehabilitation of the road pavement between Page Street and Alliance Street. The project commenced on 1st May and is expected
Page 7 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Status Report on Construction Works (Cont.) to be bitumen sealed and thus completed by 23rd June 2001. Approximate cost will be $140,000.
4.3 Maize Street, Tenambit
Energy Australia are presently relocating the power poles in readiness for the pavement reconstruction and road widening of the section of Maize Street between Byng Street and Goldingham Street. The work, includes the installation of subsoil drainage pipelines. Due to the delay in having the power poles relocated, the project will not be completed in June. Estimated cost is $193,000.
5. New Works - Urban
5.1 Leslie Street, Lorn
The reconstruction of Leslie Street, involving minor modification to the drainage system, stabilisation of the road pavement and bitumen sealing of the road surface, is now complete. The cost of the project was $57,000.
5.2 Close Street, Morpeth
The reconstruction of Close Street, between Edward Street and Robert Street, commenced in early May. The project incorporates the installation of new kerb and guttering and the reconstruction of the road pavement. Unfortunately, the regular rain periods has resulted in subgrade material becoming water-logged, significantly slowing the progress of the works. The project is now expected to be completed in July. The estimated cost of the project is $173,000.
6. Rehabilitation - Rural
6.1 Maitland Vale Road at Melville Ford Road
Work commenced on the reconstruction of Maitland Vale Road in the vicinity of Melville Ford Road on 6th April. The work was temporarily suspended to enable other projects to be completed and recommenced following the stabilisation program in late May. The project is expected to be completed by late June. Estimated cost is $165,000.
7. Rehabilitation - Urban
The stabilisation of the following roads is completed:
- Beckett Street, Gillieston Heights - Marlborough Street, Rutherford - Parlin Close, Rutherford - Kelvin Close, Rutherford - Swallow Avenue, Woodberry - Houston Avenue, Tenambit Page 8 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Status Report on Construction Works (Cont.) - Jacob Close, Tenambit - Grant Street, Maitland - Turnbull Drive, East Maitland - Chisholm Road, East Maitland - Metford Road, Metford.
The urban rehabilitation program is now complete.
8. Classified Roads Construction
8.1 Tocal Road, Bolwarra Heights
The final bitumen seal will be applied to the recently reconstructed section of Tocal Road between Maitland Vale Road and Lang Drive by 19th June, weather permitting. Estimated cost of the total project is $274,000.
8.2 Tocal Road at Paterson Road, Bolwarra Heights
Work commenced on 14th May on the full reconstruction of Tocal Road from Paterson Road to Moore Road, Bolwarra Heights.
The work involved the excavation of the existing road pavement and sub grade material to a depth of 625mm, the construction of a new road pavement and the installation of stormwater drainage pipelines.
Due to the extent of the works, it was necessary to close the section of road to all traffic during the reconstruction period. Work has progressed on schedule with the new road surface now being prepared for the application of the bitumen seal on Monday 18th June, weather permitting. The estimated cost of the project will be $151,000.
9. Urban Reseals
All projects in this program are now complete. The total cost of the projects was $550,000.
10. Traffic Facilities
10.1 Morpeth Road, Stage 2
Two concrete traffic medians have been constructed in Swan Street to facilitate traffic flow through the busy shopping area. Contractors will be used to undertake the linemarking and stamped asphalt components of the project. The project should be completed by 30th June at an estimated cost of $87,000.
Page 9 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Status Report on Construction Works (Cont.)
11. Council Initiatives
11.1 Eurimbla Street Roundabout
Construction of a concrete roundabout and associated civil works commenced with the preliminary site establishment on 13th March. Initial underground drainage works, the lean mix base, and the kerb and guttering all completed. Contractors will be laying the internal concrete slabs over the next two weeks. Weather permitting, the roundabout will be open for south bound traffic by 4th July with the full roundabout open to all traffic by 9th July 2001. Estimated budget $274,000.
11.2 Telarah Wetlands Improvements
This project includes the construction of small carpark, a walking track, a raised boardwalk and mass planting. Work commenced on 2nd April and is scheduled for completion by 30th June. The Estimated cost is $25,000.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications under the Local Government Act 1993 with this matter.
Page 10 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
9.3 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - MAY 2001
FILE NO: 35/53
ATTACHMENTS: (2) OPERATING STATEMENT
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION
Responsible Officer: Graeme Tolhurst Group Manager Business & Finance
Author: Phil Freeman Expenditure Accountant
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report contains relevant performance data for Council. Besides being a valuable management tool, it is a performance reporting mechanism to the general community.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT the information contained in this Report be noted.
REPORT The current financial reports indicate that Council’s financial position is sound. As at 31 May 2001, the anticipated surplus for the year is $39,136.
See attachments to this report.
Page 11 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
9.4 ACHIEVEMENT OF 2000/01 WORKS PROGRAMME
FILE NO: 122/813
Responsible Officer: Warwick Randall Group Manager Asset Planning & Management
Wayne Cone Group Manager Operations
Henry Wilson Group Manager Community & Corporate
Brad Everett Group Manager Planning & Environment
Author: Warwick Randall Group Manager Asset Planning & Management
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2000/01 works programme included works in the area of road construction and programmed maintenance, community building augmentation and upgrade, recreation facility construction, CBD improvement, footpath construction, traffic facilities and road safety and internal resource improvement.
A number of programme projects, including Roads to Recovery, that were identified late in the year, were nonetheless embarked on by Council consistent with its commitment to improve services provided to the Community.
The programme has been completed on time and budget with the exception of a minor number of projects, and to a high level of quality.
This report identifies the level of achievement of Council in provision of services to the Community through the capital and programmed maintenance programme for the 2000/01 year.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT the information contained in this Report be noted.
REPORT Council has embarked on a very ambitious programme of capital works, major maintenance and initiatives for the 2000/01 financial year.
The following is a summary of the achievements by Council in completing this programme.
Page 12 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Achievement of 2000/01 Works Programme (Cont.)
Capital Programme Area Value of Achievement Work
1. FOOTPATHS/CYCLEWAYS 1.1 Footpath Access $50,000 Completed programme 1.2 Footpath Construction – 158,000 Complete (construction and refurbishment) 1.3 Cycleways – (including $203,000 80% complete as at 14/6/01 Metford local route, New • Will not complete further by the end of England Highway regional financial year. route, and Weblands Road, & • Reduced activity on this project at the end Denton Park Drive Local routes) of the year to allow completion of Swan Street, Morpeth footpath restoration, urgent footpath maintenance works and kerb and gutter maintenance.
2. DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION 2.1 Construction $323,000 Complete except for High Street East Programme Maitland Drainage ($45,405) • Significant complexities with flood proofing option initially favoured • Other upstream options being investigated • Report expected back by mid July, and options for implementation identified in report to Council August 2001 2.2 Additional Drainage $57,000 Complete Allocation
3. ROAD CONSTUCTION & MAINTENANCE 3.1 Urban Local Road $1,439,000 Complete except for Programme – (including • Maize Street ($100,000) Eurimbla Street roundabout; − Work commenced estimate 10% Aberglasslyn Road roundabout; complete by 30/6/01 Mitchell Drive, East Maitland; − Delayed by lack of access to property Brisbane Street, East Maitland; for relocation of a power pole Green Street, Telarah; Maize − Hold at this completion to allow Street, Tenambit; Lawes Street, additional road maintenance to be East Maitland) performed on Lang Drive. • Eurimbla Street roundabout ($277,000) − Substantially complete − Open south bound lane to traffic by 30/6/01 − Remainder open by 7/7/01 with medians to be subsequently completed under traffic by end of July. • Aberglasslyn Road roundabout ($428,000 − Construction work not commenced yet − Delays due to the expansion of the scope of work necessary for relocation of water & sewer mains, and delays with Hunter Water Corporation.
Page 13 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Achievement of 2000/01 Works Programme (Cont.)
Capital Programme Area Value of Achievement Work
ROAD CONSTUCTION & MAINTENANCE (CONT)
3.2 New Works Urban $537,900 Complete except for: Programme • Close Street Morpeth ($171,900) − Estimate 80% complete by 30/6/01 − Delays with wet weather creating problems with a waterlogged subgrade material. 3.3 Rural Road $254,600 Complete Reconstruction – (including Roads to recovery ($190,000)) 3.4 Road Rehabilitation $351,458 Complete – see separate report in this programme business paper 3.5 Regional Road $407,000 Complete Programme – including o RTA Repair programme ($119k) o 3x3 programme (72k) 3.6 Reseals (urban & rural) $661,752 Complete 3.7 Additional road $400,000 Complete allocation 3.8 Rutherford Industrial $100,000 Compete Estate – Road upgrade design 3.9 Bridge programme $295,000 50% complete • Victoria Bridge stabilisation (Stage 1) complete • McFarlanes Bridge replacement – contract let for design and construction − Construction will start in July, and complete early September 3.10 Melbourne Street stage $50,000 Complete 1
4. TRAFFIC & ROAD SAFETY 4.1 Traffic Management – $400,000 Compete (including Morpeth Main Street • Morpeth main street stage 2 is currently ($184k) & Lawson Ave ($48k)) 70% complete but should be complete by 30/6/01 4.2 Traffic Facilities $200,000 Complete
4.3 Adopt-a-road $8,000 Complete – project is, however, under review pending legal advice 4.4 Alcohol Free Zones $7,000 Zones approved, and signs ordered • Installation in July, 2001 • Small balance to be expended in July
Page 14 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Achievement of 2000/01 Works Programme (Cont.)
Capital Programme Area Value of Achievement Work
TRAFFIC & ROAD SAFETY (CONT) 4.5 Street Lights - capital & $45,000 Trial budget amount owing to new maintenance arrangements with Energy Australia re maintenance of underground lights, and capital contribution for new lights • Capital works 80% complete – Should be complete by 30/6/01 • Maintenance 40% spent, with estimated completion of 45% by 30/6/01. • Will require expansion of asset management programme, and rolling works programme to determine long term liability 4.6 Citywide Signposting $47,899 Strategy complete Strategy • Addressing advanced warning signage issues with RTA • CBD directional signage being designed and audit planned on 20/6/01 • Order to be placed before 30/6/01 • Installation to commence in August • City wide intersection signage currently being designed
5. CBD IMPROVEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL 5.1 Westpac Car Park $32,000 Project not currently viable • Option pending on sale of site • Carry over funds to allow possible purchase if option not taken up 5.2 City Entrance features – $171,000 Designs complete and under construction including directional signage • Estimate 30% complete by 30/6/01 5.3 Alan Walsh/Ken $240,000 Complete Tubman Drive landscaping/street lights 5.4 Mall refurbishments $875,000 Designer engaged and designs commenced 5.5 Free Voucher to Tip $125,000 Complete 5.6 High Street Maitland $20,000 See separate report outlining options this Drainage - (Bull Street meeting Drainage Concepts) • Implementation actions to be carried out in first half of 2001/02 5.7 Coast & Estuary $10,000 3 year programme – 33% Complete – Programme remainder in following two years 5.8 Levee contribution $650,000 Deferred pending completion of levee 5.9 Works associated with $64,000 Deferred pending completion of levee levee – footway/cycleway 5.10 Alternative waste $50,000 Tenders to be called 25/6/01 – 70% disposal investigation Complete – remainder to be complete by January
Page 15 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Achievement of 2000/01 Works Programme (Cont.)
Capital Programme Area Value of Achievement Work 5.11 Heritage plaques $10,000 Stakeholder discussions taken place • Further development to be carried out with aim to finalise in early 2001/02
6. RECREATION 6.1 Skateboard facilities – $73,925 Complete except for Rutherford (Woodberry, Thornton, • Late vote of extra funds left insufficient Rutherford) time to complete − Community consultation to commence 29/6/01 − Designs commenced 6.2 Harold Gregson $8,000 Complete Landscaping • Picnic shelter and tree planting 6.3 Gillieston Heights Oval $8,000 Complete seating • Low retaining wall/seating 6.4 Norm Chapman Oval – $15,000 80% complete – expect to be 100% complete Practice cricket nets by 30/6/01 6.5 Largs Oval Cricket Nets $3,000 Commenced (approx 75%) • Delays due to wet weather preventing access to oval • Complete July 2001 6.6 Maitland Sport Ground $15,000 Complete – grandstand roof upgrade 6.7 New Playground $184,000 Complete Equipment– Norm Chapman, Aberglasslyn, Ashtonfield, Bolwarra, Metford, Beryl Humble, Lochinvar 6.8 Lochinvar Oval – picnic $5,000 Complete shelters 6.9 Wetland improvements $50,000 70% complete (minor balance to be – Telarah and Morpeth - paths, completed in July) bridges, parking 6.10 Regional Sports Facility $250,000 No expenditure • Supporting Department of Sport and Recreation funding not successful this year • Business plan under development by Hockey Association • Site selection process under way (see separate report this meeting) 6.11 Maitland Park $250,000 Minor projects undertaken Expansion • Pursuing purchase of Gipps & Park Streets • Demolition of 8 Walker Street • Remaining funding reserved for possible purchase of land for regional sport facility
Page 16 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Achievement of 2000/01 Works Programme (Cont.)
Capital Programme Area Value of Achievement Work 6.12 Extension to Pools – $14,000 Complete kiosk and shower heating 6.13 Floodlighting – Largs, $100,000 Complete Tenambit, Woodberry, Norm Chapman, Gillieston Heights, Cook Square Park
RECREATION (CONT) 6.14 City Gateways $50,000 Sites chosen & concept designs complete • Awaiting approval from RTA • Report to Council for adoption of concepts this Meeting • Carry over to next financial year 6.15 Shamrock Hill $397,000 Amenities complete (= 65% expenditure) Amenities • Remainder of project involving fencing, car parking and floodlighting to be commenced in 6 months when usage patterns evident.
7. COMMUNITY BUILDINGS 7.1 Administration Building $50,000 Complete by 30/6/01 • HWC collocated 18/6/01 7.2 Senior Citizens Centre – $20,000 Complete outdoor area cover 7.3 Morpeth Courthouse – $5,000 Complete roof repair, rationalisation of space floor repairs, 7.4 Morpeth School of Arts $50,000 Commencement of project delayed by lack of – Amenities improvements and agreement on scope of works covered area • Plans now complete, and DA submitted on 15/6/01 • Construction to commence August 2001
7.5 Graffiti Removal $15,000 Complete 7.6 Council Depot $53,000 Compete improvements – Building services shed, perimeter fence, security 7.7 Morpeth visitor $10,000 Survey in progress management • 75% complete by 30/6/01 • Complete in July 7.8 Civic Precinct Project $40,000 Briefing held Project on hold at this stage 7.9 Cultural initiatives $7,000 Complete – donation to RSL for war memorials 7.10 Art Gallery – white ant $18,000 Complete repairs 7.11 Church Street Toilets – $3,500 Complete structural repairs
Page 17 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Achievement of 2000/01 Works Programme (Cont.)
Capital Programme Area Value of Achievement Work 7.12 Film industry package $30,000 Complete – packages forwarded to key stakeholders 7.13 Access to Council $5,000 Complete Buildings – Town Hall toilets, mall toilets 7.14 Youth Centre – $20,000 Complete improvements to access and external windows 7.15 Youth Study $30,000 Complete – draft on public exhibition
COMMUNITY BUILDINGS (CONT) 7.16 Town Hall $210,000 Repair of roof – complete Kitchen upgrade – complete Purchase of new chairs – complete Sound system Council Chambers • System ordered and will be installed by 30/6/01 Upgrade Town Hall sound system - complete Painting exterior • 70% complete • Problems encountered with deterioration of elements of building • Contractor slower than expected Balcony repairs – will follow on from painting in 2000/01 Replace circuit board in Maitland Room – complete 7.17 East Maitland $25,000 Complete Community Centre – kitchen upgrade, covered walkway, carport 7.18 Rutherford Library – $10,000 Complete Roof repairs, carpet replacement 7.19 Gaol $250,000 Urgent roof repairs ($60,000) complete Masonry repairs • Work scoped • Generic specification developed by heritage architect • EOIs called for work on various elements for future repair, including masonry • Currently being assessed • Work to commence in August pending appropriate quotation/tender process
8. RESOURCES 8.1 Administration & $102,000 Complete Professional Trainees
Page 18 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Achievement of 2000/01 Works Programme (Cont.)
Capital Programme Area Value of Achievement Work 8.2 Replacement SES Truck $35,000 90% Complete – delivery expected by 30/6/01 8.3 Document Management $170,000 70% complete – first draft by 30/6/01 System 8.4 Electronic Business $50,000 Complete paper 8.5 Councillor’s PCs $26,000 Complete 8.6 Fax Gateway $30,000 50% complete – remainder to be incorporated into electronic document system 8.7 Home Page $10,000 Complete development – e-commerce
RESOURCES(CONT) 8.8 Web server $40,000 Put on hold until further investigation on viability 8.9 Intranet $10,000 80% Complete – finish by 30/6/01
As can be seen, the capital works programmes for 2000/01 have been essentially competed, with those few projects that are uncompleted being substantially commenced. Most of the projects that are not fully completed have been held at their current status to allow urgent continuation of maintenance works in the routine road, kerb and gutter, drainage and footpath maintenance areas. These maintenance works are substantially a result of the recent rainy spell in May. This will have the effect of reducing the number of outstanding complaints on the customer request system.
All programmes, including the routine road maintenance programme have been brought in within budget.
It should be noted that this result is a significant improvement over the result from last year, when there were significant carry over works from the rehabilitation programme, and a serious concern about a possible budget blowout on the routine maintenance programme. This was in turn an improvement on the year before.
This has been achieved in the context of a significantly increased Section 94 expenditure on recreation facilities ($1,000,000), programmed road maintenance ($400,000), the Roads to Recovery Programme ($190,000), the commencement of the CBD Improvement Programme, and the gaol maintenance project ($150,000).
Substantial progress has been made on the programming and designs for the 2001/02 programme, with designs for several projects already complete.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The projects under the capital budget for 2000/01 have been completed within allocations.
Page 19 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Achievement of 2000/01 Works Programme (Cont.) POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no policy implications arising from this report.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications relating to the Local Government Act 1993 arising from this report.
Page 20 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
9.5 DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE APPROVALS
FILE NO: 35/61
Responsible Officer: Brad Everett Group Manager Planning and Environment
Author: David Simm Manager Environmental Programs
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report contains relevant statistical and performance data for Council. Besides being a valuable management tool, it is a performance reporting mechanism to the general community.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT the information contained in this Report be noted.
REPORT Development Approvals
May 2001 May 2000 2001 2000 To Date Full Year No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Value 130 $12,484,761 147 $10,040,884 548 $42,114,351 692 $46,621,719 1490 $91,162,003 Median Processing Days = 21
Construction Certificate Approvals
May 2001 May 2000 2001 2000 To Date Full Year No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Value 92 $6,125,311 138 $9,444,278 449 $29,544,696 610 $40,127,737 1274 $73,295,090 Median Processing Days - 17
Page 21 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
10 MAITLAND YOUTH COUNCIL
11 OFFICERS REPORTS
11.1 GENERAL MANAGER
11.1.1 SALARY PACKAGING
FILE NO: 130/1 & 130/61
ATTACHMENTS: (2) CURRENT SALARY PACKAGING POLICY REVISED SALARY PACKAGING POLICY
Responsible Officer: David Evans General Manager
Author: Graeme Tolhurst Group Manager Business & Finance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A report was presented to Council in February this year, outlining the need to review the policy on salary packaging. The review has been undertaken with the assistance of Pricewaterhouse Coopers. The policy provides for staff to avail themselves of provisions within the Australian Taxation Legislation. Any provision undertaken by a staff member will be at a total cost to the staff member. The advantage of this revised policy is to enable Council to have flexibility in appointing staff as to how their package is constructed and the benefits to Council in obtaining and maintaining staff by offering this facility.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT
1. The current policy on salary packaging be rescinded;
2. The policy as outlined in this report on salary packaging (Attachment 1) be adopted.
REPORT Council currently has a policy on salary packaging (Attachment 2). This policy was adopted in 1993 and since that time there has been a number of changes to taxation law which affect this policy, including changes to Fringe Benefits Tax and PAYE (Pay as you earn) being replaced by PAYG (Pay as you Go).
Page 22 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Salary Packaging (Cont.) A review has been undertaken by Council staff with the assistance of Pricewaterhouse Coopers. It will be recommended that the Council revise its policy on remuneration packaging to allow package components permissible under Australian Tax Law and which incur no cost to Council.
In addition, Council has been approached by a firm, RPC, which will formalise, pay and look after the total administration of an employee’s salary package. The cost of this service would be borne by the employee.
In reviewing the Policy the following underlying principles have been utilised:
• The cost to Maitland City Council does not increase as a result of the Policy. • Packaging is administratively straightforward and appropriate for both the long and short term. • Items packaged comply precisely with current Australian Taxation and legal requirements.
Benefits to Employee
There are benefits to individual staff via increased flexibility in the way in which a package can be structured to maximise financial return.
Benefits to the Employer
Principally, benefits to Council arise on the basis of:
• Being a major factor in attracting and retaining staff. • Giving Maitland City Council a competitive advantage in the market. • Providing a framework for Maitland City Council’s immediate, short and long term existing and proposed reward strategies. • Structured so that the principles can be extended, as appropriate, over time to cover a broad majority of MCC personnel.
Conclusion
Overall, it is a ‘win-win’ situation with no additional cost to Council. The benefits are there for the employees to avail themselves, if they so desire. The adoption of this policy will enable Council to be competitive when recruiting and also maintaining existing staff.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The cost of the advice from Pricewaterhouse Coopers will be met within the current Management Plan.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS The new policy will form part of Council’s policy regarding Statutory Implications.
Page 23 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Salary Packaging (Cont.) STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications under the Local Government Act 1993 with this matter.
Page 24 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.1.2 CONTRACTS FOR SENIOR STAFF
FILE NO: 130/65
Responsible Officer: David Evans General Manager
Author: Henry Wilson Group Manager Community & Corporate
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is to comply with Section 339 of the Local Government Act 1993.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT the report be received and noted.
REPORT Section 339 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that:-
“The General Manager must, at least once annually, report to the Council on the contractual conditions of senior staff.”
The only position to which Section 339 applies is that of the General Manager and there have been no changes to the contractual conditions in respect of that position during the preceding twelve months.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward estimates.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS This report complies with the requirements of Section 339 of the Local Government Act 1993.
Page 25 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.1.3 DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 2001-2005
FILE NO: 35/33
ATTACHMENTS (1) PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
Responsible Officer: David Evans General Manager
Author: Graeme Tolhurst Group Manager Business & Finance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The adoption of the Draft Management Plan 2001-2005 is mandatory for Council to continue its functionality in providing services to the community for 2001/2002. The plan comprises the following main points:
1. increase of 2.8% in total rate revenue as allowed by the Minister for Local Government; 2. maintaining Council’s existing services within the confines of rate pegging; 3. a list of specific projects to be funded from an increase in loan borrowings of $2 million.
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT:
1. In accordance with Section 406 of the Local Government Act 1993, the revised Management Plan as presented be adopted;
2. In accordance with Clause 17 Sub Clause 2 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1993, Council approve expenditure and vote funds as detailed in the revised Management Plan;
3. Council adopt the Revenue Policy for the year 2001/2002 as required under Section 406(1) of the Local Government Act 1993;
4. Council approve the raising of the following loans:-
• $630,000 for specific capital works
• $830,000 for Council’s contribution to works on the levee reconstruction
• $2,000,000 for works identified within the Plan, being drainage, footpaths, Section 94 and building works.
Page 26 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Draft Management Plan 2001-2005 (Cont.) 5. Council authorise the affixing of the Council Seal to the documents in relation to the raising of these loans.
REPORT Introduction
The purpose of this report is to present to the Council, for formal consideration and adoption, the Draft Management Plan 2001/2002 of the Maitland City Council.
The Draft Management Plan 2001/2002 was placed on exhibition from 10 May 2001 to the 6 June 2001 inclusive. A public notice to this effect was published in the Maitland Mercury on 10 May 2001.
A number of initiatives were undertaken to facilitate community awareness of the Draft Management Plan. These initiatives included:-
1. The Draft Management Plan was displayed in the Customer Service Centre and in City Libraries; 2. Copies of the Draft Management Plan were available to interested members of the community; 3. A Community Forum was held on Tuesday 29th May 2001.
Report
Council is required by Section 406 of the Local Government Act 1993 to formally adopt each year a Management Plan prior to 30 June for activities to be undertaken in the following year. This adoption includes the processes of adopting budgets, voting of funds for expenditure and the setting of rates, fees and charges.
The procedure to be followed is:- a. Formal consideration of all public submissions; b. Review and amendment of the Management Plan where deemed necessary; c. Formal adoption of the Management Plan (as amended); d. Adoption of the structure of rates and charges as detailed in the “Revenue Policy” component of the plan.
Included in the Draft Management Plans was a list of specific projects that will be paid for by raising additional monies.
The projects are as follows:
Drainage Works $800,000 Footpaths $200,000 Community Buildings $500,000 Section 94 Works $500,000
$2,000,000
Page 27 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Draft Management Plan 2001-2005 (Cont.)
The focus on drainage works, footpaths and community buildings is for these works to be carried out based on priorities determined through condition assessment reports of our many assets, to ensure that Council achieves maximum value for the money spent. The money for the Section 94 works is Council’s contribution towards the cost of works identified in Maitland’s Section 94 Plan, which is partly funded by developers and partly funded by Council.
Council, during the time the Draft Management Plan was on exhibition, sought submissions from the community. Five submissions were received. A copy of the submissions are attached.
The submission from Mr P Humphreys addressed the lack of satisfactory aquatic facilities in Maitland over winter. A copy of the submission is attached to this report (Attachment A). The submission addresses usage of pools, investigation of providing an indoor aquatic facility and the monies identified within the Management Plan for refurbishment of the roof ($10,000).
In the Management Plan 2001/2002, there is a commitment from Council to investigate the aquatic needs of the Maitland Local Government Area.
The submission from Mr M Burrows addresses the proposed skateboard facility at Morpeth. The skateboard facility forms part of the Section 94 Projects in the proposed loan borrowings. If the Draft Management Plan is adopted, this facility will be constructed.
There were three submissions (Commercial Hotel Fishing Club, Morpeth Fishing Club & ARGO Marine Sales Pty Ltd) in support of the upgrade to Morpeth Boat Ramp. The Morpeth Boat Ramp forms part of the Community/Recreation Building Refurbishment in the proposed loan borrowings.
If the Draft Management Plan is adopted, this facility will be upgraded.
A submission from S Graham regarding the free voucher to attend Council’s Waste Disposal Site. The submission pointed out that some residents do not have transport so the cost to Council is less than claimed and two free vouchers would be better than one. The cost of this service cannot be evaluated until the end of each financial year. Council has been pressed by the State Government to reduce the amount of waste being disposed at its tip site and to increase it to two vouchers would not meet the expectation of the State Government.
Financial Matters
The 2001/2002 Draft Management Plan has provided for a rate increase of 2.8%.
The loan program identified earlier in this report will form part of the Management Plan. Application has been made to the Department of Local Government for approval of this loan. Once approval is received, the monies will be drawn down for use in early 2002. This will allow for the first payment to be made in July/August 2002, which does not affect the 2001/02 loan repayments. Page 28 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Draft Management Plan 2001-2005 (Cont.)
Conclusion
This Management Plan is a clear demonstration of the organisation’s commitment to promoting greater community awareness of the services that are provided by the Council, and most importantly, responding proactively to community needs in a prompt and decisive manner.
Most importantly, this Management Plan reinforces the organisation’s commitment to open and accountable government, which will be supported by comprehensive progress reporting on the level of achievement of the strategies and budget estimates contained within the Plan.
The Draft Management Plan is submitted to Council for formal adoption.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The adoption of the Draft Management Plan will enable Council to put in place its Budget and Revenue Policy for 2001/02.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS The adoption of the Draft Management Plan provides the direction for 2001/02.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS The Council must adopt its Management Plan as per Section 406 of the Local Government Act, 1993.
Page 29 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.1.4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGERS AUSTRALIA NATIONAL CONGRESS
FILE NO: 32/15
Responsible Officer: David Evans General Manager
Author: David Evans General Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents an overview of the Local Government Managers Australia (LGMA) National Congress which was held in Brisbane from 13-16 May 2001.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT the report be received and noted.
REPORT The LGMA National Congress was held in Brisbane from 13-16 May, 2001. The Congress was attended by the Mayor and General Manager.
The congress was opened by Senator The Hon Ian Macdonald, Federal Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. Keynote Speakers included Tony Richardson, an international consultant in business and management, David James, Senior Business Writer for Business Review Weekly and Ian Schubach, Author and Speaker from Africa who presented some interesting parallels between the law of the jungle and the “unpredictable and sometimes predatory world of business”. The key messages to local government from the keynote speakers were:-
it is important for any business, including councils, to continually scan their external environment to identify “new business” ie issues and opportunities; this needs to be supported by a move away from “command/control” systems with a strong internal focus, as 50% of what happens involving any business, happens outside the business itself. recognise that there is much more common ground between council and its business partners, or between councillors and council staff, than there are differences, and that the common ground is the basis to productive and successful alliances and relationships. recognise that successful teams thrive on the varied and different strengths of individuals – so identify and nurture those individual strengths.
Outside the keynote presentations, the Congress ran concurrent sessions under three streams of New Business, New Ways and New Roles. These concurrent sessions covered areas including information technology and e-commerce, sustainability, the roles of elected members and particularly the Mayor and General
Page 30 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Local Government Managers Australia National Congress (Cont.) Manager, Management and organisation reform, asset management and marketing. Some of the key points to emerge from the sessions attended were:-
On “triple bottom line accounting”, where the bottom line comprises economic, environmental and social factors: o sustainable organisations are those which move toward financial security, minimise negative environmental impacts and meet or conform with social expectations; o local government responsibilities in these areas are likely to increase; o TBL activities are generally free, subsidised or involve environmental protection, social or community welfare activity; o TBL adjustment to an operating result can be in the order of 5% to 10%.
On the roles of elected members and staff: o the current separation of roles (legislatively) is better suited to service delivery, and provides for a more stable environment; o better managerial structures have emerged, but this should not be at the expense of the role of elected members.
On assets, and in particular land assets: o work to a long term strategy rather than for short term gain; o look at whether the asset is being held for planning, economic or social objectives; o take a whole of council approach; o optimise data on assets eg core-v-mm-core, KPI’s, rentals and overheads where relevant, stay in touch with supply and demand data.
On management and organisation reform: o competition is about how to better do what we do, not about competition itself; o reform needs to have strong stakeholder support, and deliver outcomes which are valuable, achievable and measurable; o reform should lead to long-term viability.
The Congress attracted approximately 470 delegates from across Australia and provided a number of strong and relevant presentations, and an excellent forum for networking among local government managers across the country.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Costs in attending the conference were met from the relevant allocations within the current budget.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications under the Local Government Act 1993 with this matter.
Page 31 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.2 COMMUNITY AND CORPORATE GROUP
11.2.1 MAITLAND COMMUNITY OPTIONS PROJECT
FILE NO: 29/1
Responsible Officer: Henry Wilson Group Manager Community & Corporate
Author: Judy Jaeger Community Services Co-ordinator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Department of Ageing, Disability & Home Care funds the Maitland Community Options Project which is auspiced by Council. The sum of $210,230 has been offered for the 2001-2002 period.
The Department requires that two (2) copies of the Funding Agreement be signed under common seal.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
THAT: 1. The grant of $210,230 from the Department of Ageing, Disability & Home Care for the operation of the Maitland Community Options Project in 2001- 2002 be accepted.
2. Authority be given to affix the Common Seal of Council to two (2) copies of the 2001-2002 Funding Agreement for the Maitland Community Options Project.
REPORT The Department of Ageing, Disability & Home Care funds Maitland Community Options through the Home and Community Care Funding Program. Community Options provides a case management service and brokers support services for the frail aged and people with disabilities, and their carers, to enable them to continue to live at home.
Council has auspiced the Maitland project for a number of years to ensure that services are available for a sector of the community who have special needs for support and assistance. This is a very valuable and effective service and continues to be well used by people who meet the criteria of the service. The current Community Options Co-ordinator is Ms Katherine Putica. Council is offered the sum of $210,230 for 2001-2002.
Page 32 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Maitland Community Options Project (Cont.) The Department of Ageing, Disability & Home Care requires that two (2) copies of the Funding Agreement be signed under seal.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Maitland Community Options Project is fully funded by the Department of Ageing, Disability & Home Care, therefore this matter has no impact on Council finances.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This project aligns with Council’s community service policies.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications in relation to this matter.
Page 33 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.2.2 FUNDING AGREEMENT
FILE NO: 29/1
Responsible Officer: Henry Wilson Group Manager Community & Corporate
Author: Judy Jaeger Community Services Co-ordinator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Department of Community Services partially fund the Maitland Community Worker Project which provides for the employment of a community worker to undertake community development programmes and support other government funded projects.
The Department has offered $26,855 grant funding for the period 2001-2002 and submitted the annual Funding and Performance Agreement to Council for adoption.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
THAT: 1. The grant of $26,855 from the Department of Community Services for the support of the Maitland Community Worker Project for 2001-2002 be accepted.
2. Authority be given to affix the Common Seal of Council to two (2) copies of the 2001-2002 Funding and Performance Agreement for the Maitland Community Worker Project.
REPORT The Department of Community Services (DOCS) provides funding to Council towards the employment of a Community worker to undertake community development programmes, and to support other government funded projects. The current Community Worker is Mr Robert Kerr. This position is also partially funded by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning.
DOCS has agreed to provide $26,855 for the 2001-2002 period. It is necessary for the Funding and Performance Agreement to be signed under seal accepting the terms and conditions of the grant.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This grant provides partial funding for the employment of the Community Worker.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This project aligns with Council’s community service policies. Page 34 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Funding Agreement (Cont.) STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications in relation to this matter.
Page 35 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.2.3 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT ASSISTANCE SCHEME
FILE NO: 139/35
Responsible Officer: Henry Wilson Group Manager Community & Corporate
Author: Judy Jaeger Community Services Co-ordinator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Legal Aid New South Wales administers the Women’s Domestic Violence Court Assistance Scheme which is fully funded by the State Government. Council auspices the Maitland program and has been offered $46,761 for the 2001-2002 period.
Legal Aid New South Wales requires that two (2) copies of the Service Agreement be signed under common seal.
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
THAT: 1. The grant of $46,761 from Legal Aid New South Wales for the operation of the Maitland Women’s Domestic Violence Court Assistance Scheme in 2001-2002 be accepted.
2. Authority be given to affix the Common Seal of Council to two (2) copies of the 2001-2002 Service Agreement for Maitland Women’s Domestic Violence Court Assistance Scheme.
REPORT Legal Aid New South Wales provides funding for the provision of court assistance services to women victims of domestic violence who are involved in court proceedings. The current Court Support Worker is Ms Julie Brooks.
Council agreed to auspice the Maitland program several years ago to ensure that it would continue to provide a very important service within the local community. Council is offered the sum of $46,761 for 2001-2002. Additional funding for this important service was the subject of a submission to the State Cabinet visit to Maitland recently.
Legal Aid New South Wales requires that two (2) copies of the Service Agreement be signed under seal.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no impact on Council finances. The project is fully funded by Legal Aid New South Wales.
Page 36 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Domestic Violence Court Assistance Scheme (Cont.) POLICY IMPLICATIONS This project aligns with Council’s community service policies.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications in relation to this matter.
Page 37 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.2.4 MAITLAND COMMUNITY OPTIONS PROJECT
FILE NO: 29/1
Responsible Officer: Henry Wilson Community & Corporate
Author: Judy Jaeger Community Services Co-ordinator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Department of Ageing, Disability & Home Care funds the Maitland Community Options project which is auspiced by Council. Additional funding under the Home and Community Care Program Round 16 has been offered for the 2000-2001 period. The sum of $10,712 is additional to the existing allocation as part of Round 16 funding.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
THAT: 1. The grant of $10,712 from the Department of Ageing, Disability & Home Care for additional funding under the Home and Community Care Program Round 16 be accepted.
2. Authority be given to affix the Common Seal of Council to two (2) copies of the Acceptance of Funding Variation forms.
REPORT The Department of Ageing, Disability & Home Care have approved additional funding for the Maitland Community Options Project. The additional recurrent funding amount of $10,712 is backdated to the 1 July 2000 and under the terms of our Agreement requires Council to sign under Seal two (2) copies of the Acceptance of Funding Variation form.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Maitland Community Options is fully funded by the Department of Ageing, Disability & Home Care, therefore this matter has no impact on Council finances.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This project aligns with Council’s community service policies.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications in relation to this matter.
Page 38 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.2.5 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL
FILE NO: 35/42
Responsible Officer: Henry Wilson Group Manager Community and Corporate
Author: Henry Wilson Group Manager Community and Corporate
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report details the decisions by the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal on the payment of fees to elected members of Councils.
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
THAT: 1. Council determine that the maximum annual Councillor fee and additional Mayoral fee of $11,770 and $24,860 respectively be paid during the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002.
2. Council place on exhibition for 28 days notice of the above changes to the policy for the payment of expenses and provision of facilities for Councillors as required by Section 253.
REPORT The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal was set up under Division 4, Part 2 of the Local Government Act, 1993. The 1993 Act requires the Tribunal each year to determine the categories of Councils for the purpose of determining fees for such elected persons and to report to the Minister by May 1 of its determination. The Tribunal has no power to fix fees for any particular Council but is confined to determining the minimum and maximum fee appropriate for each category.
While Councils must pay each Councillor the same annual fee, only the minimum fee is mandatory. Any fee in excess of the minimum fee is a matter for each Council to determine. It is to be noted that such fees paid do not constitute a salary for the purposes of any Act (Section 251 (2) ). In addition, Councils must adopt a policy concerning the payment of expenses incurred in the performance of Council functions and the provision of facilities (Section 252 (1) ).
The Tribunal has expressed the view that to recompense by way of fees is to ensure that as far as practicable, no person is debarred by way of financial burden from offering for local government service in the performance of statutory functions.
This Council already has in place an adopted policy regarding the payment of expenses and provision of facilities for Councillors as required by Section 252 (1).
Page 39 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Local Government Remuneration Tribunal (Cont.) This policy provides for the maximum payment to Councillors and the Mayor for the Category (Category 3) in which Maitland Council has been placed by the Tribunal. Details of the fees payable to a Category 3 Council during the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 have been determined by the Tribunal as follows.
Councillor Mayor Annual Fee Additional Fee Minimum / Maximum Minimum / Maximum $5,350 - $11,770 $11,000 - $24,860
($5,000 - $11,000) ($10,000 - $22,600)
Fees in brackets are for the 2000/2001 period.
The draft budget for 2001/2002 has made provision for a continuation of the payment of the maximum fee level to Councillors and the Mayor.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Provision has been made in the draft 2001/2002 budget for the recommended fee levels.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS The revised fees when adopted by Council will become policy for 2001/2002 and will require public notification for 28 days as required by Section 253.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS All statutory requirements are being met with this matter.
Page 40 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.2.6 YOUTH STUDY
FILE NO: 27/2
Responsible Officer: Henry Wilson Group Manager Community & Corporate
Author: Judy Jaeger Community Services Co-ordinator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Maitland City Council resolved to prepare a Youth Study that incorporates a Youth Profile and Youth Strategic Plan that would provide clear, practicable and economically achievable strategies and plans that will articulate Council’s endeavours to promote opportunities for young people and the general community across the Maitland Local Government Area.
Key Insights Pty Ltd were appointed as consultants to undertake the work and the draft report is now presented to Council.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
THAT: 1. The Maitland City Council Maitland Youth Study Report is placed on public exhibition for a 28-day period.
2. The final report be presented at Council’s Community Lifestyle meeting to be held on 14 August 2001.
REPORT In November 2000, Maitland City Council resolved to prepare a Youth Study that would provide direction for Council’s involvement in youth affairs. Council called for tenders and Key Insights Pty Ltd were appointed and commenced the consultancy in January 2001. A copy of the draft report will be provided under separate cover.
The Youth Study is to be a statement of commitment, and on implementation will improve opportunities for the young people of Maitland over time. In developing a comprehensive Youth Strategic Plan, Council will move from a re-active (complaints based) model to a pro-active approach in considering the needs of young people and the community generally.
Since January, the consultants have conducted literature reviews, service mapping, key stakeholder interviews, community consultations, a youth survey, attended network meetings and attended on site visits to Youth Centres. Based on this information, the consultants have made a number of recommendations which are contained within the report.
Page 41 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Youth Study (Cont.)
At the conclusion of the public exhibition period, the Youth Study Steering Panel will convene to consider any comments made on the draft report. Comments and the final report will be presented to Council’s Community Lifestyle meeting in August.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications under the Local Government Act 1993 with this matter.
Page 42 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.2.7 LEASE OF PART OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - HUNTER WATER CORPORATION
FILE NO: P17312
Responsible Officer: Henry Wilson Group Manager Community & Corporate
Author: Henry Wilson Group Manager Community & Corporate
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report seeks approval to fix the Common Seal of Council to a document for the lease of part of the Administration Building to the Hunter Water Corporation.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
THAT: 1. Council agree to the rental level offered by Hunter Corporation.
2. Council Authorise the affixing of the Common Seal of Council the lease document.
REPORT Council will be aware of the renovations within the Customer Service area of the Administration Building and the proposed relocation to part thereof by the Hunter Water Corporation (HWC).
The HWC will occupy approximately 38m2 of office space as well as access to staff facilities (lunchroom, toilets etc). Such arrangements by HWC already exist in other regional locations and are of mutual benefit to both Councils and the Corporation.
A draft lease has been prepared for a period of five (5) years with an option for a further five (5) years. An assessment of a fair annual lease rental has been undertaken by the State Valuation Office and an offer of an annual rental of $7,700 has been made. Based on current market levels this offer is considered very satisfactory . Besides the annual rental a once only capital contribution to the renovation costs is to be made by HWC.
The draft lease has been examined and is considered satisfactory as regards terms and conditions and is recommended to Council for agreement.
Overall, the incorporation of HWC into part of the Customer Service Area of Council will have mutual as well as significant customer benefits.
Page 43 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
LEASE OF PART OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - HUNTER WATER COPRORATION (Cont.) FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Council’s overall property income will be increased on an annual basis by the rent offered.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications under the Local Government Act 1993 with this matter.
Page 44 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.2.8 TENDER - LAND IN MAITLAND CBD
FILE NO: 103/8
Responsible Officer: Henry Wilson Group Manager Community & Corporate
Author: Henry Wilson Group Manager Community & Corporate
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report seeks approval to affix the Common Seal of the Council to specific documents.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT authority be given to affix the Common Seal of Council to the Tender Offer.
REPORT In February this year Council determined to lodge an expression of interest in the purchase of the Energy Australia site in St Andrews Street, Maitland within predetermined parameters.
Invitation to tender for the property have now been received and documentation will be completed for submission by close of tenders at 11.00am 5 July 2001.
The Tender Office needs completion under seal of Council and the appropriate authority to affix the Seal is sought.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward estimates.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications under the Local Government Act 1993 with this matter.
Page 45 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.2.9 ENDORSEMENT OF COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION PLAN
FILE NO: 29/31
Responsible Officer: Henry Wilson Group Manager Community & Corporate
Author: Frances Holz Community Crime Prevention Project Officer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NSW Attorney General, Mr Bob Debus, has officially approved the Maitland Community Crime Prevention Plan as a Community Compact. The endorsement is the culmination of the initial phase of the Community Crime Prevention Project, which is a joint venture between this council and the neighbouring Cessnock City Council. Both councils will now be able to access funding under the NSW Crime Prevention Division’s Safer Communities Development Fund (Community Compact Grants) to implement some of the adopted strategies.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT the report be received and noted.
REPORT
The Community Crime Prevention Project is a joint initiative between Maitland and Cessnock City Councils. It has been operating for nearly two years and has involved: Extensive consultations with both communities. A detailed crime profile of both LGAs, and Preparation, in consultation with the community, of Community Crime Prevention Plans for both LGAs.
Maitland City Council adopted the Maitland Crime Prevention Plan in November 2000. Together with the Cessnock Community Crime Prevention Plan, which was adopted by Cessnock City Council in December, it was forwarded to the Crime Prevention Division for assessment.
As Councilllors will be aware, the NSW Attorney General, Mr Bob Debus, officially announced endorsement of both plans during the NSW Cabinet visit to Maitland on June 13. (A copy of Mr Debus’ media release was forwarded to councilors on the day of the visit.)
Endorsement as Community Compacts is the culmination of the initial project (which will officially conclude in August) and enables the joint venture community safety initiative to move into a new phase, that of implementing strategies. It also enables Maitland City Council to access funding under the NSW Crime Prevention Division’s Safer Communities Development Fund (Community Compact Grants).
Page 46 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
ENDORSEMENT OF COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION PLAN (Cont.)
The project has already applied for Community Compact funding for the next two (2) years. Recent advise from the Crime Prevention Division indicated that both the Maitland and Cessnock applications were expected to be assessed by a review panel on June 18 or 19. At the time of preparing this report, no confirmation had been received. Accordingly, the review panel’s final decision regarding funding and an outline of the projects applied for is expected to be the subject of a report to the next meeting of the Community Lifestyles Committee.
Both councils are seeking just over $60,000 each for the first year of the implementation phase. This money will pay for a number of specific strategies included in the plans. It will also cover the cost of continued employment of a Community Safety Officer who will be responsible for implementing the strategies and helping to improve safety in the communities of both Maitland and Cessnock.
The $40,000 for community safety included in the Council’s draft budget was not factored into the current application because the budget has not formally been adopted.
Other external funding sources have or will be accessed as required to meet the cost of other strategies as required (such as, for example, the HAAS funding outlined in a following Community and Corporate report).
Although they have separate crime prevention plans, the community safety project will continue to be a joint initiative between the two councils to further take advantage of cost and resource efficiencies as well as the synergies or benefits already developed and apparent in this sub-regional approach
The Maitland Community Crime Prevention Plan includes 39 individual strategies and the Cessnock Community Crime Prevention Plan 37 strategies. While the next phase of the joint community safety project should enable implementation of all of the strategies, the Council should note that some strategies have already been implemented. These include the Loop Bus pilot run over December and January and formation of Community Drug Action Teams in both LGAs (a recommendation outlining the receipt of $9000 as start-up seed funding for the Community Drug Action Teams was adopted at the recent Community Lifestyles Committee meeting). Funding to enable implementation of several other strategies has already been received or arranged, including a graffiti art project in Maitland, parenting kits for Maitland and Cessnock (see following Community and Corporate report), and performance of the adolescent family violence play Control in local high schools.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward estimates.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
Page 47 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
ENDORSEMENT OF COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION PLAN (Cont.) STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications under the Local Government Act 1993 with this matter.
Page 48 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.2.10 FUNDING FOR PARENTING KITS PROJECT
FILE NO: 29/31
Responsible Officer: Henry Wilson Group Manager Community & Corporate
Author: Frances Holz Community Crime Prevention Project Officer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Community Crime Prevention Project has successfully applied for funds from the Hunter Area Assistance Scheme to purchase and distribute kits comprising more than 80 individual parenting topic sheets. The parenting strategy is a joint initiative with Cessnock City Council and the funding will enable the Crime Prevention Project to implement another of the strategies in Community Crime Prevention Plan for both LGAs.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT Maitland City Council accept the offer of funding for the parenting kits from the Area Assistance Scheme in accordance with its standard conditions.
REPORT The Maitland-Cessnock Community Crime Prevention Project applied last year under the Hunter Area Assistance Scheme for funding to implement one of the strategies included in both the Maitland and Cessnock Crime Prevention Plans. The Parenting Kits project is as per Strategy 1.4.1 in the endorsed Maitland Community Crime Prevention Plan. It is a pilot information-based strategy that involves purchase and distribution of 200 sets of Parenting Easy Topic Sheets, which have been developed and printed by the Parenting South Australia initiative. Under the strategy, kits will be distributed to key service providers, parenting-related community groups and access points, playgroups, preschools and other identified distribution points in both Maitland and Cessnock LGAs. The topic sheets will be ‘localised’ by means of an attached label listing local services/counsellors appropriate to the specific topic to encourage parents and carers to seek further advice or assistance if necessary. Indigenous specific topic sheets will also be purchased and distributed to appropriate services and groups.
The strategy addresses an identified need for additional support for parents in the area, and aims to enhance parenting confidence and skills by providing practical aid and resource materials.
The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Dr Andrew Refshauge, has approved $3440 for the strategy under the Area Assistance Scheme.
Page 49 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
FUNDING FOR PARENTING KITS PROJECT (Cont.) The Council needs to accept this offer before July 13. Funding will be received in the new financial year, and it is expected the strategy will be commenced as soon as practicable thereafter.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward estimates.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications under the Local Government Act 1993 with this matter.
Page 50 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.3 BUSINESS AND FINANCE GROUP
11.3.1 STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS HELD AS AT 31 MAY 2001
FILE NO: 82/2
Responsible Officer: Graeme Tolhurst Group Manager Business & Finance
Author: Jon Dundas Manager Revenue & Information Technology
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1993, Section 19(3)(b) requires Council to report on its investments.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT the report be received and noted. REPORT Inv. Institution Int. Date Term Maturity Amount No. Rate Invested (Days) Date $ 919 Maitland Mutual Bld. 6.19% 11/03/01 92 11/06/01 1,500,000.00 Soc. 926 Bank West 5.04% 4/04/01 61 4/06/01 1,700,000.00 932 Maitland Mutual Bld 5.13% 1/05/01 63 3/07/01 1,700,000.00 Soc. 933 Bank West 5.12% 2/05/01 30 1/06/01 1,500,000.00 936 Suncorp Metway 4.90% 11/05/01 94 13/08/01 1,900,000.00 937 Local Govt Financial 5.00% 14/05/01 92 14/08/01 2,000,000.00 Services 938 Illawarra Mutual Bld. 5.15% 15/05/01 45 29/06/01 1,400,000.00 Soc. 939 Local Govt Financial 5.10% 17/05/01 33 19/06/01 900,000.00 Services 940 Local Govt Financial 4.90% 22/05/01 450,000.00 Services – 11am 941 Local Govt Financial 4.90% 25/05/01 200,000.00 Services – 11am 942 Local Govt Financial 4.90% 28/05/01 200,000.00 Services – 11am 943 Local Govt Financial 4.90% 29/05/01 300,000.00 Services – 11am 944 Illawarra Mutual Bld. 5.40% 30/03/01 1,500,000.00 Soc. TOTAL $15,250,000.00 ** Subordinated note – interest rate reviewed on the 11th of each quarter.
Page 51 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS HELD AS AT 31 MAY 2001 (Cont.)
As a Comparison:
Investments held as at the end of last month (i.e. 30-04-01) were $14,550,000.00
Investments held this time last year (i.e. 31-05-00) were $12,397,544.37
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward estimates.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS The above sums have been invested in accordance with: • Section 625 of the Local Government Act, 1993 • The regulations pertaining to the Local Government Act, 1993 • Council’s Investment Policies.
Page 52 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.3.2 INTERNAL RESTRICTED ASSETS
FILE NO: 2/1
ATTACHMENTS: (2) COUNCIL REPORT 1999 REVISED/RESERVED RESTRICTED ASSETS POLICY
Responsible Officer: Graeme Tolhurst Group Manager Business & Finance
Author: Graeme Tolhurst Group Manager Business & Finance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A report was presented to Council on 22 May 2000 concerning a revised policy on Council’s Internal Restricted Assets. The matter was deferred by Council, requiring a further report on the amount of $92,000 held as “Sale of Land”. This amount relates to monies set aside in 1999 from an auction of Council operational properties, and carried forward by this Council.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT the revised ‘Reserves/Restricted Assets’ Policy (Attachment B), be adopted.
REPORT In January 1999 a report was submitted to Council (Attachment A), setting out the allocation of funding for a number of projects from the auction of a number of Council’s operational properties. The projects were as follows:-
Road Maintenance $400,000 Town Hall Improvements 150,000 Mall Concepts 10,000 Landscape Levee 15,000 IT-JTEC Box 20,000 Thornton Library 20,000 Morpeth Courthouse 45,000 Art Gallery (Fire System) 8,000 Traffic Lights (Roadworks) 30,000 Reduce Borrowings (Drainage Construction) 178,000
$876,000
Page 53 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Internal Restricted Assets (Cont.) The allocation for Thornton Library was only provisional and this did not proceed.
An amount of $92,000 was carried forward by Council on 28 November 2000, as part of the Annual Financial Statements. This amount was to allow completion of the Drainage Construction Works.
These works will be completed this financial year, due to the planning, which was required for the works. The works identified were approved by Council in 1999. The works that were not completed at the 30 June 2000 will be completed this financial year. It is recommended that the money be kept aside for the works to be completed this financial year.
Conclusion
The report presented to Council in May (Annexure B) is a revision of Council’s Internal Restricted Assets (Reserves) Policy. This should be adopted to enable Council to streamline its internal restricted reserves.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The revised policy will enable Council to better manage its Reserves.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS That the Council adopt this as a new policy for Restricted Assets.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS This is a revision of a policy under the Local Government Act 1993.
Page 54 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.3.3 MAKING OF RATES AND CHARGES 2001/2002
FILE NO: 117/3
Responsible Officer: Graeme Tolhurst Group Manager Business & Finance
Author: Graeme Tolhurst Group Manager Business & Finance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is for Council to make the Rates and Charges for 2001/2002. The rates set out within the report are to increase the total rate income of Council by 2.8%.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT as all conditions relative to Section 532 of the Local Government Act, (1993) have been met, Council adopt the rates and charges for the year commencing 1 July, 2001 to the 30 June 2002 as contained within the report.
REPORT Subject to Council adopting the revenue policy of the Draft Management Plan, it is intended that the following submission be presented to Council as the resolution to adopt the rates and charges for 2001/2002 based on a 2.8% increase on our General Income.
Under the Local Government Act, (1993), Council must adopt the rate in the dollar and base amounts for the ensuing (12) twelve months under Section 534 and 535.
CONSOLIDATED FUND Cent in the $ Base Amount Base Amount % 2001/02 2000/01 2001/02 2000/01 2001/02 2000/01 Residential – Non Urban 0.8865 0.8503 94.57 90.10 10.0% 10.0% Residential – Urban (A) 0.8298 0.8115 208.87 202.04 35% 35% Residential – Urban (B) 0.8298 0.8115 208.87 202.04 35% 35% Residential – Urban (C) 0.8298 0.8115 208.87 202.04 35% 35% Residential – Urban (D) 0.8298 0.8115 208.87 202.04 35% 35% Residential – Urban (E) 0.8298 0.8115 208.87 202.04 35% 35% Residential – Urban (F) 0.8298 0.8115 208.87 202.04 35% 35% Residential – Urban (G) 0.8298 0.8115 208.87 202.04 35% 35% Residential – Urban (H) 0.8298 0.8115 208.87 202.04 35% 35% Farmland – High Intensity 0.6471 0.6285 172.82 167.22 10.0% 10.0% Farmland – Low Intensity 0.7930 0.7756 124.44 120.14 10.0% 10.0% Mining 7.2890 6.9363 Nil Nil Nil Nil Business – Ordinary 2.7542 2.6781 Nil Nil Nil Nil (Commercial) Business – Industrial 2.1082 2.0582 236.47 220.16 10.0% 10.0%
Page 55 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
MAKING OF RATES AND CHARGES 2000/2001 (Cont.) CONSOLIDATED FUND Cent in the $ Base Amount Base Amount % 2001/02 2000/01 2001/02 2000/01 2001/02 2000/01 Business – Dual Use 1.2790 1.1982 Nil Nil Nil Nil CBD Rate 0.7497 0.6425 Nil Nil Nil Nil Mall Rate 1.2586 1.2243 Nil Nil Nil Nil CBD Construction Rate 0.7417 0.7215 Nil Nil Nil Nil
The above rates are to be applied to the land value of all rateable land in the City of Maitland.
For the purpose of making the rates and charges it is recommended that the following be adopted.
ORDINARY RATES Whereas the Draft Management Plan for the period 1 July, 2001 to 30 June 2002 was placed on exhibition from 10 May, 2001 to 6 June, 2001 not being less than twenty-eight (28) days, in accordance with Section 405 of the Local Government Act (1993), Council on 26 June 2001 after considering submissions that were made concerning the Draft Management Plan adopted the Management Plan for the period 1 July, 2001 to 30 June, 2002 in accordance with Section 534 and 535 of the Local Government Act (1993).
In accordance with Sections 534 and 535 of the Local Government Act 1993 that:
RESIDENTIAL – NON-URBAN An ordinary rate (residential non-urban) of zero point eight eight six five (0.8865) cents in the dollar with a base amount of ninety four dollars and fifty seven cents ($94.57)in accordance with Sections 499 and 500 of the Local Government Act, (1993), on all rateable land in the City of Maitland categorised as Residential in accordance with Section 516 of the Local Government Act, (1993), except all rateable land in the City of Maitland determined to be in the Residential Sub- Categories as listed below be now made for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and in accordance with Section 543(1) of the Local Government Act (1993) this rate be named Residential – Non-Urban.
In accordance with Section 537 of the Local Government Act, (1993), the percentage of the total amount payable by the levying of the rate for the residential non-urban category of the ordinary rate, that the levying of the base amount will produce is ten per cent (10.0%).
RESIDENTIAL – URBAN (A) An ordinary rate of zero point eight two nine eight (0.8298) cents in the dollar with a base amount of two hundred and eight dollars and eighty seven cents ($208.87) in accordance with Sections 499 and 500 of the Local Government Act, (1993), to apply to all rateable land in the City of Maitland, used or zoned for residential purposes
Page 56 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
MAKING OF RATES AND CHARGES 2000/2001 (Cont.) determined to be a centre of population and categorised as sub-category Residential Urban (A) Woodberry in accordance with Section 529 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993) be now made for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and in accordance with Section 543 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993), this rate be named Residential Urban (A) Woodberry.
In accordance with Section 537 of the Local Government Act, (1993), the percentage of the total amount payable by the levying of the rate for the residential urban (A) sub-category of the Ordinary Rate, that the levying of the base amount will produce is thirty five per cent (35%).
RESIDENTIAL – URBAN (B) An ordinary rate of zero point eight two nine eight (0.8298) cents in the dollar with a base amount of two hundred and eight dollars and eighty seven cents ($208.87) in accordance with Sections 499 and 500 of the Local Government Act, (1993), to apply to all rateable land in the City of Maitland, used or zoned for residential purposes determined to be a centre of population and categorised as sub-category Residential Urban (B) Avalon Estate Thornton in accordance with Section 529 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993) be now made for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and in accordance with Section 543 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993), this rate be named Residential Urban (B) Avalon Estate Thornton.
In accordance with Section 537 of the Local Government Act, (1993), the percentage of the total amount payable by the levying of the rate for the residential urban (B) sub-category of the Ordinary Rate, that the levying of the base amount will produce is thirty five per cent (35%).
RESIDENTIAL – URBAN (C) An ordinary rate of zero point eight two nine eight (0.8298) cents in the dollar with a base amount of two hundred and eight dollars and eighty seven cents ($208.87) in accordance with Sections 499 and 500 of the Local Government Act, (1993), to apply to all rateable land in the City of Maitland, used or zoned for residential purposes determined to be a centre of population and categorised as sub-category Residential Urban (C) Timberlane Estate Thornton in accordance with Section 529 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993) be now made for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and in accordance with Section 543 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993), this rate be named Residential Urban (C) Timberlane Estate Thornton.
In accordance with Section 537 of the Local Government Act, (1993), the percentage of the total amount payable by the levying of the rate for the residential urban (C) sub-category of the Ordinary Rate, that the levying of the base amount will produce is thirty five per cent (35%).
RESIDENTIAL – URBAN (D) An ordinary rate of zero point eight two nine eight (0.8298) cents in the dollar with a base amount of two hundred and eight dollars and eighty seven cents ($208.87) in accordance with Sections 499 and 500 of the Local Government Act, (1993), to apply to all rateable land in the City of Maitland, used or zoned for residential purposes determined to be a centre of population and categorised as sub-category Residential
Page 57 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
MAKING OF RATES AND CHARGES 2000/2001 (Cont.) Urban (D) Thornton in accordance with Section 529 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993) be now made for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and in accordance with Section 543 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993), this rate be named Residential Urban (D) Thornton.
In accordance with Section 537 of the Local Government Act, (1993), the percentage of the total amount payable by the levying of the rate for the residential urban (D) sub-category of the Ordinary Rate, that the levying of the base amount will produce is thirty five per cent (35%).
RESEDENTIAL – URBAN (E) An ordinary rate of zero point eight two nine eight (0.8298) cents in the dollar with a base amount of two hundred and eight dollars and eighty seven cents ($208.87) in accordance with Sections 499 and 500 of the Local Government Act, (1993), to apply to all rateable land in the City of Maitland, used or zoned for residential purposes determined to be a centre of population and categorised as sub-category Residential Urban (E) Gillieston Heights in accordance with Section 529 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993) be now made for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and in accordance with Section 543 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993), this rate be named Residential Urban (E) Gillieston Heights.
In accordance with Section 537 of the Local Government Act, (1993), the percentage of the total amount payable by the levying of the rate for the residential urban (E) sub-category of the Ordinary Rate, that the levying of the base amount will produce is thirty five per cent (35.0%).
RESIDENTIAL – URBAN (F) An ordinary rate of zero point eight two nine eight (0.8298) cents in the dollar with a base amount of two hundred and eight dollars and eighty seven cents ($208.87) in accordance with Sections 499 and 500 of the Local Government Act, (1993), to apply to all rateable land in the City of Maitland, used or zoned for residential purposes determined to be a centre of population and categorised as sub-category Residential Urban (F) Windella in accordance with Section 529 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993) be now made for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and in accordance with Section 543 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993), this rate be named Residential Urban (F) Windella.
In accordance with Section 537 of the Local Government Act, (1993), the percentage of the total amount payable by the levying of the rate for the residential urban (F) sub- category of the Ordinary Rate, that the levying of the base amount will produce is thirty five per cent (35%).
RESIDENTIAL – URBAN (G) An ordinary rate of zero point eight two nine eight (0.8298) cents in the dollar with a base amount of two hundred and eight dollars and eighty seven cents ($208.87) in accordance with Sections 499 and 500 of the Local Government Act, (1993), to apply to all rateable land in the City of Maitland, used or zoned for residential purposes determined to be a centre of population and categorised as sub-category Residential Urban (G) Lochinvar in accordance with Section 529 (1) of the Local Government
Page 58 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
MAKING OF RATES AND CHARGES 2000/2001 (Cont.) Act, (1993) be now made for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and in accordance with Section 543 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993), this rate be named Residential Urban (G) Lochinvar.
In accordance with Section 537 of the Local Government Act, (1993), the percentage of the total amount payable by the levying of the rate for the residential urban (G) sub-category of the Ordinary Rate, that the levying of the base amount will produce is thirty five per cent (35%).
RESIDENTIAL – URBAN (H) An ordinary rate of zero point eight two nine eight (0.8298) cents in the dollar with a base amount of two hundred and eight dollars and eighty seven cents ($208.87) in accordance with Sections 499 and 500 of the Local Government Act, (1993), to apply to all rateable land in the City of Maitland, used or zoned for residential purposes determined to be a centre of population and categorised as sub-category Residential Urban (H) in accordance with Section 529 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993) be now made for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and in accordance with Section 543 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993), this rate be named Residential Urban (H) Aberglasslyn, Telarah, Rutherford, Maitland, Lorn, Bolwarra, Bolwarra Heights, Largs, East Maitland, Metford, Ashtonfield, Tenambit, Raworth, Morpeth, Horeseshoe Bend, South Maitland.
In accordance with Section 537 of the Local Government Act, (1993), the percentage of the total amount payable by the levying of the rate for the residential urban (H) sub-category of the Ordinary Rate, that the levying of the base amount will produce is thirty five per cent (35%).
FARMLAND – HIGH DENSITY An ordinary rate of zero point six four seven one (0.6471) cents in the dollar with a base amount of one hundred and seventy two dollars and eighty two cents ($172.82) in accordance with Sections 499 and 500 of the Local Government Act, (1993), to apply to all rateable land in the City of Maitland categorised as farmland in accordance with Section 515 of the Local Government Act, (1993) except all land in the City of Maitland determined to be on the farmland sub-category Farmland – Low Intensity be now made for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and in accordance with Section 543 (1) of the Local Government Act (1993) this rate be named Farmland – High Intensity.
In accordance with Section 537 of the Local Government Act (1993) the percentage of the total amount payable by the levying of the rate for the farmland high intensity category of the ordinary rate, that the levying of the base amount will produce is ten per cent (10%.)
FARMLAND – LOW DENSITY An ordinary rate of zero point seven nine three zero (0.7930) cents in the dollar with a base amount of one hundred and twenty four dollars and forty four cents ($124.44) in accordance with Sections 499 and 500 of the Local Government Act, (1993), to apply to all rateable land in the City of Maitland, used as farmland and categorised as Farmland - Low Intensity in accordance with Section 529(1) of the Local Government
Page 59 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
MAKING OF RATES AND CHARGES 2000/2001 (Cont.) Act, (1993) be now made for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and in accordance with Section 543 (1) of the Local Government Act (1993) this rate be named Farmland – Low Intensity.
In accordance with Section 537 of the Local Government Act, (1993), the percentage of the total amount payable by the levying of the rate for the Farmland – Low Intensity sub-category of the Ordinary Rate, that the levying of the base amount will produce is ten per cent (10.0%).
MINING An ordinary rate of seven point two eight nine zero (7.2890) cents in the dollar with a nil base amount in accordance with Sections 499 and 500 of the Local Government Act, (1993), to apply to all rateable land in the City of Maitland categorised as mining in accordance with Section 517 of the Local Government Act, (1993) be now made for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and in accordance with Section 543 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993), this rate be named mining.
BUSINESS – ORDINARY (COMMERCIAL) An ordinary rate of two point seven five four two (2.7542) cents in the dollar with a nil base amount in accordance with Sections 499 and 500 of the Local Government Act, (1993), to apply to all rateable land in the City of Maitland categorised as Business in accordance with Section 518 of the Local Government Act, (1993) except all land in the City of Maitland determined to be on the business sub categories be now made for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and in accordance with Section 543 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993), this rate be named Business Ordinary (Commercial).
BUSINESS - INDUSTRIAL An ordinary rate of two point one zero eight two (2.1082) cents in the dollar with a base amount of two hundred and thirty six dollars and forty seven cents ($236.47) in accordance with Sections 499 and 500 of the Local Government Act, (1993), to apply to all rateable land in the City of Maitland, used or zoned for industrial purposes determined to be a centre of activity and categorised as sub-category Business Industrial in accordance with Section 529 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993) be now made for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and in accordance with Section 543 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993), this rate be named Business Industrial.
In accordance with Section 537 of the Local Government Act, (1993), the percentage of the total amount payable by the levying of the rate for the Business Industrial sub- category of the Ordinary Rate, that the levying of the base amount will produce is ten per cent (10.0%).
BUSINESS – DUAL USE An ordinary rate of one point two seven nine zero (1.2790) cents in the dollar with a nil base amount in accordance with Sections 499 and 500 of the Local Government Act, (1993), to apply to all rateable land in the City of Maitland, used or zoned for mixed development, (residential-commercial) determined to be a centre of activity and categorised as sub-category Business – Dual Use in accordance with Section
Page 60 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
MAKING OF RATES AND CHARGES 2000/2001 (Cont.) 529 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993) be now made for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and in accordance with Section 543 (1) of the Local Government Act, (1993), this rate be named Business – Dual Use.
CBD RATE A special rate of zero point seven four nine seven (0.7497) cents in the dollar to be the City Centre Promotion Special Rate on the land value of all rateable land within the promotion of Council’s area as submitted on Attachment A be made for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and for the purpose of defraying the expenses of promoting the City Centre, being the manufacture, purchase, obtaining and supply of promotional and souvenir material relating to the Council’s area, where such work or service in the opinion of Council would be of special benefit to the portion of Council’s area so defined, and in accordance with Section 543(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, this rate be named City Promotion Rate.
HERITAGE MALL PROMOTION RATE A special rate of one point two five eight six (1.2586) cents in the dollar to be the Heritage Mall Promotion Special Rate on the land value of all rateable land within the promotion of Council’s area described by metes and bounds and adopted by Council on 27 October, 1987, and advertised in the Government Gazette on 6 November, 1987 be made for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and for the purpose of defraying the expenses of executing the work or service, being the care, control and management of the High Street heritage Mall, being the manufacture, purchase, obtaining and supply of promotional and souvenir material relating to the Council’s area, where such work or service in the opinion of Council would be of special benefit to the portion of Council’s area so defined, and in accordance with Section 543(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, this rate be named Mall Rate.
HUNTER VALLEY CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT Council has now been advised that the rate for the 2001/2002 Hunter Valley Catchment Management is still to be determined by the Minister for Local Government. This rate is to be applied to all rateable land in the Trust District as referred to in Section 39 of the Catchment Management Trust Act, (1989) having a land value in excess of three hundred dollars ($300.00) and rateable under the provisions of the Local Government Act, (1993).
CBD CONSTRUCTION RATE A special rate of zero point seven four one seven (0.7417) cents in the dollar to be the CBD Rate on the land value of all rateable land within the promotion of Council’s area as submitted on Attachment B be made for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and for the purpose of providing infrastructure within the City Centre and in accordance with Section 543(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, this rate be named CBD Construction Rate.
Page 61 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
MAKING OF RATES AND CHARGES 2000/2001 (Cont.) 1. Charges
Domestic Waste Management Service
1.1. That Council provide a weekly domestic waste management service and a bi-weekly recycle service.
1.2. That Council make an annual charge for that service under Section 496 of the Local Government Act, (1993).
1.3. That the amount of that charge during the year commencing 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 for each parcel of rateable land for which the service is available be:
Vacant Land - $20.00 (2000/01- $20.00)
Occupied Land - $155.60 for each dwelling on that land (2000/01 – $140.10)
1.4. That under Section 543(3) of the Local Government Act 1993 the charge be named the “Domestic Waste Management Service Charge”.
2. Commercial Waste Management Service
2.1 That Council provide a weekly commercial waste management service to all occupied rateable properties categorised as Business and who have not entered into a contractual agreement for a trade waste collection service from a private contractor.
2.2 That Council make an annual charge for the use of that service under Section 502 of the Local Government Act 1993.
2.3 That the amount of that charge during the year commencing 1 July 2001 to the 30 June 2002 be twenty dollars and ninety cents ($20.90) per bin per month for that year. (2000/01 - $17.00)
2.4 That under Section 543(3) of the Local Government Act 1993 the charge be named the “Commercial Waste Management Service”.
3. Waste Management Services to Non Rateable Properties
3.1 Council provide a service comprising of the removal of garbage, stored in Maitland City Council’s 240 litre mobile garbage bin, on occupied lands that are exempt from rates under the Local Government Act 1993.
3.2 That Council make a charge for that service under Section 502 of the Local Government Act, 1993.
3.3 That the amount of that charge during the year commencing 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 be four dollars ($4.00) per service for each removal. (2000/01 - $4.00)
Page 62 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
MAKING OF RATES AND CHARGES 2000/2001 (Cont.) 3.4 That under Section 543(3) of the Local Government Act, 1993, the charge be named the “Non-Rateable Waste Management Service Charge”.
4. Interest Charges on Overdue Rates
Council are required to fix by resolution the rate of interest that will apply to our arrears of rates for the 2001/2002 rating period.
In accordance with Section 566(3) of the Local Government Act 1993 this rate be 11% being the maximum allowed by the Department of Local Government.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Adoption of the Rate is necessary for revenue to be raised in 2001/2002 as per the Budget adopted by Council.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no specific policy implications arising from this report.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS This report is as per Section 532 of the Local Government Act, 1993.
Page 63 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.4 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT GROUP
11.4.1 FEEDBACK ON THE MAITLAND ENVIRO YOUTH FORUM
FILE NO: 55/7
Responsible Officer: Brad Everett Group Manager Planning & Environment
AUTHOR: Lana Collison Landcare Coordinator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides background and feedback on the annual Maitland Enviro Youth Forum.
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
THAT: 1. This report be received and noted with respect to the outcomes of the 2001 Maitland Enviro Youth Forum.
2. Council note the views expressed through the Enviro Youth Forum evaluation survey when developing local environment policies.
3. Council maintain its support for the Maitland Enviro Youth Forum.
REPORT The fifth annual Maitland Enviro Youth Forum was held on Wednesday 16th May. The forum attracted 140 high school students from Maitland LGA, as well as some from surrounding regions.
The forum was held at CB Alexander Agricultural College and involved contributions from a broad range of community, corporate and government organisations. The theme for the forum was ‘Challenging Ecological Ideas’ and feedback from the forum indicates that young citizens of Maitland are eager to be challenged and engaged by environmental activities.
Students at the forum participated in practical workshops designed to provide them with skills and tools to address environmental issues. Eleven workshops were presented at the forum, they included:
• Greening Australia - A look at the Hunter’s wild foods • Hunter Organic Growers - How to make your own no dig garden • Taronga Zoo Mobile Education Centre – Grow your own wildlife
Page 64 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Feedback on the Maitland Enviro Youth Forum (Cont.) • The Wetlands Centre – Running a school environmental audit • Newcastle University – Frogs of the Lower Hunter Valley
Other features of the forum were environmental displays; a series of short environmental films; inspiring speeches by EYC members; and entertainment provided by local band ‘Kyah’ and Aboriginal dance group ‘The Metford Jarjums’.
Maitland Council was the major sponsor of the 2001 Enviro Youth Forum, however, resource assistance was also provided by CB Alexander Agricultural College, the Hunter Catchment Management Trust and Hunter Water Corporation. Further assistance was also provided by over fifteen other organisations involved in natural resource management, through the presentation of workshops or setting up displays.
Positive feedback from the forum has demonstrated the day’s success, the student evaluation surveys indicated that over 95% of participants enjoyed the forum.
As part of the survey students attending the forum were asked to put forward their ideas and concerns regarding their local environment. A summary of the results of this survey are presented below:
The nine most common answers to the question, “What local environmental issues concern you?” included:
1. Loss of bushland in Maitland due to urban and industrial development; 2. Pollution of air, water and soil; 3. Saving native wildlife, in particular threatened species; 4. Waste reduction and recycling, including litter problems; 5. Logging in native forests; 6. Water quality in rivers and streams; 7. Loss of wildlife habitat; 8. Lack of public interest and action in the environment; and 9. Energy, including the use of fossil fuels.
Students were then asked for ideas on how to deal with these issues, their five most common answers were:
1. Community education and awareness; 2. Community involvement and activism; 3. On-ground action like Landcare; 4. Personal actions such as using public transport or taking shorter showers; and 5. Lobby governments.
It is worth noting that only half the students answered this question indicating that many young people possess a keen awareness of our environmental problems but lack the knowledge and skills to address these issues.
Page 65 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Feedback on the Maitland Enviro Youth Forum (Cont.) The most common answers to the question, “How can we involve more people in addressing environmental issues?” included: • Advertising and promotion; • More forums; • Community education; • Education of school children; and • Leading by example.
Finally, over half of the students at the forum said they had heard of local environmental initiatives including the Maitland Environmental Youth Council and Landcare, and 35 students indicated they were interested in becoming members of the Maitland Environmental Youth Council.
BACKGROUND The Maitland Enviro Youth Forum is an annual event, which involves students from Maitland’s high schools:
• Maitland Grossmann High School • Maitland High School • Rutherford Technology High School • Francis Greenway High School • Hunter Valley Grammar School • All Saints College – St Josephs, St Peters and St Marys Campus
The Maitland Environmental Youth Council (EYC) guides the content and organisation of the event, and subsequently, the forum encompasses issues and activities of interest to youth. The forum acts as a pathway for young people to learn more about local environmental issues and become actively involved in improving our environment.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS It is recommended that Council maintain its annual contribution towards the Maitland Enviro Youth Forum to the value of $2500.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications under the Local Government Act 1993 with this matter.
Page 66 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.4.2 MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVE - LOCHINVAR/RAWORTH SEWAGE
FILE NO: 55/2
Responsible Officer: Brad Everett Group Manager Planning and Environment
Author: David Simm Manager Environmental Programs
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report recommends that Council make representation to the State Member, Hon. John Price, to identify the availability for the Hunter Water Corporation to allocate funding from this announcement towards providing sewage to areas of Maitland such as Lochinvar Raworth and parts of Bolwarra. This advocacy is in accordance with Councils’ Management Plan 2000/2001. Increased funding for Natural Resource Management, particularly in respect to Salinity and Water Management, have been announced by the State Government as part of the State Budget 2001.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT Council makes representation to the State member, Hon. John Price, Department of Land and Water Conservation and the Hunter Water Corporation to pursue funding opportunities for the connection of Lochinvar, Raworth and Bolwarra as part of the State Governments Natural Resource Management 2001/2002 funding.
REPORT These funds made available through the State Budget are to be distributed through the Department of Land and Water Conservation, on a statewide basis, and are to focus on the problems associated with salinity. A specific allocation has been made to accelerate a number of water supply and sewage schemes for country towns across the State. On a local basis, consultation with Hunter Water Corporation as the service provider is necessary.
To date, written communication to these agencies has been made to express Council’s interest in the allocation of funding within the Maitland Local Government area.
If successful it would be hoped that sewer connection to the nominated areas would help reduce a number of environmental and public health issues associated with a dense population of on site wastewater disposal systems, including the impact of increased salinity within the catchment.
Information from the Department of Land and Water Conservation has demonstrated that the threat of salinity in the areas of Lochinvar and Raworth are high. An
Page 67 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Management Plan Objective - Lochinvar/Raworth Sewage (Cont.) identified reason for these levels is that the salts in these soils are highly mobile and an increase in groundwater, through on-site sewage disposal, will only continue to exacerbate the problem.
As part of Councils’ advocacy of the need to provide augmentation of the existing HWC sewage system for its’ community and given the recent increase in State Government funding in the next year it is appropriate that formal representation by Councillors and staff be made.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward estimates.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This action is inaccordance with the 2000/2001 Management Plan.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Whilst Council is not the statutory authority charged with the provision of Water Supply and Sewage Systems, the Local Government Act 1993,provides Council with the authority to issue directional orders to connect to such systems if the are reasonably provided. This action also supports the principles of ESD required by the Local Government Act 1993 .
Page 68 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.4.3 REGULATION OF SKATEBOARDS IN PUBLIC PLACES
FILE NO: 122/909
Responsible Officer: Brad Everett Group Manager Planning and Environment
AUTHOR: DAVID SIMM MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report outlines the regulatory powers Council has to address the problems associated with the use of skateboards, roller blades and the like on footpaths, Council Roads and public areas.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
THAT: Council resolve to:
1. Obtain and erect appropriate warning signage at applicable locations
2. Implement a community education and media strategy which identifies the potential dangers and alternate approved areas for this activity
3. Exercise its authority under the Local Government Act, 1993 in respect to the giving of recorded warnings for first offenders and subsequent issue of Penalty Infringement Notices under Section 632.The provisions of Section 633A which require the service of summons be used when the circumstances warrant
4. Exercise its rights of confiscation under Section 681A of the Local Government Act 1993 only in exceptional circumstances and in the company of the Police or other appropriate witness
REPORT Over the past months there has been an increased incidence of nuisance created by the use of skateboards and the like in public place areas.
In particular, concerns have been raised as to the conflict between pedestrians and skateboard users in the Rutherford Shopping Centre and Central Maitland.
Council’s enforcement officers have regularly attended these areas as a result. This action has been on a “walk the beat” basis, thus acting as a deterrent whilst they are in the vicinity. This reactive approach results from the general duties nature of Councils Rangers. Their functions are numerous and varied and they are not always
Page 69 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Regulation of Skateboards in Public Places (Cont.) able to provide quality time to one problem in one part of the City at the expense of another important need elsewhere.
Unfortunately, in policing these incidents of misdemeanour, the role of the Ranger is not always respected by the public and offenders. It is usual that when in the vicinity the skateboard users do not generally offend. This leads to frustration on behalf of all parties and usually draws the ire of the complainant that Council Officers are not upholding the law.
Further difficulty has arisen where on interviewing offenders and requesting particulars, false or erroneous details have been provided. In the exercise of any regulatory function correct details are necessary so that fines or summons may be properly served. The Local Government Act provides that it is an offence to refuse to give or to give misleading information on request of an authorised officer of Council. When circumstances warrant Council Officers enlist the help of the Police to ascertain relevant details at time of interview. It is also relevant to say that Rangers have no special powers of arrest in circumstances where misleading information is provided.
As the problems appear to be continuing it is timely that Council consider the powers it may exercise and to the extent it may wish to enforce the available regulations.
Currently, legislation enabling regulation and/or prohibition exists in the Australian Road Rules (ARR) and Local Government Act 1993.
Under the provisions of the ARR, specifically rules 240-243, the use of recreational devices and wheeled toys on a footpath may constitute an offence provided appropriate signposting stating “separated footpath” and explanation of offences have been erected.
Section 632 of the Local Government Act 1993 relates to signs erected by Council and provides that ‘a person who, in a public place within the area of a Council, fails to comply with the terms of a notice erected by the Council is guilty of an offence’. The maximum penalty for this offence is 5 penalty units ($550) and is also enforceable through a PIN (Penalty Infringement Notice) of $110.
Signage prohibiting the use of skateboards etc. are erected in the Heritage Mall and the Rutherford Shopping Centre, although they are generally used as a warning to offenders to move out of the area and may not extend to the areas that are being used by the riders.
Section 633A of the Local Government Act, 1993 relates specifically to the use of skateboards, roller blades and roller skates. It states that “a person who, in a public place, uses skating equipment so as to obstruct, annoy, inconvenience or cause danger to any other person in that place is guilty of an offence”. The maximum penalty is 5 penalty units ($550) but does not currently have a PIN. As such the matter must be dealt with through issuing a summons to the offender to appear before the local magistrate.
Page 70 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Regulation of Skateboards in Public Places (Cont.) In terms of Section 633A there is no legislative requirement to erect signage, as the offence is the actual proof that the obstruction, annoyance etc has been caused, hence the reason for appearance before a magistrate to rule on the particulars of the case.
In terms of all three (3) possible provisions a PIN or summons maybe issued to anyone 10 years of age or older (as prescribed under the Justices Act for such offences). The practice however, adopted by a number of Councils, and as suggested by the Department of Local Government, is to use the penalty provisions where necessary for anyone over the age of 14 years
Section 681A of the Local Government Act provides for the powers of confiscation. This section identifies the circumstances under which Council may take possession of such equipment.
Skating equipment may only be confiscated if on the direction of an authorised officer the person using the equipment fails to stop or continues to use it in contravention of a directive and in all cases, possession, must be made without force. In using these powers it is important that the confiscation be supervised for both parties sakes. It would seem prudent that if such action became necessary then the assistance of the police be called to provide that observational authority and to assist if that action was seen as provocative.
Such equipment must be returned to the person from whom it was taken or be delivered to a public pound (within the meaning of the Impounding Act 1993) within twenty four (24) hours after possession is taken. This equipment is returnable on demand of the owner if taken to a public pound.
All regulatory options should be supported by appropriate public education and media releases. If through these avenues the incidence of the problems are reduced then enforcement and penalties will be minimised. It is also important from the communities perspective that Councils action to curb the problems are known and understood.
Given the continuation of this problem it is suggested that a review of the existing placement of signs and wording be undertaken and where necessary further judiciously placed advices be erected.
Secondly, that the use of this equipment and the potential hazards be reinforced by way of media releases, pamphlets and communication between Council Officers and skateboard users whilst patrolling the known areas.
Thirdly, that Council Rangers exercise the available provisions of the Local Government Act and where necessary issue a PIN under the provisions of this Act. The confiscation of equipment be used only in exceptional circumstances and with the assistance of the Police.
Councillors should nonetheless be aware that whilst enforcement as contemplated by the Act and Rules is available, such action will inevitably draw publicity which will, depending on the slant, be favourable or otherwise to Councils response to this Page 71 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Regulation of Skateboards in Public Places (Cont.) matter. It is appropiate for Council to decide its position so that Officers are aware of the manner in which this problem needs to be regulated.
These actions are consistent with the procedure followed by neighbouring Councils who are also faced with dealing with issue from time to time.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Costs may be incurred if additional uniform signage is required. However, this will be accommodated within the existing budget.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This report will become the policy of council in respect to the regulation on the use of skateboards or the like within Council controlled public places.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications under the Local Government Act 1993 with this matter.
Page 72 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.4.4 TRANSFER OF STREET PARKING RESPONSIBILITIES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FILE NO: 24/1
ATTACHMENTS: (2) LGSA LETTER
NSW POLICE SERVICE LETTER
Responsible Officer: Brad Everett Group Manager Planning and Environment
Author: David Simm Manager Environmental Programs
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to enable Council to consider the State Governments proposal to transfer Parking Police Officers (PPO’s) and the functions of street parking enforcement to Local Government.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
THAT: 1. Council investigate the opportunities of undertaking the functions of on street parking by formal approach to the Commissioner of Police.
2. A further report be presented to Council identifying actual costs and expected revenue of employment of a Parking Patrol Officer on a full time basis.
3. Decline the offer from Cessnock City Council at this stage.
BACKGROUND The State Government through the Police Service has been responsible for the enforcement of street parking restrictions utilising Parking Police Officers employed by it. Some Council’s throughout the State have undertaken street parking enforcement after the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding and training of appropriate staff.
Late last year an approach was made to the Local Area Commander to ascertain whether Maitland City Council might enter such an arrangement. The response at that stage was to highlight the Governments’ intention to divest the function and that it was appropriate to consider the outcomes of that action. Given that response the matter was left in abeyance till now.
Page 73 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Transfer of Street Parking Responsibilities to Local Government (Cont.) The NSW Cabinet has announced that from July 1, 2001 responsibility for control of street parking would be transferred to Local Government. As a result, PPO’s would be transferred from the NSW Police Service to nominated Councils
It is understood that overriding responsibility for events where discrete issues of safety, criminality and anti-social behaviour arise will remain with the NSW Police Service and that police officers will continue to issue parking infringement notices as and when required. The Infringement Processing Bureau will continue to deal with parking infringement notices issues by all authorities.
The Local Government Association of NSW (LGA) has advised that the proposal is that the existing 198 PPO’s be absorbed by the 50 Councils that currently have PPO’s allocated to their area. Maitland City Council is not identified as having an allocation. The patrolling of Maitland was being carried out by a PPO that has for the purposes of this divestment process been attached to Cessnock City Council. Due to illness the function has not been performed in recent years. in either Council area. The PPO allocated to the Cessnock Council has historically been responsible (with another PPO) for an area extending from Wollombi to Murrurundi and Nelson Bay.
The Local Government Association has also been negotiating with the State Treasury and the Police Service for a desired outcome of neutral financial impact on Local Government as a result of the transfer. It would now appear that such an outcome is close to realisation as evidenced by the presentation of a proposed agreement to a meeting on the 24 May 2001.(A copy of the proposed agreement is provided with this report).It is understood that there is agreement in principle from all parties with a high expectation that such will be formalised by 1 July 2001.
Cessnock Council have written to both Maitland and Singleton Councils to determine whether or not there is interest in sharing employment of a Parking Patrol Officer.
A meeting of officers of each of the three Councils has been held to discuss this proposal. The main issues for consideration are as follows:
1. The PPO will be transferred to Cessnock Council as a permanent employee of that organization. 2. Revenue raised from parking enforcement to be retained by Cessnock Council or apportioned to Maitland and Singleton depending on whether or not service agreements are reached; 3. In the event revenue does not cover the costs of employing the PPO the State Government will allocate $450,000 each year for a five (5) year period to assist in covering expenses. The fund is to be managed by the LGA and Council’s will need to make annual submissions to access the fund; 4. Cessnock Council believes that in order to ensure sufficient income to cover estimated costs associated with the ongoing employment of a PPO it is desirable to investigate whether or not Maitland and Singleton are interested in a share arrangement of the PPO service; 5. Cessnock Council has estimated expenditure for the first year of employment of the PPO as $134,350.This estimate includes salary, initial vehicle purchase, vehicle running costs and SEINS costs (these are fees charged by the Infringement Processing Bureau to administer the issue of infringement notices) Page 74 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Transfer of Street Parking Responsibilities to Local Government (Cont.) 6. Income has been estimated at $183,000 which is derived from the issuing of 3000 parking infringement notice at an average cost of $61.00 (this estimate has been calculated by Cessnock based on information of patrol income for their area, provided as part of there discussions)
Parking continues to be a matter of concern within the community The Community Survey for December 2000 undertaken by Novena Marketing identified that unprompted responses focussed significantly on “more Parking”. One way of providing parking options is to maintain a steady flow of users by enforcing time restrictions.
The report prepared by PPK Environment and Infrastructure “Maitland CBD – Parking and Traffic Study (1998)” provides some data on illegal parking at that time.
Table – Length of Stay Location Time Restriction Average Length of 85% Length of Stay Stay On Street Parking 5 minute 12 minutes 7 minutes 15 minute 15 minutes 19 minutes 30 minute 40 minutes 43 minutes 1 hour 25 minutes 37 minutes 2 hour 41 minutes 61 minutes Unrestricted 71 minutes 105 minutes No 10 minutes 7 minutes Parking/Standing Off-Street Parking Pender Place 3 hour 68 minutes 105 minutes Stilsbury Unrestricted 147 minutes 435 minutes Franklins 3 hour 97 minutes 150 minutes K-Mart1 3 hour 98 minutes 160 minutes K-Mart2 3 hour 76 minutes 115 minutes Cinema 4 hour 73 minutes 165 minutes
Page 75 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Transfer of Street Parking Responsibilities to Local Government (Cont.)
Table - Illegal Parking Location Time Number % % Exceeding Time Limit Restriction of Cars Exceeding Parked# Time Limit 30 60 120 minutes minutes minutes On-Street Parking 5 minute 31 >15% 3% 0% 0% 15 minute 92 27% 5.5% 0% 0% 30 minute 51 59% 8% 2% 1% 1 hour 1244 6.9% 1.7% 0.5% 0.2% 2 hour 432 4.5% 3.2% 1.9% 1.7% Unrestricted 156 0% 0% 0% 0% Off-Street Parking Pender 3 hour 707 6% 4% 3% 2% Place Stilsbury Unrestricted 319 0% 0% 0% 0% Franklins 3 hour 492 10% 8% 6% 5% K-Mart1 3 hour 603 13% 11% 9% 6% K-Mart2 3 hour 1574 6% 4% 3% 2% Cinema 4 hour 431 3% 3% 2% 2% # - number of surveyed cars parked during the 10 hour survey period
This report identifies that there exists 4017 available spaces within the Maitland City Centre of which approximately 29% (1164 spaces) are on street allocations. About 26% (303 spaces) of all on street parking spaces are short stay most of which are subject to time limits up to two hours.
Options There are a number of options available to Council. One is to link with Cessnock, another is to employ a fulltime person and of course it may be valid to do nothing.
Council can consider the offer of sharing the resource to be allocated to Cessnock Council as part of the hand over. The cost of undertaking this joint arrangement would be based on our utilisation of the officer. Cessnock have indicated that they would take responsibility for the management of the position in terms of salary administration, disciplinary matters and general employee relationships. Maitland and or Singleton would enter a service agreement which would establish our utililisation of the PPO, payments, and support.
During discussions it has been indicated that the position would be available to Maitland two to three days a week. This arrangement would be formally rostered to allow for peak flows between the participant Councils . Secondly, Council may pursue a course whereby we step outside this divestment process and seek to enter a Memorandum of Understanding with the Police Commissioner and employ a suitably qualified person to perform the duties. This approach would take Council outside of some of the revenue protection programs
Page 76 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Transfer of Street Parking Responsibilities to Local Government (Cont.) established between the LGA and Police Services. However it would allow for the dedication of the function wholly to Maitland City Council
This option would allow for a work structure that potentially provides for alternate spread of hours and could support weekend work of agreed enforcement functions. At present Rangers undertake patrols of the major CBD off street car parks under Council control. This function accounts for approximately 20% of the general duties of the West District Ranger. In the past Twelve month report period a total of 475 infringements were issued with revenue of $20,775(This figure is actual income returned to Council after deducting the IPB service charge of $17.50 per infringement)
It is difficult to calculate income that could be reasonably expected from on street parking enforcement. It is possible to suggest that with added parking spaces and increased man hours dedicated to this function that income would reasonably cover expenses, based on existing off street parking enforcement.
The other advantage employment of a suitable officer would have is in respect to the regular patrol of commercial areas in terms of regulating street trading, skateboard riders, busking and other public place disturbance or problems.
This option however would not allow access to the “top up fund” managed by the Department of Local Government as it has been set up to provide security for those Councils required to assimilate the transfer of responsibility of the function.
The third option is for Council do resolve to not enter into this function. It is considered that if Council intends on not providing this enforcement service it is unlikely to be provided by another party.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The estimated cost for Cessnock Council to employ a Parking Patrol Officer in the first year is $134,350 The costs include salary, employee on costs, provision for overtime, uniforms, purchase of vehicle, training, purchase of electronic recording equipment and infringement notice processing costs of $52,050.Maitland Councils share would be based on our utilisation of the position as a percentage.
Similar costs fully funded by Maitland would apply, with option two. Although costs for vehicles may differ depending on plant utilisation within the enforcement team.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter would establish the policy of enforcement of On Street Parking
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no Statutory Implications under the Local Government Act 1993 with this matter.
Page 77 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.4.5 0010024 TO CONVERT AN EXISTING RESIDENCE INTO A DOCTORS SURGERY, LOT 13 DP 218786 AND LOT 103 DP 623458, 7 ARTHUR STREET, RUTHERFORD RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL
FILE NO: 010024
ATTACHMENTS: (4) LOCALITY PLAN PLANS OF PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION CORRESPONDENCE – HILL TOP PLANNERS CORRESPONDENCE – HILL TOP PLANNERS CORRESPONDENCE – HILL TOP PLANNERS
Responsible Officer: Alison McGaffin Manager Development Services
Author: Tanya Gurieff Town Planner
Applicant: Hill Top Planners
Location: 7 Arthur Street Rutherford
Zone: 2(a) Residential
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant proposes to convert an existing dwelling in the 2(a) Residential zone at Rutherford into a doctors surgery with associated car parking. Business premises are prohibited in the 2(a) Residential zone and the applicant has requested Council consider the use of clause 46 of the Maitland Local Environmental Plan 1993 (LEP) to allow a 20 metre variation to the zone boundary with the adjoining 3(a) General Business zone. However, the zone variation required to include the entire site is more than 20 metres, and the applicant is also seeking a variation to the twenty (20) metre standard under the provisions of SEPP1 to overcome this difference.
Council sought a legal opinion in relation to the application of SEPP 1 to vary the twenty (20) metre distance specified in clause 46. On the basis of the legal opinion, it is considered that clause 46 is not amenable to the provisions of SEPP 1, as this clause is not a development standard. Consequently, it is advised that the development is prohibited in the zone and Council should, as a matter of law, refuse development consent.
Page 78 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
0010024 to convert and existing residence into a Doctors Surgery, Lot 13 DP 218786 and Lot 103 DP 623458, 7 Arthur Street, Rutherford Recommendation: Refusal (Cont.) The proposal was scheduled for consideration at Council’s Approvals and Regulatory Committee meeting held on 13 March 2001. However, the item was withdrawn at the request of the applicant. The applicant has subsequently requested that the previous recommendation of refusal be reviewed and has provided additional supporting information particularly addressing each of the proposed reasons for refusal. This information has been included and assessed as part of this report. Since then the applicant has submitted further information to Council regarding social impact and economic assessment which has also been included and assessed as part of this report.
It should be noted, however, that this information relates to merits matters that do not now arise given that clause 46 is not amenable to the operation of SEPP 1. An assessment of this information has been included in this report, however, to demonstrate that the proposal is not desirable, in any case, on either the merit matters to be considered by the Council in the application of clause 46 or the general discretionary merit matters to be considered by the Council pursuant to Section 79C of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.
It is further advised that on 18th June, 2001 Dr P J Ashley forwarded a petition with 982 signatures “in support of the translocation of West Maitland Medical Practice, form East Mall Rutherford to 7 Arthur Street, Rutherford”. The petition may be viewed by Councillors by contacting the Group Manager Planning and Environment or the Development Services Manager.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
THAT: 1. Development Application 010024 to convert an existing dwelling into a Doctors Surgery on Lot 13, DP 218786 and Lot 103 DP 623458, 7 Arthur Street Rutherford be refused for the following reasons:
(a) The proposed development of a Business Premises in the 2(a) Residential zone is prohibited under Maitland Local Environmental Plan 1993.
(b) The application of SEPP 1 to Clause 46 of Maitland Local Environmental Plan 1993 is contrary to law.
2. The “petition” in support of the translocation of the West Maitland Medical Practice from East Mall Rutherford to 7 Arthur Street, Rutherford” be received and noted.
Page 79 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
0010024 to convert and existing residence into a Doctors Surgery, Lot 13 DP 218786 and Lot 103 DP 623458, 7 Arthur Street, Rutherford Recommendation: Refusal (Cont.) REPORT
THE SITE The subject site totals approximately 833m2 in area. The land slopes from Arthur Street to the south. A four (4) bedroom weatherboard and tile dwelling with some landscaping exists on the site.
The site immediately adjoins the Rutherford Shopping Centre. The Rutherford Community Centre, Maitland City Bowling Club and the Rutherford Childcare Centre immediately adjoin the site, with a dwelling house situated on the property to the east.
PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to convert the existing four (4) bedroom dwelling into a medical centre comprising three (3) surgeries. (Refer Attachment 2) The proponents currently operate from leased premises in the Rutherford Shopping Centre and find the current premises unsuitable due to their need for extra space and dedicated parking for doctors. The current practice employs three (3) full time doctors and five (5) support staff.
The development will comprise three (3) surgeries, waiting room, office, toilets, staff facilities, sick bay and parking area for ten (10) cars including one disabled parking space. The total floor space of the dwelling is 192m². The external appearance of the building will remain unaltered apart from some minor changes to the site to accommodate the proposed car parking area.
The proposed hours of operation for the medical centre are as follows:
Monday – Friday : 8am – 8pm;
Saturday: 9am – 1pm
PLANNING ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed under the relevant matters for consideration detailed in Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as follows:
Section 79C(1)(a)(i) provisions of any environmental planning instrument
LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN The subject site is zoned 2(a) Residential pursuant to Maitland LEP 1993. Maitland LEP 1993 does not have a separate definition for Doctors Surgery and as such they are defined as “Business Premises”. Business Premises means “a building or place in which there is carried on an occupation, profession, light industry or trade which provides a service directly and regularly to the public, but does not include a building or place elsewhere defined in this clause”. Business premises are prohibited in the
Page 80 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
0010024 to convert and existing residence into a Doctors Surgery, Lot 13 DP 218786 and Lot 103 DP 623458, 7 Arthur Street, Rutherford Recommendation: Refusal (Cont.) 2(a) Residential zone. Clause 46 of the LEP makes provision for minor variations to zoning boundaries. The subject land is adjoined by land zoned 3(a) General Business and Business Premises are permissible in that zone. The applicant has requested that Council consider the application under clause 46 of the Maitland LEP as follows:
“46. Are minor variations of zoning boundaries permitted?
1. This clause applies to land that is within 20 metres of a boundary between any 2 zones. 2. Subject to subclause (3), development may with the consent of Council, be carried out on land to which this clause applies for any purpose for which development may be carried out in the adjoining zone on the other side of the boundary. 3. The Council shall not consent to development referred to in subclause (2) unless the development is desirable, in the opinion of the Council, due to design, ownership, servicing or other planning considerations.”
In this regard Council must consider whether the development is desirable in accordance with clause 46 in regard to design, ownership, servicing and other considerations. If the Council is of the opinion that the proposed development is desirable on the specified criteria, the development can with the consent of Council be carried out on that part of adjacent land in an adjoining zone which is within 20 metres of the boundary of the two zones.
However, the proposed development site exceeds the 20 metres in clause 46 by 3.8 metres. The applicant is seeking a variation to the twenty (20) metre distance specified in clause 46 under SEPP No. 1 to overcome this difference.
As will be described in further detail below, Council has obtained a legal opinion that indicates that Council is unable at law to apply provisions of SEPP 1 to the 20 metre distance fixed by clause 46 of Maitland Local Environmental Plan 1993. Consequently, the merit matters to be considered by the Council in the application of clause 46 as outlined in point 3 above, do not now arise.
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN Not relevant
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES The applicant has applied for a State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 1 variation to extend the 20 metre standard under clause 46 to 23.8 metres. SEPP 1 allows development standards to be varied where strict compliance with such standards can be shown to be unreasonable or unnecessary. Council is required to determine that the objection is well founded and consistent with the aims of SEPP 1. The justification presented by the applicant relates to the minor nature of the variation being only 52m² in size and represents 6.2% of the total area of the site.
Page 81 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
0010024 to convert and existing residence into a Doctors Surgery, Lot 13 DP 218786 and Lot 103 DP 623458, 7 Arthur Street, Rutherford Recommendation: Refusal (Cont.) However, Council has received a legal opinion relating to the application of SEPP 1 to clause 46. “Development standards” are defined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as “provisions of an environmental planning instrument or the regulations in relation to the carrying out of development, being provisions by or under which requirements are specified or standards are fixed in respect of any aspect of that development, including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, requirements or standards in respect of” – (fourteen aspects of development are listed). The aims and objectives (clause 3) of SEPP 1 is to “provide flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards…".
In respect to the above definition, the application of SEPP 1 cannot be applied to clause 46 as it is not a development standard. The provisions of clause 46 are not a specified requirement in respect of any aspect of a development nor does it relate to the carrying out of any particular aspect of a development. Clause 46 influences the permissibility of the use in the Residential zone and not to requirements or standards concerning the implementation of the development. It is the manner in which clause 46 varies the zoning, that prevents it from being categorised as a development standard.
The proposal to convert the dwelling into a doctors surgery applies to the whole land which is 23.8 metres wide. It is not possible for Council to grant consent for part of the application or an impractical section of the land. Therefore, at law, Council is unable to approve the application through the application of the provisions of SEPP 1 to the 20 metre distance fixed by clause 46 of the Maitland LEP 1993.
Legal Precedent
Review has been undertaken of relevant case law in relation to the application of SEPP 1. In Napper v Shoalhaven City Council (1988) Mr. Justice Stein explained the application of SEPP 1 and his interpretation of “development standards”. In this case, Council refused the erection of a dwelling on flood liable rural land. Clause 15(2) of the Shoalhaven LEP states that Council may refuse the erection of the dwelling “unless the dwelling house is essential for the proper and efficient management of agricultural use of the land”. As the land was only 1012m² in size, it was argued that it could not be used for agricultural purposes and therefore strict compliance with the LEP was “unreasonable or unnecessary”.
In this case, it was found that the relevant clause in the LEP does not contain a development standard as it relates to the permissibility of the use and the development rather than the implementation of the development and in the manner in which the development is to be carried out. The Council submitted that “….to allow SEPP 1 to be used to vary clause 15(2) would be tantamount to altering the uses permitted under the zoning. As has often been pointed out this can only be done by the plan making process and not by an objection under SEPP 1.”
Page 82 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
0010024 to convert and existing residence into a Doctors Surgery, Lot 13 DP 218786 and Lot 103 DP 623458, 7 Arthur Street, Rutherford Recommendation: Refusal (Cont.) The Court ruled, “…clause 15(2) does not contain a development standard as defined. It follows that SEPP 1 cannot apply. Accordingly, I refuse the declaration and application is dismissed with costs.”
Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition Not relevant
Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) any development control plan Development Control Plan (DCP) No. 21 – Outdoor Advertising and DCP No. 24 Accessible Living apply to the site. Signs have not been included as part of this application. DCP No. 24 has been adequately addressed as accessibility of the development is possible by the installation of a ramp into the surgery, a disabled car park and a disabled toilet to allow easy access in and around the medical centre.
Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph) Not relevant
Section 79C(1)(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 It is considered that the proposed development will have an unacceptable impact within the locality in relation to increase traffic generation, inadequate parking facilities for patients and the viability of the Rutherford Shopping Centre.
The development proposes the construction of ten car parking spaces. The applicant proposes nine (9) spaces at the rear of the dwelling and a disabled parking space in the front. The parking layout shows that it would be impossible for a vehicle to manoeuvre out of the eastern most parking space. This reduces the number of functional spaces to eight (8) plus one (1) disabled parking space. In accordance with Council’s Car Parking Policy, one (1) space is required per 45m² gross floor area for commercial premises. The gross floor area of the proposed doctors surgery is 192m² and only 4.3 spaces are required. While the proposal may meet Council’s Car Parking requirements, the existing medical centre within the Rutherford Shopping Centre employs three (3) full time doctors and five (5) support staff. Accordingly, the proposed car parking area will potentially be taken up entirely for staff parking and the overflow will have to be absorbed either by the Council car park in the Shopping Centre or along Arthur Street. The arrangement is considered unacceptable as all development within the City of Maitland is required to provide adequate and functional car parking facilities.
“Professional Consulting Rooms” were previously separately defined and permissible with Council consent in the 2(a) Residential zone under Maitland LEP 1986. Council may recall that in the past, residential properties, particularly those close to existing commercial areas were converted to professional consulting rooms with no requirement for the doctor(s) to live on site. This resulted in the weakening of the
Page 83 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
0010024 to convert and existing residence into a Doctors Surgery, Lot 13 DP 218786 and Lot 103 DP 623458, 7 Arthur Street, Rutherford Recommendation: Refusal (Cont.) commercial areas and caused local traffic and parking problems for adjoining residents. Thus, Council decided to consider doctors surgeries and other medical centres as business premises which should be located in commercial zones like other professionals.
As part of Council’s review of the LEP 1986, Council decided not to discriminate in land use policy between medical and other professions and therefore, the definition of “professional consulting rooms” was deleted. As such, doctors surgeries and medical centres are no longer permissible in residential zones due to the potential detrimental impacts. Council determined that doctors surgeries should be located on Business zoned land to ensure the continued viability of identified commercial areas and to minimise local traffic and parking problems for adjoining residents.
Council may also note that there are thirteen (13) other residential properties which directly adjoin the Rutherford Shopping Centre and support for the current proposal would raise expectations that the "boundaries" of the Shopping Centre are subject to review.
This message would be contrary to the findings of the Rutherford Commercial Enhancement Study which were adopted by Council on 23rd August 2000. This Study contained one principal recommendation being “redevelopment”. The redevelopment option has the potential to address the trading and design aspects of the centre to benefit all landowners, stakeholders and residents of Rutherford and adjoining areas. The study specifically addressed proposed development on the corner of Arthur Street and the New England Highway. This study found that the Rutherford Shopping Centre already contains sufficient land to allow for:
• Consolidation of uses; • Modest expansion of retail floor space; • Additional commercial floor space; or • Complimentary leisure-related development.
In considering this development Council must have regard to the potential for cumulative impacts related to this type of development. Noise, hours of operation, access, parking and increased traffic generation will further exacerbate the impacts within the surrounding residential area. The proposal is considered a significant development in terms of potential impacts on the Rutherford Shopping Centre and the surrounding residential area. This type of development should be located on commercial zoned land because it is a commercial activity of moderate size, employing eight (8) staff members.
Section 79C(1)(c) the suitability of the site for the development The extent of the Rutherford Shopping Centre has been clearly defined by the 3(a) General Business zone under the LEP. The Rutherford Commercial Enhancement Study found that there is suitable land available within the existing Centre to cater for the expansion of commercial floor space. Therefore, this proposal has the opportunity to operate from within the Rutherford Shopping Centre.
Page 84 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
0010024 to convert and existing residence into a Doctors Surgery, Lot 13 DP 218786 and Lot 103 DP 623458, 7 Arthur Street, Rutherford Recommendation: Refusal (Cont.) The site is not subject to flooding or other hazards.
Section 79C (1)(d) any submissions made in accordance with this act or the regulations Public Submissions
The development application and accompanying information were placed on public exhibition for a period of 14 days from 11 January 2001 to 25 January 2001. As a result of the notification process, a total of two (2) submissions were received and are provided in Attachment 3 to this report.
The main issues raised by the objectors are summarised below and comment provided:
“The main problem is the parking arrangement as set out on the plan … It is on the proposal to have 3 doctors without office staff which would be at least 2 people, on the plan there are 9 car spaces at the rear, with a Disabled parking space which is only for the purpose as designed, in the front yard. Should the medical staff and doctors use the council car park which is in close proximity to 7 Arthur Street, this would overcome the problem”.
Planners Comment
Council is required to ensure that adequate car parking facilities are provided in association with development within the City of Maitland. This proposal is required to provide car parking on site. As discussed previously in this report, adequate parking will be provided in accordance with Council’s Car Parking Code. However, Council officers are also concerned that the number of parking spaces provided is insufficient for this type of proposal. With the number of staff employed combined with the potential number of clients visiting the surgery, the number of spaces provided will not adequately meet the demand generated by the development.
“As you are aware there are two medical centres in the centre, utilising the services of six doctors. To add another centre would diminish from our own businesses and instead of bringing people into an already controversial development, it would take them away. This in itself would be detrimental to our other business who lease their properties and run off medical centre trade.”
“This new application would do far more harm to the morale of all businesses in the Rutherford Centre. At this stage there are many vacant shops that are unable to be leased in the centre and this decision will only increase the problem. To grant this application would obviously detract from Council’s commitment to make the Rutherford Centre a viable community asset. It would also jeopardise hardworking individuals who depend on the centre for a living.”
Planner’s Comment
Page 85 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
0010024 to convert and existing residence into a Doctors Surgery, Lot 13 DP 218786 and Lot 103 DP 623458, 7 Arthur Street, Rutherford Recommendation: Refusal (Cont.)
The proposed development will be occupied by a doctor’s surgery, which currently operates within the Rutherford Shopping Centre. Accordingly, to grant approval to this application will obviously create another vacancy within the shopping centre. While the surgery may choose to relocate, Council should require that it be on land appropriately zoned.
As discussed previously in this report, Council has resolved to adopt the recommendations contained within the Rutherford Commercial Enhancement Study. The study specifically addresses the site located on the corner of Arthur Street and the New England Highway and the same principles should apply to the subject land given its location outside the core commercial area. The Study states that there is considerable undeveloped and underdeveloped land for the range of “business” uses within the Rutherford Shopping Centre precinct. The development of land outside the centre cannot be supported as an extension to the Rutherford Shopping Centre because the Centre contains sufficient land to allow for additional commercial floor space.
Submissions from Public Authorities
Not relevant
Section 79C (1)(e) the public interest The proposed development must be considered in light of the recently adopted Rutherford Commercial Enhancement Study as a relevant advisory document. This document has undergone significant input from local businesses to form a comprehensive view of the future development of Rutherford Shopping Centre. This document has been adopted by Council and to allow a development of this nature to be approved in such close proximity to the shopping centre would be contrary to the principles of the Study. The proposal is also inconsistent with Council’s previous decisions regarding similar matters and therefore it is not considered to be in the public interest to support this application.
Additional Information Submitted By The Applicant On 3 April 2001
This application was scheduled to be presented for determination at Council’s Approvals and Regulatory Committee meeting on 13 April 2001 with a recommendation that the application be refused. The applicant requested that the item be withdrawn from this meeting and has since submitted to Council, information addressing each of the merit objections to the proposal with a request that the earlier recommendation is reviewed. These comments are summarised below with comment provided. A full copy of the letter is provided as Attachment 4 to this report.
The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the commercial operation of the Rutherford Shopping Centre.
Page 86 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
0010024 to convert and existing residence into a Doctors Surgery, Lot 13 DP 218786 and Lot 103 DP 623458, 7 Arthur Street, Rutherford Recommendation: Refusal (Cont.) Planner’s Comment
The applicant has stated that this comment has not been substantiated by any fact and has provided examples of other commercial uses in the area, such as the Community Centre, the Bowling Club and the proposed Medical/Fast Food development on the corner of Arthur Street and the New England Highway, which may have an adverse impact on the commercial operation of the Rutherford Shopping Centre.
As discussed in this report, the proposed development is considered likely to weaken the commercial area of Rutherford and the above objection has been based on the findings of the Rutherford Commercial Enhancement Study which found that there is sufficient land within the existing shopping centre to cater for additional commercial uses. The applicant himself has stated further in his comments that his interpretation of the Rutherford Commercial Enhancement Study is that the Centre should be consolidated in its retail and commercial functions.
The proposed development is not considered desirable in accordance with clause 46 of MLEP due to planning considerations including the direct and cumulative impacts, traffic and parking problems.
Planner’s Comment
Cumulative impact The applicant has concluded that the other 13 properties could not utilise the provisions of clause 46 because of their size being more than 20 metres deep. The subject land is also more than 20 metres in width and the applicant has applied for a SEPP 1 variation to extend the 20 metre standard. As outlined in this report, Council as a matter of law should refuse consent of this application as SEPP 1 cannot be applied to clause 46 as it is not a “development standard” as required in SEPP 1.
Traffic and Parking Problems The applicant has stated that the proposal complies with Council’s Car Parking Policy and that the potential to increase traffic and parking problems in Arthur Street are without merit. As discussed in the report, the proposal does meet Council’s Car Parking Policy, however, Council planners remain concerned with the number of parking spaces proposed. The existing Rutherford Shopping Centre employs three (3) full time doctors and five (5) support staff. The proposed car parking area of eight (8) functional spaces plus one (1) disabled space will potentially be taken up entirely by staff parking. Therefore, the impact of increase traffic and parking generation is likely to cause problems and further exacerbate impacts within the surrounding residential area.
The type of development is inconsistent with Council’s Strategy to revitalise Rutherford Shopping Centre through the implementation of the Rutherford Commercial Enhancement Study
Page 87 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
0010024 to convert and existing residence into a Doctors Surgery, Lot 13 DP 218786 and Lot 103 DP 623458, 7 Arthur Street, Rutherford Recommendation: Refusal (Cont.) Planner’s Comment
The applicant’s reading of the Rutherford Commercial Enhancement Study is that the uses “which ‘do not support or enhance the Centre’ should not be supported outside of the existing 3(a) zone. The study, in specific reference to the proposed Arthur Street/NEH site, concluded that the Centre should be consolidated in its retail and commercial functions. No mention was made in respect to service function, i.e. medical services”.
It is somewhat unclear as to what the above means, however, it should be noted that only part of the Rutherford Commercial Enhancement Study is quoted. Quoting from the Study, “we conclude that this strip of property fronting the highway, east of Arthur Street, is not necessary for such development as it does not support or enhance the Rutherford Shopping Centre and because there is considerable undeveloped and underdeveloped land for a range of “business” uses within the Rutherford Shopping Centre precinct”.
As discussed in the report, doctors surgeries are defined as Business Premises in the Maitland LEP and the outcomes of the Study conclude that this type of development should not be supported outside the Rutherford Shopping Precinct.
The proposed development is inconsistent with the objective (a) of the 3(a) General Business zone
Planner’s Comment
The applicant has concluded, “the translocation of the surgery will not result in a larger number of patients having their prescriptions prepared outside the Centre, nor encourage them to shop outside the Centre. The relocation is consistent with the findings of the Study as it will assist in the creation of an environment conducive to the ‘redevelopment’ option gaining further support by commercial landowners who own vacant property. The proposed development will not reduce the commercial viability of the retail areas as the development will retain retail expenditure within the Centre”.
The Study clearly identifies sufficient land available within the Centre to cater for a number of uses including additional commercial floor space. The Study has been adopted by Council and does have support from the landowners and leasees within the Rutherford Shopping Centre. To create an additional vacancy within the Shopping Centre as a means of gaining further support for the ‘redevelopment’ option is unlikely to be popular with the landowners in the Centre.
Approval of the development would create an undesirable precedent
Page 88 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
0010024 to convert and existing residence into a Doctors Surgery, Lot 13 DP 218786 and Lot 103 DP 623458, 7 Arthur Street, Rutherford Recommendation: Refusal (Cont.) Planner’s Comment
The applicant states that the issue of the potential for the 13 adjoining properties to use clause 46 and the SEPP 1 variation for business or commercial purposes has already been addressed and provides no further comment.
The above issues have certainly been addressed previously in this report, particularly in relation to the legality of applying SEPP 1 to clause 46.
The proposed development will have a significant impact on the amenity of the locality
Planner’s Comment
The applicant has alleged that community objection to the proposal is low, support is high and that the impact on the amenity of the locality is also low. As previously discussed in this report, Council has considered it necessary to deal with the impacts caused by professional consulting rooms locating in residential zones in preparation for LEP 1993. As a result, Council deleted the definition of “professional consulting rooms” from the LEP 1986 due to the local traffic and parking problems for adjoining residents caused by these developments. It is likely that approval of this proposal would cause similar impacts on the adjoining residents.
The applicant on 22 April 2001 submitted to Council, information regarding social impact assessment in support of his request for Council to review the previous recommendation for refusal. These comments are summarised below with comment provided. A full copy of the letter is provided as Attachment 5 to this report.
Approval of 460m² Business Premises NEH/Arthur Street
The applicant has concluded that as a result of Council approving the amendment to the LEP in relation to land on the corner of Arthur Street and the New England Highway to permit commercial/business premises, then Council has adopted a policy which supports developments on residential zoned land located in close proximity to the Rutherford Shopping Centre provided that the floor area is less than 460m². The applicant has stated that the proposed Doctors Surgery is only 190m² in size and therefore, is unlikely to weaken the commercial area of Rutherford. The issue of this site and Council’s resolution at its meeting of 10 April 2001 has been discussed several times in this report and is considered to be adequately addressed.
Social Impact Assessment
The applicant finds that the Rutherford area has less medical facilities than other areas in the city and that the Maitland LEP should be flexible enough to allow doctor surgeries in residential zones and that clause 46 allows this to occur. The applicant continues to state that the Hunter Regional Environmental Plan requires Council to “administer planning instruments so as to the “optimum social and economic benefit to the community”.
Page 89 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
0010024 to convert and existing residence into a Doctors Surgery, Lot 13 DP 218786 and Lot 103 DP 623458, 7 Arthur Street, Rutherford Recommendation: Refusal (Cont.)
Planner’s Comment
The medical practice in question is currently located in the Rutherford Shopping Centre. In its assessment of the proposal, Council officers have considered the social and economic benefits of the surgery relocating to the proposed location. By allowing the surgery to relocate it will create another vacancy within the Centre, thus threatening the viability of the Centre. This in turn will create less employment opportunities within the centre and contribute to the high unemployment figures in the area. As discussed previously in this report, “Professional Consulting Rooms” were previously permissible with Council consent in the 2(a) Residential zone under Maitland LEP 1986. However, it was found that this resulted in the weakening of the commercial areas and caused local traffic and parking problems for adjoining residents. In making this decision Council has taken social aspects of these types of developments into account. Thus, Council decided to consider doctors surgeries and other medical centres as business premises which should be located in commercial zones like other professionals.
The applicant on 15 May 2001 submitted to Council, information regarding economic assessment in support of his request for Council to review the previous recommendation for refusal. These comments are summarised below with comment provided. A full copy of the letter is provided as Attachment 6 to this report.
General Practitioners
The applicant has alleged that based on his figures, there is a significant shortage of General Practitioners in the Maitland LGA, which is higher in the west than other areas of the City. Also, allegedly, the average age of doctors serving the west is over 55 years and doctors surgeries have a higher demand on labour than other professions which results in unlevel playing field between doctors and other service professional.
Planner’s comment
This proposal relates to the relocation of the doctors surgery within Rutherford and its proposed location in the Residential 2(a) zone. As discussed previously in the report, doctors surgeries are defined as “business premises” and Council in the past has made a decision not to discriminate between other businesses and doctors surgeries. These issues have already been adequately addressed.
Multiplier Effects
The applicant states that “Doctor’s surgeries are the only service business which generates a greater income for other commercial traders, than for themselves”. The applicant continues to state that doctors generate income and employment for other businesses, such as chemists and that unemployment could result for some of these other businesses should the doctors surgery relocate. The applicant goes on to state that the opportunities for business growth in Rutherford is limited, the cost of office
Page 90 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
0010024 to convert and existing residence into a Doctors Surgery, Lot 13 DP 218786 and Lot 103 DP 623458, 7 Arthur Street, Rutherford Recommendation: Refusal (Cont.) space is particularly high and apparently, due to regulation, doctors incomes are only average.
Planner’s comment
The applicant has stated that their clients have been offered other opportunities within the Centre to relocate however, have chosen not to. As previously discussed Council has adopted the Rutherford Commercial Enhancement Study which found that there is sufficient land within the Centre to allow for commercial floor space. Therefore, there are opportunities available to the doctors to expand however, they are not willing to take up these offers.
Rutherford Commercial Centre
The applicant states that their clients have been offered a number of vacant premises in the Rutherford Shopping Centre but cannot afford the rent or is the rent within their budget.
Planner’s comment
The comment regarding the financial status of the doctors is not part of this assessment.
The supplementary submission provided by the applicant on 3 April, 22 April and 14 May 2001 has been taken into consideration and the earlier recommendation for refusal has been reconsidered. It is nevertheless concluded that the proposal is not considered desirable on a merits based assessment. However, it is emphasised to Council that consideration of the merit matters do not fundamentally arise given that Council's legal opinion indicates that clause 46 is not amenable to the operation of SEPP 1. Consequently, it is advised that the development is prohibited in the zone and Council should as a matter of law refuse development consent.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS Approval of the application would be in conflict with the recommendations made in the Rutherford Commercial Enhancement Study.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Council is unable to approve this application as the proposed development is prohibited in the zone and the application of SEPP 1 is contrary to law.
However, should Council wish to support the application, the LEP would be required to be amended to allow business premises on the subject land and the following resolution would need to be made by Council:
Page 91 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
0010024 to convert and existing residence into a Doctors Surgery, Lot 13 DP 218786 and Lot 103 DP 623458, 7 Arthur Street, Rutherford Recommendation: Refusal (Cont.)
Pursuant to Section 54 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Council resolve to prepare and exhibit a draft Local Environmental Plan to allow a business premises, being a doctors’ surgery, on Lot 13 DP 218786 and Lot 103 DP 623458 pursuant to clause 48 of the Maitland Local Environmental Plan 1993.
CONCLUSION The proposed development to convert an existing dwelling into a doctors surgery has been assessed under the relevant heads of consideration in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended and is recommended refusal on the basis that the development is prohibited in the Residential zone.
In summary, Council should as a matter of law refuse consent to the application as it is not possible to apply the provisions of SEPP 1 to clause 46 of the Maitland Local Environmental Plan 1993.
Page 92 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.4.6 010678 CAFE AND RETAIL SHOP LOT 101 DP 867100, UNIT 2/145 SWAN STREET, MORPETH RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL.
FILE NO: 010678 ATTACHMENTS: (3) SITE PLAN LOCALITY PLAN SUBMISSIONS
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: ALISON MCGAFFIN MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AUTHOR: BELINDA SMITH TOWN PLANNER APPLICANT: B.L AND P. BURKE PROPOSAL: CAFE AND RETAIL SHOP LOCATION: UNIT 2/145 SWAN STREET, MORPETH ZONE: 3(A) GENERAL BUSINESS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Development consent is sought from Council for a Cafe and Retail Shop at Unit2/145 Swan Street, Morpeth. The subject land is zoned 3(a) General Business under Maitland Local Environmental Plan, 1993.
The application was publicly exhibited due to its location within the Morpeth Heritage Conservation Area and Council received four (4) submissions.
The proposed development is to use part of an approved retail shop as a café. A café is defined as a ‘Refreshment room’ and is a permissible form of development in the 3(a) General Business Zone with Council consent and is not inconsistent with the objectives of the zone.
This development has been assessed under the relevant heads of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended and is considered satisfactory.
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT:
010678 for a Café and Retail Shop on Lot 101, DP 867100 Unit 2/145 Swan Street, Morpeth be approved, subject to the conditions of consent set out in the attached schedule.
Page 93 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
010678 Cafe and Retail Shop Lot 101 DP 867100 Unit 2/145 Swan Street, Morpeth (Cont) REPORT
BACKGROUND Council considered the development of a first floor addition to the building at 145 Swan Street under DA 960646, at its meeting of the 3 September 1996. The development of a first floor addition consisted of approximately 84 sqm of floor area (including the balcony) for the use as a shop.
The proposed addition of this floor space required the provision of three (3) car parking spaces at the rate of 1car park/25 sqm of floor space. This requirement for car parking was considered as part of the assessment of this application and Council waived its provision at the meeting in 1996.
Consequently, the development proceeded and the first floor addition was constructed for use as a shop.
PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to continue to operate a retail shop for the sale of linen and gifts in addition to an associated café on the first floor balcony of the building.
The addition of the café component of the development is confined to the provision of coffee and light snacks as no food is cooked on the premises. The balcony is proposed to accommodate the café component of the shop by providing an area for seating of up to 25 customers.
The shop supports two (2) staff and will continue to trade seven (7) days a week between the hours of 10 am and 6pm daily.
No other changes to the operation of the existing retail shop or the building is proposed.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed under the relevant matters for consideration detailed in Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as follows:
Section 79C(1)(a)(i) provisions of any environmental planning instrument
LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN The subject land is zoned 3(a) General Business under Maitland Local Environmental Plan 1993. The proposed development is defined as a ‘Refreshment room’ that is a permissible land use in the 3(a) zone with Council consent. The proposal is not considered to be inconsistent with the zone objectives, as follows.
“a) To provide opportunities for the development of commercial uses which do not reduce the commercial viability of the core retail areas of the City.
Page 94 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
010678 Cafe and Retail Shop Lot 101 DP 867100 Unit 2/145 Swan Street, Morpeth (Cont) b) To ensure that the size and function of both retail and commercial facilities are established in accordance with Council’s preferred hierarchy of commercial centres for the City. c) To permit non-commercial development within the zone, where such development is compatible with the commercial character of the locality. d) To ensure that there is adequate provision for car parking facilities within the zone. e) To minimise conflicts between pedestrians and vehicular movement systems within the zone. f) To preserve the historic character of the City by protecting heritage items and by encouraging compatible development within and adjoining historic buildings and precincts.”
The proposed development seeks to provide an additional service to the local community and visiting public in Morpeth. The size and function of the café is considered appropriate to the site and the commercial viability of Morpeth as a Neighbourhood Centre within the City of Maitland.
The proposed development does not seek to extend or expand the retail area of the existing shop, as the café is to operate within the established retail floor area. Council, under the previous DA 960646 for construction of the shop, has already determined the provision of car parking for the total gross floor area of this building and its use as a shop.
The provision of car parking for a café within Morpeth is calculated at the same rate as a shop being 1car park/25 sqm of gross floor area. Therefore, the operation of a café within the existing shop requires the same number of car parking spaces as a standard shop and, consequently, no additional car parking is required for this use.
Regional Environmental Plan The development generally complies with the provisions of the Regional Environmental Plan.
State Environmental Planning Policies No State Environmental Planning Policies are directly relevant to this development. Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition The Draft Heritage LEP is relevant to the subject site as it is located within the Morpeth Heritage Conservation Area. However the provisions of the Draft LEP do not affect the proposed development, as no structural or aesthetic changes to the building are proposed. Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) any development control plan Development Control Plan (DCP) No.14 Morpeth and DCP No.34 Maitland Conservation and Design Guidelines apply to the site. However, as the proposal is confined to a change of use the provisions of these DCPs in regard to design and construction are not relevant.
Page 95 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
010678 Cafe and Retail Shop Lot 101 DP 867100 Unit 2/145 Swan Street, Morpeth (Cont) DCP No. 24 Accessible Living and DCP No.31 Energy Smart Homes also apply to the site. Accessibility has been addressed as part of the previous DA 960646 for the construction of the shop. Energy efficiency is not relevant to this proposal as the construction of the building and its design is not to be changed or altered in any way. Section 79C(1)(a)(iv)the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposed of this paragraph) Not relevant Section 79C(1)(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 proposed development will have a limited impact on the existing environment. To be operated from an existing retail shop, the proposed café and shop will not result in any changes to the structure or appearance of the existing building as the service area is confined to a single counter within the building.
All utility services are presently provided to the building. No external changes to the building are proposed and standard waste facilities are provided to the site as commercial premises. No change to the existing hours of operation is proposed and the development will take place completely within the building, therefore no noise or odour is expected from the additional café operation. Section 79C(1)(c) the suitability of the site for the development The subject site is established as a retail shop in the commercial area of Morpeth. The proposed development is in keeping with that encouraged by the zone and will complement the existing retail shop and its location within the town.
The appearance of the building will remain as presently established.
The site is not subject to flooding or other natural hazards. Section 79C(1)(d) any submissions made in accordance with this act or the regulations
Public Submissions The development application and accompanying information were placed on public exhibition for a period of 14 days from 10 July 2001 to 24 July 2001. As a result of the notification process, a total of four (4) submissions were received and are provided as Attachment 3 to this report.
The main issues raised by the objectors are summarised below and comment provided:
“ ‘D. ACCESS AND TRAFFIC 1. All these issues are covered in the building DA’. This is NOT CORRECT as parking requirements for this development were waived (refer to DA 960646) and the tenants regularly park in Swan Street exceeding the ONE HOUR parking restrictions.”
“Parking was another of the main reasons given for the refusal to approve my
Page 96 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
010678 Cafe and Retail Shop Lot 101 DP 867100 Unit 2/145 Swan Street, Morpeth (Cont) application to use the courtyard at 1/129 Swan Street. Do not the same rules apply to this applicant?”
“What arrangement…made for the provision of parking for the 25 patrons he expects from the approval of this expansion of his business.”
Planners Comment
As previously discussed in the report the provision of car parking for the total floor area of the first floor addition was waived by Council under DA 960646 as part of the determination of the application in 1996. The proposed development of a café within this floor area remains consistent with that of a shop in regard to car parking provisions at 1car park/25 sqm and therefore no additional car parking is required.
The parking restrictions on Swan Street and on the public road within the vicinity of the site is a matter for the police to control.
“Another point of interest is that this development does not conform to FIRE regulations.”
“The public risk matters apart from the structural stability of the verandah itself are: 1) Fire rating of all floors and ceilings 2) Ceiling height of the verandah 3) Installation of fire escapes and fire resistance of materials in such fire escape/s 4) Provision of toilets in accessible area 5) Protection of pedestrians from any object falling from outside the verandah 6) Protection of pedestrians and clients in the event of demolition of supporting pillars by a motor vehicle or other moving machinery.”
“The possibility of 25 patrons without any means of escape does not bear contemplation.”
Planners Comment
The fire regulations and the provision of toilets were previously addressed under building application (BA) 970508 for the construction of this first floor addition. The part of the approved retail shop proposed to be used as a café will remain classified as a shop under the Building Code of Australia and, consequently, no additional fire protection is required.
The likelihood of objects falling from the verandah or a post being removed as a result of a car accident is considered to be remote given the height of the kerb and the parallel parking along this street. In this regard, Council is satisfied that the structural integrity of the balcony is adequate as required under the Building Code of Australia and the Australian Standards for its use as a shop.
“How is the food delivered, in a refrigerated van? Is it cooked in a kitchen approved for the preparation of food to be served to the public?” Page 97 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
010678 Cafe and Retail Shop Lot 101 DP 867100 Unit 2/145 Swan Street, Morpeth (Cont)
“When the food is prepared on the premises (ie. Plated up and heated) it is done without any barrier between the food preparation site and the customers of …the…linen shop.”
“…I personally have been present in the shop when he and his staff have prepared ploughman’s lunches, frittata and salad meals and sandwiches. At no time during the preparation of these meals were gloves worn by the preparer. The facilities and procedures used in the preparation of these meals must certainly be contrary to council’s health regulations.”
Planners Comment
Council food inspections indicate that the food served on the premises is cooked and prepared at commercially approved establishments and delivered appropriately. Under the current Food Regulation 2001 proprietors of food establishments are required to ensure that all incoming perishable foods are transported below 5 degrees Celsius. In this regard the proprietor must ensure compliance with these regulations.
The serving of food in this shop is confined to the plating of prepared foods, some of which may require reheating. The nature of this café operation is such that customers are seated and await service as opposed to over the counter service typical of a sandwich bar/take away food outlet. Given the minimal preparation of this food for consumption a barrier between customers and this service area is not required
In regard to the use of gloves in the serving of prepared food, suitable implements such as a tongs, slides etc. that provide a barrier between the food handler and the food can be used and, consequently, gloves are then not required.
“How has the verandah, on which the applicant conducts his business, been allowed to …grow and be modified over the last two years…”
Planners Comment
The existing balcony that forms part of this application for the operation of a café and retail shop was approved under the original DA 960646 and BA 970508 by Council in 1996 and 1997 respectively. Its use as a café is presently the issue of the current application before Council.
The concerns raised in regard to a change in the awning size are presently being investigated and will be pursued with the owner of the property. These changes however do not preclude the use of this balcony as a café and shop by the applicant. The Council is therefore in a position to determine this application.
“Has any provision been made for disabled access?”
Page 98 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
010678 Cafe and Retail Shop Lot 101 DP 867100 Unit 2/145 Swan Street, Morpeth (Cont) Planners Comment Access to the building formed part of the assessment undertaken by Council in 1996 and was considered acceptable. Issues relating to the provision of disabled access to this first floor is no different to any other existing two or more storey building and remains an issue for the owner under the Disability Discrimination Act.
“The applicant should be responsible for providing his own garbage arrangements, as do all other businesses, and not rely on the goodwill of a neighbour.”
“Questions must also be raised as to how a garbage service (if any) has been supplied and on what basis health inspections have been carried out by Council staff.”
“Surely the applicant must be responsible for the storage of his own garbage on the premises he leases and not rely on being able to use the neighbour’s property.”
Planner's Comment The provision of a garbage bin and service to this property is provided on request of the proprietor. The use of a neighbour’s service remains as a private matter between neighbours. However given the nature of this development it would seem reasonable for the proprietor to have an individual service for this unit and shop.
“When the Council approved the recent addition of the verandah to 145 Swan Street was there an Engineer’s Report qualifying the ability of the verandah to support 25 people plus staff and furniture…”
Planner's Comment Council under BA 970508 approved the verandah/balcony as it complied with the structural requirements of the Building Code of Australia and the Australian Standards. It was assessed as a first floor addition to a shop and its use as such was acceptable having regard to its structural integrity. Council would only request an Engineer’s Report on a structure of this type if the structure was showing signs of inadequacy. As the structure has been in use for some years as a shop, the requirement for an Engineer’s Report is not considered necessary.
“There is no evidence of any proposed commercial prior use of the area and there does not appear to be any structural engineering certificates as to the structural strength of the verandah for commercial usage.”
Planners Comment The previous DA 960646 considered the proposed first floor addition to the existing building as floor area for retail use by describing the development as “The applicant proposes a shop for the upper storey extension.” As the development incorporated the total floor area of the first floor addition, the use as a retail shop was considered for the balcony and processed by Council accordingly.
Page 99 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
010678 Cafe and Retail Shop Lot 101 DP 867100 Unit 2/145 Swan Street, Morpeth (Cont)
Section 79C(1)(e) the public interest The proposed use of part of an approved retail shop as a café is in accordance with the objectives of the zone.
The operation of the shop to incorporate a café will not detract from the existing environment of this locality but provides choice of services to the local community and visiting public. In this regard the proposed development of additional services within the township of Morpeth is in the public interest.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward estimates.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Statutory implications relating to assessment of the subject application have been addressed in the body of the report
CONCLUSION In summary the proposed development of a café within part of an approved retail shop on the subject site is considered acceptable having regard to the issues of car parking, food preparation and fire regulations that have been raised as the principle concerns in the public submissions.
An assessment of the application has been carried out under Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as amended. The proposed development is considered satisfactory in terms of the relevant matters for consideration under the Act and the development application is recommended for approval.
Page 100 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
010678 Cafe and Retail Shop Lot 101 DP 867100 Unit 2/145 Swan Street, Morpeth (Cont)
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS COMPLIANCE Reason: The following condition(s) have been applied to confirm and clarify the terms of Council’s Approval.
1 The proposed development is to be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans and documentation submitted with the application and any amendments to those plans arising through conditions to this consent. 2 An individual garbage service shall be provided to the business at 145 Swan Street, Morpeth. 3 The operation hours for the café and shop are confined to between 10 am and 6 pm seven days per week.
H&A HEALTH & AMENITY Reason: The objectives of the following conditions are to ensure that a building is so designed and constructed so that it and adjoining properties are not subject to dampness and are weatherproof, provide adequate toilet and washing facilities, room sizes are adequate for the use and purpose, light ventilation is adequate for the occupants and adequate insulation against noise transmission is provided.
4 Waste shall be disposed of from the property in accordance with Council’s requirements for commercial premises.
GP GENERAL PROVISIONS Reason: The objectives of the following conditions is to draw to the attention of the applicant and owner their responsibilities to comply with various provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations, 1994, Local Government Act 1993; Regulations; Building Code of Australia and Local Policies relating to building construction and maintenance.
5 All floor wall junctions shall be covered to provide a minimum radius of 38mm. 6 A hand washbasin shall be provided with a supply of hot and cold water via a common mixing device. This shall be provided in the food service area. 7 A paper towel and liquid soap dispenser shall be provided at the basin. 8 The wall behind the hand basin shall be tiled to a height of 450 mm above and 150mm to either side of the basin. 9 The development shall fully comply with the conditions of consent relating to Building Application 970508).
Page 101 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
010678 Cafe and Retail Shop Lot 101 DP 867100 Unit 2/145 Swan Street, Morpeth (Cont) 10 It is the Applicants responsibility to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act, 1992 (DDA). Note: Compliance with the Building Code of Australia does not necessarily meet the requirements of the DDA.
Page 102 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.4.7 010681 CAFE AND RETAIL SHOP LOT 2 DP 780422 UNIT 2 129 SWAN STREET, MORPETH RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
FILE NO: 010681 ATTACHMENTS: (3) LOCALITY PLAN SITE PLAN SUBMISSIONS
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: ALISON MCGAFFIN MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AUTHOR: BELINDA SMITH TOWN PLANNER APPLICANT: M.GODSMARK, T.MUIR AND R.NEWELL PROPOSAL: CAFE AND RETAIL SHOP LOCATION: UNIT2/129 SWAN STREET, MORPETH ZONE: 3(A) GENERAL BUSINESS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Development consent is sought from Council for a Cafe and Retail Shop at Unit 2/129 Swan Street, Morpeth. The subject land is zoned 3(a) General Business under Maitland Local Environmental Plan, 1993.
The application was publicly exhibited due to its location within the Morpeth Heritage Conservation Area and Council received three (3) submissions.
The proposed development is an application to use part of an approved retail shop as a café. A café is defined as a ‘Refreshment room’ and is a permissible form of development in the 3(a) General Business Zone with Council consent and is not inconsistent with the objectives of the zone.
This development has been assessed under the relevant heads of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended and is considered satisfactory.
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT:
010681 for Cafe and Retail Shop on Lot 2, DP 780422 Unit 2 129 Swan Street, Morpeth be approved, subject to the conditions of consent set out in the attached schedule.
Page 103 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
010681 Change of use - to cafe and retail shop Lot 2 DP 780422 Unit 2 129 Swan Street, Morpeth (Cont) REPORT
BACKGROUND The proposed development seeks to use an existing shop as a café and retail shop to be operated in part by the adjoining café known as Maggie G’s. The development originally proposed to extend the hours of operation to 9pm on both Friday and Saturday nights. However given the operation hours of Maggie G’s café are presently confined to between 8am and 6pm, the proposed café at unit 2/129 Swan Street could not practically operate outside of these hours. Consequently, the applicant has amended the application seeking operation hours to 6pm seven days a week.
PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to continue to operate a retail shop for the sale of antique jewellery and artwork in addition to another use, as an associated café within the display area of the existing shop. No manufacturing of jewellery is to take place on the site, just sales, valuation and design.
The addition of the café component will involve the service of food and drinks to a number of tables from the adjoining cafe known as Maggie G’s (1/129 Swan Street). The site can be accessed from the front door and the rear door between Shops One and Two 129 Swan Street, via covered walkways.
The shop will trade seven (7) days a week between the hours of 9am and 6pm daily.
No changes to the building are proposed.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed under the relevant matters for consideration detailed in Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as follows:
Section 79C(1)(a)(i) provisions of any environmental planning instrument
LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN The subject land is zoned 3(a) General Business under Maitland Local Environmental Plan 1993. The proposed development is defined under the LEP as “Refreshment room” which is a permissible land use in the 3(a) zone with Council consent. The proposal is not considered to be inconsistent with the zone objectives, as follows.
“a) To provide opportunities for the development of commercial uses which do not reduce the commercial viability of the core retail areas of the City. b) To ensure that the size and function of both retail and commercial facilities are established in accordance with Council’s preferred hierarchy of commercial centres for the City.
Page 104 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
010681 Change of use - to cafe and retail shop Lot 2 DP 780422 Unit 2 129 Swan Street, Morpeth (Cont) c) To permit non-commercial development within the zone, where such development is compatible with the commercial character of the locality. d) To ensure that there is adequate provision for car parking facilities within the zone. e) To minimise conflicts between pedestrians and vehicular movement systems within the zone. f) To preserve the historic character of the City by protecting heritage items and by encouraging compatible development within and adjoining historic buildings and precincts.”
The proposed development seeks to provide an additional service to the local community and visiting public in Morpeth. The size and function of the café as associated with the retail use of this shop is considered appropriate to the site and the commercial viability of Morpeth as a Neighbourhood Centre within the City of Maitland.
The proposed development does not seek to extend or expand the retail area of this existing shop, as the café will operate within the established retail floor area. As an established shop, the provision of car parking was provided as part of the original consent issued by Council for the development of this building as a shop under DA 93388.
The provision of car parking for a café is calculated at the same rate as a shop being 1car park/25 sqm of gross floor area. Therefore the operation of a café within this existing shop requires the same number of car parking spaces as a shop and, consequently, no additional car parking is required for this use.
Regional Environmental Plan The development generally complies with the provisions of the Regional Environmental Plan.
State Environmental Planning Policies No State Environmental Planning Policies are directly relevant to this development. Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition The Draft Heritage LEP is relevant to the subject site as it is located within the Morpeth Heritage Conservation Area. However the provisions of this Draft LEP does not affect the proposed development, as a café and retail shop, as no changes to the building are proposed. Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) any development control plan Development Control Plan (DCP) No.14 Morpeth and DCP No.34 Maitland Conservation and Design Guidelines apply to the site. However, as the proposal is confined to internal use of an existing building, the provisions of these DCPs in regard to design and construction are not relevant.
DCP No. 24 Accessible Living and DCP No.31 Energy Smart Homes also apply to the site. Accessibility has been addressed as part of the original DA 93388 for the
Page 105 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
010681 Change of use - to cafe and retail shop Lot 2 DP 780422 Unit 2 129 Swan Street, Morpeth (Cont) construction of these shops. Energy efficiency is not relevant to this proposal as the construction of the building and its design is not to be changed or altered in any way. Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposed of this paragraph Not relevant Section 79C(1)(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 proposed development will have a limited impact on the existing environment. To be operated from an existing shop the proposed café and retail shop will not result in any changes to the existing structure or appearance of the building.
All utility services are presently provided to the building. No external changes to the building are proposed and standard waste facilities are provided to the site as commercial premises. No change to the existing operation hours, between 9am and 6pm, is proposed and the development will take place completely within the building therefore no noise or odour is expected to be generated by the additional café operation. Section 79C(1)(c) the suitability of the site for the development The subject site is established as a retail shop in the commercial area of Morpeth. The proposed development of a cafe and shop is in keeping with the objectives of the zone.
The appearance of the building will remain as presently established.
The site is not subject to flooding or other natural hazards. Section 79C(1)(d) any submissions made in accordance with this act or the regulations
Public Submissions The development application and accompanying information were placed on public exhibition for a period of 14 days from 10 May 2001 to 24 May 2001. As a result of the notification process, a total of three (3) submissions, including advice from Strata Corporation, were received and are provided as Attachment (3) to this report.
The main issues raised by the objectors are summarised below and comment provided:
“We strongly object to Trading hours extended to 9pm Friday and Saturday nights….Why would jeweller and artist need to trade til 9PM!”
“Night trading causes disturbance to residents adjoining this shop application.”
“We do however strongly object to the proposed changes to trading hours.”
“The noise generated during these night hours is offensive and we have been
Page 106 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
010681 Change of use - to cafe and retail shop Lot 2 DP 780422 Unit 2 129 Swan Street, Morpeth (Cont) subjected to this in the past until 11PM. Noise is generated from customers, the kitchen, the air-conditioner and exhaust fan and cleanup.”
“No food and/or drink preparation area in lot 2 to cater for the serving of foods and drinks during the proposed extended business hours”.
Planners Comment
The proposed service to the café component of this application is to be provided by Maggie G’s and, as such, the operation hours must be in accordance with those approved at this premises. These hours are confined to between 8 am and 6pm seven days a week. Consequently the applicant has amended this application to confine its operation hours to 6pm daily. Should the applicant wish to extend these operation hours a separate application will be required. Section 79C(1)(e) the public interest The proposed café and retail shop is a use consistent with the objectives of the zone.
The operation of this shop to incorporate a café will not detract from the existing environment of this locality but provides choice of services to the local and visiting community. In this regard the proposed development of additional services within the township of Morpeth is in the public interest.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward estimates.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Statutory implications of Council in assessment of the subject application have been addressed in the body of the report
CONCLUSION In summary the proposed development of a café and retail shop on the subject site is considered acceptable having regard to the issues of car parking and operation hours that have been addressed in the report.
An assessment of the application has been carried out under Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as amended. The proposed development is considered satisfactory in terms of the relevant matters for consideration under the Act and the development application is recommended for approval.
Page 107 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
010681 Change of use - to cafe and retail shop Lot 2 DP 780422 Unit 2 129 Swan Street, Morpeth (Cont)
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS C COMPLIANCE Reason: The following condition(s) have been applied to confirm and clarify the terms of Council’s Approval.
1 The proposed development is to be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans and documentation submitted with the application and any amendments to those plans arising through conditions to this consent. 2 The operation hours for the cafe and shop are confined to between 8am and 6pm seven days a week. 3 The applicant shall comply with all conditions within this schedule prior to occupancy of the proposed development. GP GENERAL PROVISIONS Reason: The objectives of the following conditions is to draw to the attention of the applicant and owner their responsibilities to comply with various provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations, 1994, Local Government Act 1993; Regulations; Building Code of Australia and Local Policies relating to building construction and maintenance.
4 Disabled access is to be provided to the building in accordance with the provisions of Part D3.2 of the Building Code of Australia. 5 It is the Applicants responsibility to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act, 1992 (DDA). Note: Compliance with the Building Code of Australia does not necessarily meet the requirements of the DDA. S&E SERVICES & EQUIPMENT Reason: The objectives of the following conditions are to ensure that adequate inbuilt and external fire protection services are provided to restrict fire growth, facilitate fire safety, prevent fire spreading to adjoining buildings or allotments, to enable safe evacuation of occupants before the environment becomes untenable, to provide services that facilitate safe egress in the event of power failure, to provide early warning and/or initiate automatic counter measures and to provide for on--going maintenance of all active services.
6 Portable fire extinguishers suitable for the risk being protected are to be installed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2444 and Part E1.6 of the Building Code of Australia. 7 Prior to occupation of the building a final Fire Safety Certificate is to be submitted to Council in relation to the required fire extinguisher in accordance with Clause 170 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. 8 A copy of the fire safety schedule and fire safety certificate is to be prominently displayed in the building in accordance with Division 4 of schedule 1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.
Page 108 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.4.8 AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 6 - RAWORTH
FILE NO: 103/49 ATTACHMENTS: (3) LOCALITY PLAN SUBMISSIONS SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Alison McGaffin Manager Development Services
AUTHOR: Tracey Le Brun Assistant Development Assessment Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council received a request from the Oborn Professional Consulting Group to amend DCP No. 6 in January, 2001. A report was prepared for the Approvals & Regulatory Committee meeting held 13 February 2001, where it was resolved to place an amendment to Development Control Plan No. 6 – Raworth on public exhibition for twenty-eight (28) days. In summary, the amendment includes an update of all legislation references and the insertion of two new sections outlining the serving constraints and subdivision requirements that apply to the Morpeth Manor Residential Estate.
The amendment proposal was exhibited from 5 April, 2001 to 3 May, 2001, and one (1) submission was received from the Hunter Water Corporation (HWC). This submission indicates that the HWC accept recommendations in a servicing report prepared for the applicant and support the amendments proposed to the DCP.
The purpose of this report is to consider matters arising from the public exhibition and to seek a resolution from the Council in relation to approval of the draft Development Control Plan.
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT
1. Pursuant to Clause 21(1) of the Regulation, Development Control Plan No. 6 - Raworth be approved as exhibited subject to the minor amendments outlined in this Report; and,
2. Council give public notice of the adoption of Development Control Plan in the newspaper in accordance with Clause 21(2) of the Regulation.
Page 109 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Amendment to Development Control Plan No. 6 - Raworth (Cont) REPORT
BACKGROUND Development Control Plan No. 6 – Raworth came into force on 13 September, 1985 and was amended on 27 May, 1992.
A submission was received from the Oborn Professional Consulting Group in January, 2001, seeking an amendment to the DCP as it relates to certain lands within the eastern catchment within the Morpeth Manor Residential Estate. Refer to Attachment 1 for the Site Plan. A report was prepared to the Approvals & Regulatory Committee meeting held 13 February, 2001, in relation to the amendment which encompassed the following changes:
• Allow for subdivision of larger lifestyle allotments in the order of 2000m2; • Outline the restrictions that will apply to further subdivision and development of the larger lots due to the limitations relating to availability of water supply in the short and medium term; • Incorporate provisions addressing the appropriate forms for future subdivision of the larger allotments, should the issue of security and availability of water supply be resolved; and, • Amend Clause 5 relating to siting of medium density housing within the estate.
Committee Resolution No AR 13/01 resolved to publicly exhibit a Draft Development Control Plan for 28 days for the purpose of amending Development Control Plan No. 6 – Raworth and to prepare a further report to Council to address the public submissions and determine whether to proceed with adoption of the draft DCP.
EXHIBITION OF THE DRAFT DCP In accordance with Section 72 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Clause 18 of the Regulation 2000, the draft Development Control Plan was placed on public exhibition for twenty-eight (28) days from 5 April 2001 to 3 May 2001.
One (1) submission was subsequently received in response to the public exhibition from the Hunter Water Corporation (HWC) (See Attachment 2). The HWC has advised that a water supply servicing strategy has now been accepted for the area. The HWC have confirmed that a total loading of 158 lots will be available within the precinct and the system constraints allow the servicing of all lots to a maximum RL of 38m AHD. The constraints will alienate 5 lots within the proposed subdivision, until a water booster station is constructed or high pressure water can be fed through adjoining land to the Morpeth Manor Estate. In addition, the HWC have advised that the “…proposed amendment CL. 4.2 on densification of development is also appropriate as unrestrained loading increases on the future water supply system can substantially impact on pressures and fire flows to the area.”
Page 110 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Amendment to Development Control Plan No. 6 - Raworth (Cont) SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS The amendments to the written document consist of certain sections being inserted, modified and deleted in the current DCP as outlined in Attachment 3.It is further noted, that the subdivision layout submitted with the request for the amendment has deleted one road connection through to the adjoining land. It is recommended that Council require the identification of a second road link consistent with the existing DCP map if the amendment is approved.
ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN Clause 21 of the Regulations to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act state that Council, after considering any submissions made, may approve a draft development control plan:-
(a) in the form in which it was publicly exhibited; or, (b) with such alterations as the council thinks fit.
Alternatively, Council may decide not to proceed with the plan.
Following consideration of the submissions received during the public exhibition period, it is recommended that Council approve the draft Development Control Plan with the minor alterations outlined in the section entitled "Summary of Recommended Amendments" above.
A public notice must subsequently be given of its approval and the development control plan then comes into effect on the date specified in the public notice.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS Upon adoption, the Development Control Plan will become a matter for consideration under Section 79C(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in assessment of each development application.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS The statutory implications under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) have been addressed in the body of this report.
CONCLUSION The proposed amendments to DCP No. 6 are considered acceptable and appropriate for this locality and it is recommended that they be adopted by Council with an additional amendment identifying a second road link consistent with the existing DCP map.
Page 111 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.4.9 BULL STREET DRAINAGE CONCEPTS
FILE NO: PR 17220
ATTACHMENTS: (1) REPORT BY STANWILL CONSULTING ENGINEERS
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: BRAD EVERETT GROUP MANAGER, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
AUTHOR: STUART HOLLE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At its Ordinary Meeting of 12 December 2000, Council resolved to engage an independent engineer to provide models and recommendations to address the Bull Street drainage issues. Stanwill Consulting Engineers were subsequently engaged to carry out such works and, following consideration of five options, have recommended that the affected land be filled.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT
The recommendations outlined in the report by Stanwill Consulting Engineers be endorsed and that further design be undertaken on the fill option, including negotiation with affected landowners.
REPORT At its Ordinary Meeting of 12 December 2001, Council considered the matter of a pond of water that had accumulated at the rear of a development at 557 High Street Maitland. Pertinent points of that report included
The pond occurs in part because of the local topography and also in part because of the increased volume of runoff from the development. The pond inundates private property at 16,18,20,22 and 24 Bull Street. A solution to the ponding was presented where the affected lots would be filled above the level of inundation. The cost of that solution was estimated to be between twenty-six and thirty eight thousand dollars.
Page 112 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Bull Street Drainage Concepts (Cont.) Council resolved to engage an independent qualified engineer to provide models and recommendations to address the Bull Street drainage issues. Four consultants were invited to tender and Stanwill Consulting Engineers of Broadmeadow were awarded a contract to investigate the issues and present a recommendation to Council. The report is attached as Attachment 1.
Stanwill’s report compares the relative merits of five proposals in order to determine the most appropriate solution to the drainage pond. In summary the five (5) options related to:
Pumpout system Filling of affected properties Draining to Regent Street Draining to Bull Street East depression (Anlaby Street) Compulsory Acquisition of affected properties
The report recommends that the fill option be adopted because it has the lowest capital cost, has no significant site, environmental or hydrological effects and achieves the desired outcome of making the affected properties flood free for frequent rainfall events.
Approval of the Minister for the acquisition of the subject land has been received. A valuation is currently being finalised together with the transfer of land to Council.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Total estimated costs for the filling of the affected land range from $26,500 to $37,500 depending on the degree of embellishment. $20,000 is available under the current budget. Additional funding may need to be sought from the future drainage works program pending more accurate construction estimates.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter does not have any policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Council may conduct the filling works as a contractor to the private landowners under section 67 of the Local Government Act 1993. It will be necessary for the works to be done with the full cooperation of those landowners and in accordance with that section namely the decision to conduct the works must be made with the full cost known and at a public, open meeting of Council.
Page 113 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.4.10 MAITLAND RURAL STRATEGY
FILE NO: 103/50
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: BRAD EVERETT GROUP MANAGER PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT
AUTHOR: PETER CAMERON COORDINATOR CITY STRATEGY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is in response to a resolution of Council on 24 April 2001, as follows:
2. Report back to Council identifying what additional resources are required to expedite/complete the rural study.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT
1. An additional $15,000 be provided to expedite the preparation and exhibition of the Maitland Rural Strategy.
2. Funding to be provided from existing surplus in Planning and Environment 2000/01 Budget, such to be carried over as a Work in Progress.
REPORT Council has recently been asked to consider a number of applications for rural subdivision, which have potential implications on subdivision in rural areas throughout the Maitland LGA. The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning has advised that these applications cannot be supported until it is seen whether they are consistent with a Rural Strategy for the Maitland LGA.
The preparation of a Rural Strategy is a complex task. Council has begun the process and is currently producing some issues papers to provide an opportunity for community consultation. However, due to the number of planning priorities at the present time, it has not been possible to commit all resources to the Rural Strategy.
It is therefore possible that the Rural Strategy could be expedited by additional resources, should Council determine that this is necessary. It is estimated that an additional $15,000 would provide for the employment of a consultant planner, working in-house under staff direction, at critical times during the preparation of the Strategy. For example, assistance would be sought during the consideration of public submissions and preparation of a draft Strategy.
Page 114 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Maitland Rural Strategy (Cont.) FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Accordingly, the current 2000/01 Planning and Environment Budget contains sufficient funds to enable the $15,000 to be carried over to 2001/02 as a Work in Progress.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications in relation to this matter.
Page 115 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.4.11 K-MART CAR PARK
FILE NO: 103/4
Responsible Officer: Brad Everett Group Manager Planning and Environment
Author: Leanne Harris Environmental Strategist
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the ordinary Council meeting of the 30th January 2001, Council considered a report relating to the use of the top deck of the K-Mart Car Park for the purposes of CBD staff parking, particularly in relation to the installation of a card operated boom gate, preventing general public access to this level of the car park. Council resolved to defer the matter “to allow further investigations in terms of the lease arrangements and the legality of the boom gate and the usage of the upper deck under its present restrictions”.
An extensive investigation of this matter has now been completed and Council has obtained legal advice on the Lease and other issues surrounding the use of the car park in this manner. In summary, the advice to Council is that whilst the car park is not actually owned by the Council, the land (comprising the land and the deck car park structure) is constituted as ‘community’ land under the Local Government Act, 1993. Therefore, whilst the use of the land in its current manner, may still be appropriate, Council is required to prepare and exhibit, for public comment, a Plan of Management. The Plan of Management would address and formalise the current use arrangements of the car park. In conjunction with this, the terms of the existing lease need to be modified to reflect the new arrangements.
The continued restricted use of the top deck of the K-Mart car park for secure staff parking is supported on planning grounds, as an initiative that is assisting in the overall parking management for the CBD. Through the Maitland City Centre Reference Group, representatives from both Maitland CBD Limited and the Maitland Chamber of Commerce have indicated their support for and acceptance of the current arrangements.
Council also leases a number of other car parks throughout the City, which following this advice, would also constitute ‘community land’. Accordingly the required Plan of Management should cover all of these sites.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT
1. Council renegotiate the terms of the existing lease of the K-Mart car park with the property owners to reflect the current use arrangements; and
Page 116 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001 k-mart car park (Cont.) 2 Council prepare and exhibit a Plan of Management for all leased car parking areas within the City; and
3 Council take no action in respect of the K-Mart car park in the short term, pending regularisation of the current use.
REPORT This report provides Council with a detailed response on the use of the upper deck of the K-Mart Car Park for the purposes of secure staff parking. Council leases the entire K-Mart car park for the purpose of imposing and regulating time restrictions, and has done so since November 1985. The current lease is due to expire in November 2005.
Council has previously considered and supported a report on the installation of a card operated boom gate, which restricts general access to the top deck area, making it available only for day-long parking for staff of the Hunter Mall and other businesses in the CBD. This initiative was supported on the basis that it encouraged staff to leave the short stay spaces in the remainder of the car park available for shoppers, and it was consistent with the overall aims and objectives of the Central Maitland Area Improvement Programme which seek to improve the amenity and viability of the City. As reported to Council in January 2001, specific arrangements have been agreed, with Centre Management, to ensure that during periods of peak parking demand (eg Christmas), the boom gate will be left open and staff and signage will be used to encourage the wider public to use the top deck.
Council is now in receipt of legal advice regarding the use of the car park in this manner and implications of this on the current lease arrangements. This report provides an overview of the advice received and recommends a course of action for Council’s consideration.
BACKGROUND In September 2000, Council considered and supported a report outlining the planned improvements to the K-Mart car parking complex. These improvements included:
- the full painting of all ceilings and columns in the lower level of the eastern deck car park and the main central (underground) car park to white; - a full upgrade of all lighting in both car parks to raise the lux levels to a very bright, safe and secure standard; - the installation of a card operated boom gate system for the upper level of the eastern deck car park to create an area for day-long secure park for staff form both the Hunter Mall, and the CBD generally; and - installation of floodlighting and security measures in the upper level car park to improve the safety and security for staff entering and exiting the car park.
Council has previously acknowledged and endorsed these improvements on the basis that they were consistent, in broad terms with the Central Maitland Area Improvement Plan, and that they would improve safety and security for shoppers and
Page 117 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001 k-mart car park (Cont.) staff alike, as well as assisting to ease car parking congestion through the introduction of a nominated long stay staff parking area within the centre of the City.
The initiatives are being supported by the wider business community through the use of the car spaces and from a planning perspective they are helping to achieve better parking management in the CBD. Representatives of both Maitland Chamber of Commerce and Maitland CBD Limited have indicated their support for the proposal through the Maitland City Centre Reference Group. For these reasons the continued use of the car park in this manner is encouraged.
Legal Advice In summary, the legal advice to Council indicates that the current Lease accommodates the changed parking operations except for the manner in which the owners of the shopping centre make a small charge for access to the deck. The terms of the Lease can however, upon agreement of both parties, be amended to reflect these operating conditions. The more significant issue to arise from the legal review however, is that, whilst not owned by the Council, the land (comprising the land and the structure on it) is actually ‘community land’ as defined under the Local Government Act 1993. This does not prevent the use of the car park in its current manner, provided Council prepares and exhibits a Plan of Management for the land, which details these use arrangements. Through the Plan of Management, Council could grant a licence or sub-lease to the owners of the shopping centre to formalise the restricted parking arrangements.
The following key issues have been identified:
- as Council holds a lease over the entire car parking area, this land is actually ‘under the care and control of the Council’ and as such it is subject to a ‘trust for a public purpose’ - as a result, the land is defined as ‘public land’ for the purposes of the Local Government Act, 1993 - as the land was held by Council, (under lease) at the 1st July 1993, the land is automatically classified as “Community Land” for the purposes of the Local Government Act, rather than ‘operational land’ - under the Local Government Act, Council must implement a Plan of Management for all pieces of ‘community land’ - upon expiration of the lease (November 2005) the car park will cease to be ‘community land’
Existing Lease
Legal advice has been sought in relation to the existing Lease that Council holds over the subject land. In summary, the Lease requires that the car park be operated as ‘free public car park during business hours’. The Lease allows Council the discretion to impose restrictions such as time limitations and nature of how the car park is to operate, but prohibits the making of a charge for access to the car park. The practice of the K-Mart owners in requiring the payment of a small fee for access to the site is inconsistent with this requirement. In effect, this is the only aspect of the proposal that is inconsistent with the terms of the current Lease.
Page 118 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001 k-mart car park (Cont.)
Upon agreement of both parties (lessee and lessor) there is no reason why the Lease cannot be varied to reflect the current operating practices. Accordingly it is recommended that Council enter into negotiations with the current property owners to vary the appropriate clauses in the Lease. This is a relatively simple and straight forward matter, involving legal drafting and registration of the required documentation.
Plan of Management (POM)
In accordance with the Local Government Act, 1993 Council must prepare a POM for community land. The POM must specify the objectives and the performance targets of the plan and the means by which the Council proposes to achieve these targets. The draft plan must also be advertised for public comment.
The necessary contents of the POM are set out in the Act. In this particular case, the categorisation of the land, in accordance with s.36(4), would be for ‘general community use’. The objectives for the POM for land categorised “general community use’ are set out in s36I, including the purposes for which a licence or lease may be granted in respect of the land. The legal advice to Council confirms that a sublease of the top deck of the car park, back to the current owners, would be authorised by this section of the act. This would then formalise the current practices.
The POM would be able to confirm the current restrictions and ensure that the top deck was available for use by the wider public during periods of peak parking demand as previously agreed with Centre Management.
As Council does not own the land, the POM must comply with s.37 of the Act, which specifies particular matters that the POM must contain. Sub-clause (d) indicates that the provisions of the POM must not be inconsistent with the terms of the Lease or public trust with which the premises are fixed. For this reason, the existing Lease must be modified to reflect the current arrangements, so that the POM can comply with this sub-clause.
In addition to the above, Council currently leases a number of car parking areas within the City, including for example Pender Place and Franklins. Based on the advice received in respect of K-Mart, all of these areas leased by Council would constitute ‘community land’. Under the terms of the Local Government Act, the Plan of Management can cover apply to more than one area community land. Accordingly it is recommended that one Plan be prepared to cover all leased car parking areas within the City.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward estimates.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
Page 119 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001 k-mart car park (Cont.) STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS As the K-Mart car park is actually ‘community’ land, a Plan of Management must be prepared for the land to fulfil Council’s statutory obligations under the Local Government Act 1993 with this matter.
CONCLUSION The current leased car parking areas for the Hunter Mall represent ‘community land’ as specified under the Local Government Act, 1993 and as such a Plan of Management will be required to formalise the current restricted parking arrangements.
In summary, if the Plan of Management so provides, Council could grant a sub-lease or licence of the top deck of the car park, together with appropriate rights of ingress and egress through the lower level, to the freehold owner of the land. The provisions of the Plan of Management and the terms and conditions of the sub-lease or licence must comply with the overall Lease, hence if a fee is to be charged for access to this level, the existing Lease needs to amended. The use of the car park in this manner is considered acceptable, In particular it would comply with Clause 14(a) of the Regulation, in that such a proposal will make the land available by a specific section of the public.
The continued use of the car park in this manner is encouraged, particularly as the initiative is supported by the wider business community, including Maitland Chamber of Commerce and Maitland CBD Limited. As an interim arrangement, it is recommended that the current operating procedures continue to apply until the Plan of Management and Lease amendments are completed.
Page 120 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.4.12 SECTION 94 - GREENHILLS
FILE NO: DA981016 & 103/41
ATTACHMENTS: (1) LETTER FROM ARMS COOPER KAPP
Responsible Officer: Brad Everett Group Manager Planning and Environment
Author: Leanne Harris Strategic Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council’s current Section 94 Contributions Plan, (1995) provides for the construction of major upgrading works for the intersections of Mitchell Drive with Molly Morgan Drive, Garnett Road and Stronach Avenue as a result of the expected business developments at Greenhills.
However, in approving the development application for the expansion of the Greenhills Shopping Centre, rather than seek contributions from the developer under Section 94, Council imposed conditions of consent, which required the actual construction of these roadworks in conjunction with Stage One of the development. This was done on the basis that the roadworks were required for the safe and efficient operation of the expanded centre.
Council has previously collected Section 94 contributions from other businesses in Greenhills towards the cost of the required facilities. As the works undertaken by Shopping Centre are effectively an ‘in-kind’ contribution, it is appropriate for Council to now hand-over these funds to the developer to assist in the cost of the works.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT
1. Following completion of the intersection upgrading works in Mitchell Drive, Council hand over the funds previously collected and held under Section 94 for these works to Woolworths Properties Pty Ltd, excluding $20,865.00 to cover Council’s costs for works already undertaken.
2 Council repeal the requirement for contributions for road works at Greenhills from the 1995 Section 94 Contributions Plan.
3 A review of potential future expansion and resulting need to upgrade urban road infrastructure at Greenhills be undertaken as part of the City Wide Section 94 review.
Page 121 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Section 94 - Greenhills (Cont.) REPORT Council’s current Section 94 Plan, (1995) makes provision for upgrading the intersections of Mitchell Drive with Molly Morgan Drive, Stronach Avenue and Garnett Road. Council has previously collected contributions from businesses at Greenhills, based on floor area being developed, towards these works.
In assessing and determining the development application for the expansion of the Hunter Shopping Centre at Greenhills, rather than impose a condition seeking a contribution towards the roadworks, Council actually imposed a consent condition which required construction of the upgrading works in conjunction with the first stage of the development. This was done on the basis that these works were required in order to enable the expanded centre to operate in a safe and efficient manner.
The Section 94 Plan identified that the proposed roadworks would cost in the order of $760,000. Overall contributions applicable to the expansion of the Shopping Centre as approved by Council, would, if levied, have been in the order of $740,000, however such contributions would have been payable in conjunction with the construction of the various stages of the development. The roadworks were required to be in place with the first stage of the development, however the first stage would have attracted a Section 94 contribution in the order of $250,000, leaving Council with a significant shortfall in the event that Council had of been required to undertake the works. It is likely that such a shortfall would have to have been made up from loan borrowings from either Section 94 funds or other normal budget sources. In addition, Council would have had the responsibility of either constructing or overseeing the works (including tendering) with the added constraint of meeting ‘reasonable’ timeframes for the development. For a development of this magnitude, there are significant economies of scale and efficiencies for the developer through the use of on-site contractors, rather than the more constrained processes under which Local Government must operate. In short, Council through the Section 94 Plan, linked to the works undertaken by the developers of the Shopping Centre, has achieved completion of the required Greenhills roadworks with minimal impact upon Council operations or budget processes.
When Council considered the report on the development application for this site, the roadworks were recognised as being, in effect, an ‘in-kind’ contribution and that funds already collected from other commercial businesses should be made available to the developer to assist in the cost of the works.
Council is now in receipt of correspondence from the Arms Cooper Kapp requesting Council confirm that they are willing to release the funds already collected (refer to attachment 1).
Council currently holds approximately $220,000.00 in contributions towards the roadworks. However, in conjunction with the works programme associated with the recently completed resurfacing of Mitchell Drive, and following agreement with the developer, Council undertook construction of some of the kerb work required for the channelisation of the Garnett Road intersection. The cost of this work amounted to $20,865.00. It is therefore appropriate that Council retain this amount to cover its costs for these works and hand over the remaining funds.
Page 122 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Section 94 - Greenhills (Cont.)
The intersection works currently being constructed at Greenhills effectively complete the requirements of the current Section 94 Plan. Accordingly the current plan needs to be repealed as it would no longer be appropriate for Council to continue to collect contributions for these works.
Section 94 matters in relation to the expansion of the Shopping Centre at Greenhills, have been based upon the floorspace and predicted traffic impacts of the approved development and therefore reflect the current proposal. If however, an amended proposal was lodged, which for example significantly increased the total floor space of the centre, Council would have to review its position in relation to Section 94. For this reason, the potential for future growth and expansion at Greenhills should be reviewed and updated if necessary, as part of the City Wide Section 94 review currently being completed.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific financial implications for Council. The funds are currently held by Council, pursuant to Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and have been collected specifically for the upgrading of the intersections.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications under the Local Government Act 1993 with this matter.
Page 123 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.4.13 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON STREETON DRIVE, METFORD
FILE NO: 222/903
ATTACHMENTS: (2) LOCALITY PLAN PETITION
Responsible Officer: Alison McGaffin Manager, Development Services
Author: Stuart Holle Subdivision and Development Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council has received a petition from 45 residents of Streeton Drive, Whiteley Avenue and Dobel Place, Metford in regard to the level of traffic experienced on Streeton drive as a result of continuing development of the area.
The petitioners propose that the solution to the issue lies in the construction of the extension of Streeton Drive to Ferraby Drive at Lowe Street. The extension of the Streeton drive link is however the subject of a development consent to Landcom. The timing of this construction will therefore be determined by Landcom and is beyond the control of Council.
The petition raises additional concerns relating to pavement condition and child safety. These concerns have been investigated and it has been found that pavement wear on Streeton Drive is within limits for the age of the road and is not due to excess traffic. It is however recommended that footpath construction for Streeton Drive be identified as a priority under the Footpath Construction Program to alleviate the safety issue.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
THAT: 1. Council receive and note the petition from 45 residents seeking the extension of Streeton Drive to Ferraby Drive at Lowe Street.
2. Streeton Drive be identified for priority on the Rolling Footpath Construction Programme.
3. Council write to Landcom to express the concerns of the residents and to request that Landcom consider the priority extension of Streeton Drive in future programming of construction of the Mellaluca Ponds Estate.
Page 124 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Traffic volumes on Streeton Drive, Metford (Cont.) REPORT Streeton Drive currently serves a closed catchment of 52 residential and 23 rural residential allotments. Refer to Attachment 1 for a locality plan. The lots fronting Streeton Drive, Dobel Place and Whiteley Avenue were created pursuant to approval number 93350 on 19th November 1993. This was known as the Ridgedale Heights Estate.
Council has received a petition from 45 residents of Rigedale Heights in regard to the level of traffic experienced on Streeton Drive as a result of continuing development of the area. Refer to Attachment 2 for a copy of the petition and its covering letter.
At the time the subdivision was proposed, the only available access was through land owned by Landcom and Streeton Drive was constructed to the boundary of the Ridgedale land through agreement between Landcom and the proponent of the subdivision.
Since the completion of the Ridgedale Heights subdivision, 23 lots of the Woodlands rural residential subdivision have been constructed and there has also been one further subdivision of the Ridgedale allotments. The traffic volumes on Streeton Drive have increased over time due to the uptake of land within both the Ridgedale Heights and the Woodlands subdivisions. This trend is expected to continue as the Woodlands subdivision continues to expand towards its approved 90 lots.
The Ridgedale Heights development application was assessed on the basis that the rural residential subdivision would access through Whiteley Avenue and that the only point of access would be the existing alignment of Streeton Drive.
The signatories of the petition also ask that the link from Streeton Drive to Ferraby Drive at Lowe Street be developed to reduce the traffic flow along the existing alignment of Streeton Drive. This link is the subject of an approved development application to Landcom and will eventually form part of the “Mellaluca Ponds” estate. The construction of the link therefore depends on Landcom’s timetable for the continued development of the precinct. Landcom have been contacted to ascertain the possible timeframe for the development of the Streeton Drive extension. Landcom has indicated that construction is likely to occur within the next 3 – 4 years, however, this will depend on future sales. It is recommended that Council write to Landcom to express concern on this issue and to request that Landcom consider the issues raised in the petition in the future programming of the Mellaluca Ponds staging.
It is noted that the petition also raises concern over the current condition of Streeton Drive. The condition of all road pavements is monitored quarterly for maintenance purposes in accordance with Council’s Pavement Management System (PMS). Streeton Drive is currently assessed as being in a satisfactory condition according to the PMS. A visual inspection in preparation of this report has revealed the presence of some minor longitudinal cracking in the wearing course. This is normal behaviour for an asphaltic concrete seal after 6-7 years and is due to the oxidation and resultant embrittlement of the asphalt rather than traffic loading. There are no gross deformations that would indicate pavement fatigue due to excess vehicle usage.
Page 125 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Traffic volumes on Streeton Drive, Metford (Cont.)
Some minor crack sealing may be expected to take place in the foreseeable future in order to prolong the life of the wearing course. This will be undertaken over a few hours with little impact on the daily routine of residents in the precinct.
The petition also raises issues of child safety. At the time of assessment of the Ridgedale Heights development, Council was not typically requiring footpaths to be constructed in new subdivisions. However, Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 13, Pedestrians, (published after the determination of the Ridgedale development) recommends that footpaths be constructed on one side of roads with a traffic volume in excess of 1000 vehicles per day. Streeton Drive would qualify on this standard and therefore it is recommended that Streeton Drive be listed for priority treatment in Council’s rolling footpath construction programme as a proactive step towards alleviating the safety concerns raised by residents.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications under the Local Government Act 1993 with this matter.
Page 126 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.5 ASSET PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT GROUP
11.5.1 COMMUNITY ROAD SAFETY STRATEGIC PLAN
FILE NO: 140/16
ATTACHMENTS: (1) COPY OF PLAN
Responsible Officer: Warwick Randall Group Manager, Asset Planning & Management
Author: Ann-Marie Price Road Safety Officer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report brings to Council’s attention the final draft of the Community Road Safety Strategic Plan for approval of implementation.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT Council endorse the Community Road Safety Strategic Plan and resolve to commence implementation of the Plan within the resources available to Council
REPORT The Draft Community Road Safety Strategic Plan has been on public exhibition from Wednesday 23rd May to Wednesday 6th June 2001. Advertisements were placed in the Maitland Mercury on May 25th, 28th, 31st and June 4th 2001 inviting members of the public to comment on the draft. During this period no comments were received.
The Community Road Safety Strategic Plan aims to provide direction for road safety programs in the Maitland LGA. It will set up a framework for the planning, implementation and review of road safety programs and actions, with a focus on community perceptions and ideas.
BACKGROUND The Strategic Plan incorporates Objectives, Strategies and Actions that aim to improve the safety of pedestrians, motorists, and cyclists on Maitland's roads over the next five years.
The Draft Road Safety Strategic Plan has identified through a stakeholder consultation process, the major road safety issues within Maitland. These are speeding, drink driving and driver fatigue. Other issues in the plan relate to issues targeting pedestrian, cyclist and passenger safety. The Strategic Plan also identifies why, when and where road crashes within Maitland are occurring.
Page 127 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Community Road Safety Strategic Plan (Cont.) The Road Safety Strategic Plan provides an overview of the Maitland area in relation to road safety issues, and the role of the community and other key stakeholders in addressing these issues. The Plan also provides analysis of road crash statistics to determine the most appropriate countermeasures. The solutions to Maitland's road safety problems are addressed in four strategic areas. These are:
• Community involvement - best achieved by gaining the support and participation of the community in road safety projects, while providing an opportunity to change attitudes and behaviours.
• Transport and land use planning - improvements to be made through thoughtful development of our transport network, and road and traffic systems, as well as managing changes to land use.
• Safer people, roads and vehicles - the incidence of road crashes is most effectively reduced by educating road users, better design and maintenance of the road network, and improving safety standards of vehicles. While these changes will be influenced by State and Federal Legislation, a significant impact will come from actions occurring at the local level, encountered daily by road users.
• Communication and coordination- best achieved through the combined resources and actions of a number of organisations. This approach reduces duplication, contradiction and maximises scarce resources.
The major road safety issues identified within the Road Safety Strategic Plan include:
• The majority of crashes occur on our roads between 9am and 3pm, Monday to Friday.
• Only 36% of crashes occurred on state roads, while 64% occur on local roads.
• Drivers contribute to approximately 48% of road user casualties, passengers to 33%, motorcyclists 6%, pedestrians 7% and pedal cyclists 6%. This is consistent with the State average.
• Young drivers, under 25 years of age, make up only approximately 15% of the total population of Maitland, however are three times as likely to be involved in a crash.
The Community Road Safety Strategic Plan identifies the fundamental issues in road safety to be addressed within the Maitland LGA. It provides a direction for Council, local stakeholders, special interest groups and the RTA to achieve the principal goal of reducing the incidence and severity of all road crashes within the local area.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward estimates.
Page 128 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Community Road Safety Strategic Plan (Cont.) POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications under the Local Government Act 1993 arising from this matter.
Page 129 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.5.2 ROLLING WORKS PROGRAM VARIATIONS 2000/2001
FILE NO: 2/32/6, 35/33/5
Responsible Officer: Warwick Randall Group Manager, Asset Planning and Management
Author: Chris McGrath Asset Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As a result of final investigations on the pavements in the road network, a number of resealing works from the 2000/01 programme have been deferred for future years. These works have been deemed either as premature for resealing works or not appropriate for reseal due to unexpected deterioration in the pavement.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT Council note and endorse the information contained in this Report.
REPORT After Council approves the rolling works programmed each year, detailed geotechnical testing reports are sought on each road section. As a result of this testing, five reseal projects were considered inappropriate for simple resealing and have been assessed as requiring rehabilitation in a later year. Resealing these sections is not economically viable, as the reseal would not provide the life extension expected from such treatment.
Three other sections were considered premature for the resealing treatment. Premature reseals also do not offer the life extension expected from receiving the treatment at this particular time and therefore are also not economical.
The road sections are summarised below:
ROAD SUBURB FROM/TO ASSESSMENT Premature Cabarita Bolwarra Heights Paterson To End Treatment Premature Glenayre East Maitland Turnbull To End Treatment Premature Robert Rutherford Rebecca To End Treatment Requires Weblands Aberglasslyn H/No 95 To H/No 111 Rehabilitation Requires Goodhugh East Maitland H/No 27 To End Rehabilitation Requires Chelmsford Metford Melaleuca To Stradbroke Rehabilitation Requires West Mall Rutherford Hillview To Alexandra Rehabilitation Taree Telarah Raymond To Goodlet Requires
Page 130 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Rolling Works Program Variations 2000/2001 (Cont.) Rehabilitation
Finalisation of treatments on these roads was held pending the outcome of the last parts of the rehabilitation programme. Variations in costs of projects in the rehabilitation programme are normally expected as works are executed and latent conditions revealed. Project practicalities dictated that a number of rehabilitation works be extended beyond their original scope.
These extensions are considered as necessary options to:
• Allow work in the area to be totally completed • Eliminate an inefficient follow up stage in future rolling works program • Allow balancing of budget allocations by minor variations in the programme.
Such extensions need to be acted upon while work crews are near to commencing works at the subject locations and are based on the final evaluation of works that have already been done, are currently being done and are yet to be done.
Extensions are acted upon with the availability of allocations from contingency components of each project or from projects that have been deemed inappropriate and of a small nature. The total allocation for the above works is $71,873, which represents only 3% of the total $2.4 million allocation for the rolling works program, and has been used to supplement minor increases in the scope of works at other locations.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward estimates.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications under the Local Government Act 1993 arising from this matter.
Page 131 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.5.3 CITY GATEWAYS
FILE NO: 122/2
Responsible Officer: Warwick Randall Group Manager, Asset Planning and Management
Author: David Bortfeld Recreation Planning Co-ordinator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report deals with the progress of the City Gateways beautification project. Two sites have been chosen, Harpers Hill to the west of the city and the corner of Four Mile Creek Road and the New England Highway to the east. Concept plans have been developed and in principle support given by the RTA.
Works at both sites include signage, car parking, landscaping and information bays. Due to a desire for these features to complement the CBD strategies this project is in its infancy. Development of the sites can begin once construction plans have been finalised and accepted. Commencement of construction will commence, pending final approval by the RTA, in August 2001.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
THAT: 1. Council proceeds with the development on the basis of the presented concept plans;
2. Construction plans be prepared for the two Gateway features;
REPORT This report deals with the progress of the City Gateways Improvement Program. As identified at the Council meeting of 22nd May, 2001 Council is investigating the development of two City entrances for beautification works. These two sites are Harpers Hill on the western boundary and the corner of Four Mile Creek Road and the New England Highway at Thornton.
Both these sites are controlled by the Roads and Traffic Authority who have given in principle support for the projects subject to acceptance of final design. The two features offer the following improvements:
• Entrance signage • Car parking • Information signage • Stop revive areas
Page 132 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
City Gateways (Cont.) • Landscaping • Seating • Rural Views
Concept plans have been prepared by a Landscape Architect and are on display in the Chambers. The entrance signage at Thornton and Harpers Hill will be similar in style to and design of the CBD entry features. The development of these sites is considered to be an important element in promoting the city and identifying its boundaries.
Council has committed $50,000 toward the development of the City Gateways. There is a need to maintain consistency between the CBD and City Gateway features. Progress on this project has been delayed pending finalisation of the CBD entry theme, and by lack of response by the RTA to requests for approval of the project. It will therefore be necessary to for construction funding to be carried over to the 2001/02 budget.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS All remaining funds be carried over into the 2001/02 budget to allow for construction to begin.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications under the Local Government Act 1993 with this matter.
Page 133 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.5.4 CORPORATE TRUSTEE MANAGEMENT OF MAITLAND CEMETERIES
FILE NO: 26/4
Responsible Officer: Warwick Randall Group Manager, Asset Planning and Management
Author: David Bortfeld Recreation Planning Co-ordinator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council, through the processes of developing the cemeteries throughout Maitland, have been approached by the Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC) regarding the management and responsibilities for the cemeteries along Raymond Terrace Road. DLWC have requested that Council, under the Crown Lands Act be appointed Trustee Managers for the said cemeteries allowing Council greater autonomy in management. This increased delegation allows Council to set fees and charges associated with burials and can lease and licence as required.
The current situation sees Council as devolved manager of these sites, which has restrictions on management options. In order to adequately manage cemetery requirements in the City on a long-term basis, it would be prudent for Council to accept this proposal by DLWC. In addition to this, Council’s long-term association with this function is likely to lead to an obligatory transfer of this responsibility.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT Council accepts the responsibility of Corporate Trustee managers for the cemeteries as identified by the Department of Land and Water Conservation.
REPORT This report deals with the future management of cemeteries in Maitland on Crown Land. Council currently has 14 active cemeteries across the LGA. Included among these are the cemeteries along Raymond Terrace Road, which are all on Crown Land. Council has administered and managed these facilities for an extended period of time.
Council is now in receipt of correspondence from the Department of Land and Water Conservation requesting Council become Corporate Trustees for these sites. This request is set out below:
Re: Maitland Cemetery
I refer to our recent conversations regarding the processes involved in developing part of the area dedicated for cemetery purposes as a columbarium by private interests. Firstly, I would like to apologise for the delay in responding.
Page 134 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Corporate Trustee Management of Maitland Cemeteries (Cont.)
With regard to the adjoining dedicated cemetery land, I am able to advise that the amendments to the Local government Act in 1993 had the effect of repealing Part 19 of the Local government Act 1919 which dealt with cemeteries and appointed Councils as trustees of cemeteries.
In these circumstances in order to determine who the trustee is we have to look at the management arrangements for the cemetery prior to the amendments to the Local Government Act in 1967. A search of the departmental records has proven inconclusive as to the management arrangements that existed prior to 1967 and it is my understanding that Council's own investigations have also proven inconclusive. It is also understood that Council wishes to retain responsibility for the cemetery.
In order to dispel any doubt as to the legal rights of the parties involved it is suggested that Council accept the position of Corporate Trust Manager for Maitland Cemetery under the provisions of the Crown Lands Act 1989. Under these provisions Council will be empowered to deal with the land including the levying of fees for burial sites and negotiating lease or licence agreements over the land. As things stand at the moment it could be questionable if Council is empowered to charge a fee for use of the cemetery.
It should be noted that lease or licence agreements for periods greater than twelve months still require the consent of the Minister.
A search of our records failed to identify any other Cemetery sites within the Maitland City area that require similar consideration as it would appear they are located on freehold land.
This appointment would increase Council’s autonomy in this matter, and improve Council’s ability to manage the overall issue of the development and management of the cemetery needs of the City. It is also likely that Council’s long term de facto association with this facility will result in an mandatory transfer of this responsibility to Council in the future.
It is considered prudent, in view of the necessity to appropriately manage the cemetery facilities for the city, that Council accept the appointment of Trustee Managers of cemeteries on Crown Land along Raymond Terrace Road.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward estimates, however, it serves to formalise Council's arrangements for charging fees associated with burials.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Council must adhere to the provision of the Crowns Land Act when dealing with community land.
Page 135 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.5.5 SILTATION AT OAKHAMPTON CEMETERY
FILE NO: P.32936
Responsible Officer: Warwick Randall Group Manager, Asset Planning and Management
Author: Clare James Heritage Officer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Detailed consideration of the silt build up at Oakhampton Cemetery formed part of the recently completed conservation management Plan for the cemetery. The plan recommends that leaving the silt in the cemetery is the only reasonable option for Council to pursue. this report discusses the various issues associated with the cemeteries siltation in response to Council's resolution of May 22nd that a report be brought back to Council regarding the matter for the June meeting.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT existing silt at Oakhampton Cemetery not be removed.
REPORT Siltation at Oakhampton cemetery has occurred as a result of major floods in the adjacent Hunter River. During major floods such as in 1893 and 1955, floodwaters would have covered the cemetery to a depth of one metre in the higher parts, and two metres on the lower flanks.
As a result many of the cemetery’s monuments are buried or partially buried in river silt with only the upper parts showing. In other parts of the cemetery, monuments show only slight burial or none at all. Based on estimates of the depth of burial of monuments, 50% of the cemetery is covered by less than 300mm of deposit, while 30% has less than 150mm. It is doubtful whether there is any part of the cemetery (except under the levee) where the accumulated depth is substantially more than one metre.
When the cemetery was established, the natural landform consisted of a variation of 1.5 to 2 metres in elevation tapering down towards the river. Today those monuments on the lower flanks are surrounded by river silt, the depth of burial being principally determined by the original height of the grave plot.
While not quantifiable, there is evidence that wind erosion is still contributing to the deposition of silt. Evidence suggests that winter westerlies are carrying silt from the surrounding area into the cemetery although the amount of silt being accumulated is not considered to be a major problem.
Page 136 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Siltation at Oakhampton Cemetery (Cont.) The Conservation Management Plan identified the primary issue associated with the existing siltation as being the effect of the silt on the physical condition of the cemetery. The advantages and disadvantages of removing the silt were identified as follows:
Advantages
o Removal of the silt would allow for recovery of the original topography of the cemetery; o May expose previously unknown graves and monuments; o Would allow visitors to read the inscriptions on presently buried monuments – though a record of inscriptions is available; o Would allow control of tree and root damage – provided there was a routine maintenance program in place; o Would reduce the rate of corrosion of presently buried metal fences; o Would reduce the rate of fungal decay of presently buried wooden elements.
Disadvantages
o Removing the silt would be expensive and require full time archaeological supervision and would need to be done largely by hand; o Would need to be repeated whenever a major flood left more silt behind; o Would require periodic maintenance as some silt is blown in by the wind; o Could not be removed from the western 8 metres – 10% of the cemetery because of the need to retain the levee; o May require desalination treatment of presently buried monuments in order to prevent salt attack damage as they dry out; o may expose previously damaged monuments that require extensive repairs.
The retention of the silt was also considered to be advantageous in that it protects the buried monuments from further flood damage, retains the highly unusual partially buried landscape, limits potential vandalism and minimises ongoing maintenance costs.
Taking the above into consideration, in addition to the regional heritage listing of the place, the Management Plan recommends that leaving the silt in the cemetery is the only reasonable option.
The Management Plan also identified the degree of future flood risk as a major issue recommending that suitable protective works should be investigated in association with the Department of Land and Water Conservation. This formed part of the Plan which was endorsed by Council at the meeting of 22/5/01, and will be undertaken as part of the implementation of the document’s recommendations.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward estimates.
Page 137 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Siltation at Oakhampton Cemetery (Cont.) POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS It should be noted that development consent and an archaeological permit from the Heritage Office would be required for any silt removal. It is unlikely that consent would be granted if an endorsed Conservation Management Plan and conservation assessment recommended against it.
Page 138 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.6 OPERATIONS GROUP
11.6.1 OAKHAMPTON WATER BODY
FILE NO: 99/2
Responsible Officer: Wayne Cone Group Manager Operations
Author: Brian Worboys Senior Noxious Weeds Inspector
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report informs Council that the spraying of the Oakhampton Water Body, previously endorsed by Council, will be postponed until later in the year. Reasons for the postponement are provided for Councils information.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT the report be received and noted.
REPORT At the Council meeting of 27th March, 2001 it was resolved that Council issue a Section 20 Notice under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 to the nine (9) property holders on the Oakhampton water body and that the eradication process to begin as soon as weather permits.
Following Council’s meeting on the 27th March, 2001 an amount of time was required to send out the Section 20 notices, organise a contractor and arrange for the contractor to commence work. This took nine (9) weeks. The contractor commenced, however rain halted work on the first day. Subsequent wet weather and cold conditions prevented the spraying of the Oakhampton Water Body until weather conditions are more favourable. This is not likely to happen until spring.
Treating the noxious weeds during wet and frosting conditions will result in very poor control of the weeds. By treating the noxious weeds during the spring the weeds will be actively growing and will absorb the chemical more readily. This will enable the contractor to achieve a more effective control of the noxious weeds.
The Section 20 Notices will need to be re-issued to the residents of the Oakhampton water body before the contractor recommences work in spring.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Landowners are to reimburse Council for the payment of Contract Works.
Page 139 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Oakhampton Water Body (Cont.) POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There may be statutory implications under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 in regard to this matter due to possible debt recovery and potential legal proceedings, if required in the future.
Page 140 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.6.2 PROGRESS REPORT ON AMENITIES CONSTRUCTION AT BISHOPS BRIDGE RURAL FIRE BRIGADE STATION
FILE NO: 20/16
Responsible Officer: Wayne Cone Group Manager Operations
Author: Barry Pont Fire Control Officer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides an update on the progress of the construction of an amenities block attached to the Bishops Bridge Rural Fire Brigade Station.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT this report be received and noted.
REPORT A grant was approved from the Rural Fire Fighting Fund to construct an amenities block at Bishops Bridge Rural Fire Brigade Station.
This building is being constructed using mostly voluntary labour supplied by the brigade and has had several delays due to wet weather and the availability of personnel from the brigade.
To date the slab has been completed, the septic tank is in place and bricks provided for the works. This building will be completed in the 2001 / 02 financial year.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Council has approved funds in the 2000 / 01 budget. The balance of funds will be used in 2001 / 02 to complete the project.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS There are no statutory implications under the Local Government Act 1993 with this matter.
Page 141 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
11.6.3 TRANSFER OF STAFF FROM COUNCIL'S RURAL FIRE SERVICE SECTION TO THE STATE RURAL FIRE SERVICE (RFS)
FILE NO: 20/26
Responsible Officer: Wayne Cone Group Manager Operations
Author: Barry Pont Fire Control Officer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report outlines the proposed Service Level Agreement (SLA) between Council and the Commissioner of the Rural Fire Service, which includes provisions related to the Fire Control Officer (FCO) being solely accountable to the Commissioner of the RFS as an employee of the State.
Council’s endorsement of the Service Level Agreement is recommended, and approval is sought to affix the common seal of Council to the agreement documents. Council is also requested to nominate two (2) Councillors as members of the Liaison Committee established to monitor the performance of the agreement.
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
THAT: 1. Council endorses the provisions of the Service Level Agreement between Council and the Commissioner of the RFS as detailed in this report.
2. The common seal of Council be affixed to the Service Level Agreement.
3. Council nominate two (2) Councillors to be members of the Liaison Committee.
REPORT In 1997 the Bushfires Act of 1949 was repealed and the Rural Fires Act of 1997 was enacted.
This change occurred after the coronial inquiry into the 1994 bush fires. The inquiry recognised the problem of the dual accountability of Fire Control Officers. The problem being the responsibility to the Commissioner for operational matters and at the same time being responsible to the General Manager for administrative matters.
A ministerial working party consisting of The Local Government and Shires Associations, The Rural Fire Service Association, The NSW Rural Fire Service and Government representatives was set up to resolve the key issues surrounding the accountability for Fire Control Officers.
Page 142 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Transfer of staff from Council's Rural Fire Service Section to the State Rural Fire Service (RFS) (Cont.)
Recommendations were:
• Streamlining the reporting lines of Fire Control Officers and supporting staff so that they are accountable to the Commissioner of the RFS as employees of the State.
• The RFS perform Local Council’s administrative responsibilities for the rural fire brigades and equipment under a service delivery contract between Council and the RFS.
The statement of principles was handed down by the working party around which the Service Level Agreement was formulated. A model document was prepared by the RFS in consultation with Council’s.
1. Service Level Agreement
The Service Level Agreement is a legal document between Council and the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service. It contains an instrument of delegation from the General Manager to the Fire Control Officer.
The second part of the document comprises seven (7) schedules. These schedules identify what must remain with Council under relevant Acts, what the Commissioner will carry out for Council, the equipment and buildings the Commissioner will use and maintain, and what Council will provide for the Rural Fire Service.
Further details on the seven (7) schedules are as follows:
Schedule 1
Lists the duties, functions and responsibilities imposed upon Council by the Rural Fire Act 1997 that must remain with Council.
Schedule 2
Identifies the premises that the Commissioner will occupy and use in the execution of the Service Level Agreement. These include six (6) rural fire brigade stations in the Maitland City Rural Fire District and a storage facility at the Metford Road Works Depot.
Page 143 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Transfer of staff from Council's Rural Fire Service Section to the State Rural Fire Service (RFS) (Cont.) Schedule 3
Lists services to be provided by the Commissioner to the Maitland City Council.
- Part 1
Duties, functions and responsibilities imposed upon the NSW Rural Fire Service and officers of the Rural Fire Service by the Rural Fires Act 1997.
- Part 2
Duties, functions and responsibilities imposed on Council by the Rural Fires Act 1997 which may be exercised by the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service.
It is proposed that the Commissioner undertake all the responsibilities on behalf of Council that are listed in Schedule 3 Part 2 of the model SLA document. These include; formation of brigades, review of the need to form additional brigades, recommending disbanding brigades, determining brigade boundaries, appointment of brigade officers after officer elections, determining minimum competency levels required to hold brigade positions, maintaining brigade membership registers, annual review of bushfire hazards on private property and reports to Council, determining when the local bushfire danger period should be altered, notification in local newspapers when bushfire danger periods are altered and publishing same in the government gazette, issuing fire permits, refusing to issue fire permits, advising relevant land managers and NSW Fire Brigade if permits have been issued or cancelled adjoining their land, preparing an annual report on the issue of fire permits, approving brigade constitutions, establishing brigade membership requirements, removing members from brigade registers, and implementing disciplinary action in accordance with the Regulation.
- Part 3
Responsibilities conferred upon the NSW Rural Fire Service by the service standards.
- Part 4
Other services to be provided to the Council not identified in the Rural Fires Act 1997 but consistent with the provision of advice and services relating to Rural Fire and Incident Management.
It is proposed that the Commissioner carry out services that are currently carried out for Council or could be expected to be done. These services include;
Page 144 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Transfer of staff from Council's Rural Fire Service Section to the State Rural Fire Service (RFS) (Cont.) * RFS related advice for Development Applications and Building Applications.
* Advice to Council on S66 notices.
* Providing bushfire risk assessment and related advice to Council.
* Managing the Emergency Services budget.
* Supporting the operations of the Local Emergency Management Committee and Local Emergency Management Operations Centre.
* Providing reports to Council and attending Council meetings when required.
* Input into Council reports (Management Plan, State of the Environment Report, Quarterly Performance Report and Budget Review).
* Supporting Council in its programme of communicating and informing local residents.
* Supporting Council’s Customer Request System and attending to correspondence.
Schedule 4
Lists all equipment that the Commissioner will use to carry out the function on behalf of Council. These include tankers, support vehicles, tanker trailers, tanker pumps, generators, chainsaws, portable pumps, communicators support equipment, radio’s, weather stations and miscellaneous equipment.
Schedule 5
Specified services to be delivered by Council to the Commissioner. These include financial services, maintenance services, information technology services, environmental services, administrative service, and other services that have been provided by Council in the past.
Schedule 6
NSW Local Government Mutual Liability Scheme insurance details.
Schedule 7
Treasury Managed Fund indemnity statement.
Page 145 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Transfer of staff from Council's Rural Fire Service Section to the State Rural Fire Service (RFS) (Cont.) 2. Liaison Committee
The Liaison Committee is not a Council committee and is not a RFS committee. It will meet at least quarterly and reports to Council and the Commissioner.
The committee will:
- Monitor the performance of the agreement. - Review the following documents prepared by the Fire Control Officer prior to submission to and consideration by the Council.
- the annual budget and business plan; and - the quarterly financial and performance reports.
The Liaison Committee consists of:
(a) Two (2) Councillors from the Council approved by resolution of Council.
(b) The General Manager of the Council or his or her delegate.
(c) One (1) volunteer Rural Fire Fighter elected in accordance with the applicable service standard.
(d) One (1) member of staff from the District nominated by the Fire Control Officer and approved by the Commissioner.
(e) the Fire Control Officer who will be the committee’s Executive Officer.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Council’s contribution to the NSW Rural Fighting Fund will increase from 12.3% in 2000 / 01 to 13.3% in 2001 /02 to cover costs that were previously paid in full by Council, but will now be paid by the Rural Fire Service and form part of the proportionate funding contribution arrangement.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS This report and recommended actions are in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and other relevant legislation, including the Rural Fires Act 1997.
Page 146 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
12 REFERRED COMMITTEE REPORTS
Page 147 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
13 NOTICE OF MOTION/RESCISSION
13.1 NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR ARCH HUMPHERY
FILE NO: 122/944
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: WARWICK RANDALL GROUP MANAGER ASSET PLANNING & MANAGEMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Councillor Arch Humphery has indicated his intention to move the following Notice of Motion at the next Ordinary Meeting of Council on 26 June 2001, as follows:
That:
1. Council liase with the SES and other relevant organisations to coalate all the required information to formulate a public education program on flooding and emergency procedures.
2. Council develop a procedure on flood effected roads namely the closing and opening of roads within the LGA and the reporting of that status and the placement in key locations advisory sign structures to advise road status in flood periods.
3. Council investigate all avenues of potential funding to assist inthe implementation of an awareness program.
COMMENT BY GROUP MANAGER 1. Under the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 each Council is required to convene a Local Emergency Management Committee (LEMC), which is responsible for planning for all potential disasters in the applicable Local Government Area. The committee comprises.
a) A senior officer of Council as Chairperson, b) Council’s Local Emergency Management Officer, c) A senior representative of each emergency services organisation operating in the relevant local government area, and d) Representatives of such organisations providing services in functional areas in the relevant local government area as the council of that area may from time to time determine.
Each emergency organisation on the LEMC has a statutory responsibility for specific areas of response in relation to emergencies in the Local Government Area. In the case of flooding that responsibility rests with the SES. The LEMC does not have any statutory powers to require another organisation to do
Page 148 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Notice of Motion submitted by Clr Arch Humphery (Cont.) anything. It relies on cooperation and statutory response of the constituent organisations to implement planning processes for emergencies.
There are some aspects of emergency response that do not come under the auspices of any one particular emergency or functional area organisation. In this case the LEMC must carry out whatever planning is required to respond to such a situation.
LEMC’s have no source of funding beyond that provided by their parent Council.
Over the last 6 months the State Emergency Management Committee has been coordinating the process of review of Emergency Risk Management (ERM) by LEMC’s across the state. As such the Maitland LEMC is currently in the early stages of review of Emergency Risk Management of all risks (including flooding) across the LGA. This will involve identification of all the risks in the area, assessment of the severity of each risk, and prioritisation of those examined to determine which of the risks will be treated.
Those risks that have a specific responsible agency will be referred to that agency for response. The guidelines for ERM developed by the State Emergency Management Committee identify community education as a key component of the EMR process. As such the LEMC would have an expectation that the appropriate emergency service would include a community education/awareness programme as part of its response to the emergency risk management process.
This will certainly be the case regarding the risk of flooding in the Maitland LGA, and the SES will be the organisation that is held responsible for any community awareness campaign for this risk. The LEMC will, as part of the ERM process, be establishing a reporting mechanism to ensure appropriate response to the referrals that arise out of this process.
2. Council currently has procedures for closing roads in the event of flooding. The SES liaises with Council to determine which roads are to be closed. This is assessed on the basis of both community safety and engineering considerations. Having arrived at a decision on these roads, Council then installs advanced signs indicating that the roads are closed due to flooding.
Roads that are closed are normally notified to the community via regular radio broadcasts, and are then reopened when it is safe to do so. Again this is assessed in consultation with the SES based on Community safety, and engineering considerations. The closure of roads is not normally reported to Council during the course of a flood, as the flood is often over by the time the report is presented, and the rapid change of status of issues relating to flooding will make information out of date quite quickly. It would be more appropriate to do a summary report for the overall status of flood damage/closure at the end of the event. Council has a number of permanent flood sign structures on its road network. These have been located on the basis of road hierarchy/traffic volumes, frequency of flooding, duration and depth of inundation, and road configuration Page 149 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
Notice of Motion submitted by Clr Arch Humphery (Cont.) environment. Installation of these signs is constantly being reviewed to accommodate new problem areas as identified by Council officers or the community, as well as to ensure renewal of existing signs on an appropriate time cycle.
3. Funding for emergency management issues is currently very limited. The only currently known grant in this area is a federal grant, which is intended for development of studies for planning for and mitigation of natural disasters. This does not include implementation issues. This grant is on the basis of dollar for dollar from Federal, State and Local Government.
Page 150 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
13.2 NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR CLR STEVE PROCTER
FILE NO: 139/6
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: DAVID EVANS GENERAL MANAGER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Councillor Steve Procter has indicated intention to move the following Notice of Motion at the next Ordinary Meeting of Council on 26 June 2001, as follows:
That: Maitland City Council request Mr John Price, Member for Maitland, to support the people of the Maitland electorate in their request for reasonable access to the “Wallaroo Nature Reserve”, formerly the “Wallaroo State Forest”.
Page 151 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
13.3 NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 001976 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE (3) DETACHED HOUSING UNITS AND SUBDIVISION INTO TWO (2) ALLOTMENTS ON LOT 28, DP 758374, 48 BRUNSWICK STREET EAST MAITLAND
FILE NO: 001976
ATTACHMENTS (1) ATTACHMENTS TO ORDINARY COUNCIL REPORT 22 MAY 2001
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: BRAD EVERETT GROUP MANAGER PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT
AUTHOR: CLR RAY FAIRWEATHER, CLR TED LEVERENCE, CLR BOB GEOGHEGAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Councillors Ray Fairweather, Ted Leverence and Bob Geoghegan have indicated their intention to move the following Notice of Rescission at the next Ordinary Meeting on 26 June 2001, as follows:
“We, Councillors Fairweather, Leverence and Geoghegan give Notice of Rescission of the following resolution of Council passed on 22 May 2001:
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
THAT Development Application 001976 be refused on the following grounds. a) Failure to meet residential subdivision standards particularly in respect to lot size. b) Over concentration/development of the site c) Out of context with residential character/streetscape of Brunswick Street precinct. d) Potential accumulative negative social impacts arising from current high concentration of medium density developments within this precinct.
Moved Clr Keating Seconded Clr Garnham CARRIED”
Page 152 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
COUNCIL REPORT OF 22 MAY 2001
UD6 001976 Construct three (3) detached housing units and subdivision into two (2) allotments 28 758374 48 Brunswick Street East Maitland RECOMMENDATION: Approval
FILE NO: 001976 ATTACHMENTS: (4) LOCALITY PLAN PLANS OF PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS LETTER FROM APPLICANT
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: BELINDA SMITH TOWN PLANNER AUTHOR: ALISON MCGAFFIN MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPLICANT: EASTSIDE PLANNING PTY LTD PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCT THREE (3) DETACHED HOUSING UNITS AND SUBDIVISION INTO TWO (2) ALLOTMENTS LOCATION: 48 BRUNSWICK STREET EAST MAITLAND ZONE: 2(A) RESIDENTIAL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant proposes to develop three detached housing units and create two allotments from an existing single allotment. This form of development is permissible with Council consent in a 2(a) Residential zone. The proposed subdivision is in the form of a battle-axe allotment, both lots having frontage to Brunswick Street as required by Council’s Residential Subdivision Standards.
The application was publicly exhibited and Council received eight (8) submissions. A report for the Approvals and Regulatory Committee meeting held on the 13 March 2001 was prepared recommending refusal of the application due to the non-compliance of the proposed subdivision component. At the applicant’s request the report was withdrawn from the Agenda pending submission of amended subdivision plans. Amended subdivision plans were provided and form part of the proposed development of the site for medium density housing and subdivision.
A report was placed before the Approvals and Regulatory Committee meeting held on the 10th April 2001 at which the Committee considered the application and deferred the item to allow consultation with the applicant and that they be asked “to consider a proposal for two dwellings” on the subject land. The applicant has considered the Committee’s request and advises that the proposed development
Page 153 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN (Cont.) conforms to Council’s current policy, the Lower Hunter Urban Housing DCP and the planning initiatives promoted by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning and therefore requests that Council determine the application in its current form (see Annexure 4).
The item is therefore placed before Council for determination.
The development has been assessed under the relevant matters for consideration in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and it is considered to be satisfactory.
OFFICER’s RECOMMENDATION
THAT: Development Application 001976 for the construction of three (3) detached housing units and subdivision into two (2) allotments on Lot 28, DP 758374, 48 Brunswick Street East Maitland be approved subject to the conditions contained in the attached schedule.
BACKGROUND
The proposed development application was originally made as an application for three medium density units and the subdivision of a single lot into three (3) allotments.
This application was to be considered at the Approvals and Regulatory Committee meeting of the 13 March 2001. However the report was withdrawn from the agenda at the request of the applicant and the proposed subdivision plans amended to conform to Council’s Residential Subdivision Standards policy.
Amended plans have now been provided to Council for assessment and Council may consider the proposed development for three (3) medium density units and the subdivision of one (1) lot into two (2).
SITE
The subject site is approximately 1438sqm in area and presently supports a single detached dwelling fronting Brunswick Street that is to be demolished as part of this development.
The land slopes with a fall of approximately 1.5m from its north-western corner to its south-eastern corner.
The site is bound by Brunswick Street to the west, Flooks Lane to the north and Lawrence Lane to the east. Residential housing otherwise surrounds the site in all directions with the exclusion of a small park across Brunswick Street to the west.
PROPOSAL
Page 154 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN (Cont.) The applicant proposes to demolish an existing dwelling, erect three (3) detached dwellings and subdivide an existing allotment of 1438sqm into two (2) allotments, one supporting a single dwelling and the other in the form of a battle-axe block supporting two dwellings, to be strata titled. (Refer Attachment 2)
The three detached dwellings are proposed one behind the other on two (2) separate allotments with a single driveway access that provides access to both proposed lots from Brunswick Street. All dwellings feature three bedrooms with separate living areas, single garages and individual courtyards. All of the dwellings are of the same design each covering an area of approximately 156m2 and having a maximum height of 7m to the ridge of the dwelling.
The allotments are proposed as Lot 1 of 383.82sqm and Lot 2 of 1053.95sqm. The dimensions of these allotments consist of 16.18m by 24m and 20.4m by 46.4m respectively, with Lot 2 having a frontage of 4.3m to Brunswick Street at the end of the battle-axe access corridor.
Vehicular access is provided via a common crossover that services both proposed lots from Brunswick Street. Visitor car parking is to be provided centrally on Lot 2 and as part of the driveway on Lot 1.
Landscaping and fencing between private yards and driveway areas are also proposed as a component of the development.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
The proposal has been assessed under the relevant matters for consideration detailed in Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as follows:
Section 79C(1)(a)(i) provisions of any environmental planning instrument
LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN
The subject land is zoned 2(a) Residential under Maitland Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1993. Medium Density Housing and subdivision of land is permissible within this zone with the consent of Council.
The proposed development requires assessment against the relevant objectives of the 2(a) Residential zone, which state:
“a) To provide for housing and associated facilities in locations of high amenity and accessibility. b) To enable development for purposes other than residential only if it is compatible with the character of the living area and has a domestic scale and character. c) To ensure that development does not create unreasonable demands, in the present or in the future, for the provision or extension of public amenities or services.”
Page 155 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN (Cont.) The proposed development seeks to provide housing in a location of amenity and accessibility. The development of three (3) dwellings on this site will provide additional housing in an established residential area where services and public amenities are already provided.
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN
The development generally complies with the provisions of the Regional Environmental Plan.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES No State Environmental Planning Policies are directly relevant to this development.
Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition
Not Relevant
Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) any development control plan Development control Plan No. 22 Lower Hunter Urban Housing The relevant Development Control Plan (DCP) that affects this development is the Lower Hunter Urban Housing DCP No. 22.
This DCP provides guidelines on the development of Medium Density/Urban Housing. The proposed development has been assessed against the provisions of this DCP and the three proposed dwellings meet the criteria for this form of development.
The proposed dwellings maintain a Floor Space Ratio of less than 0.4:1 as required by the DCP. An 8.6m setback to Brunswick Street and a 1.2m minimum setback to the side boundary adjacent Flooks Lane is also acceptable in accordance with the DCP.
Usable open space is provided at a minimum of 69m2 for Dwelling 2 and a maximum of 80m2 for Dwelling 3. These open space areas are acceptable under the performance criteria of the DCP as usable open space, as they remain separate and private from communal areas, are directly accessible from living areas within the dwelling and provide for both a service area and a recreation area that meets the minimum dimension of 3m.
Each dwelling provides a single vehicle space in the garage and three (3) visitor car parks are located at the end of the driveway between Dwellings 2 and 3. An additional visitor car park is provided behind the garage of Dwelling 1 to meet the required car parking supply of seven (7) spaces for this medium density housing development.
Residential Subdivision Standards Policy Page 156 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN (Cont.) Council’s policy on residential subdivision requires a minimum lot size of 450sqm and frontage to a public street. The required frontage to a public street varies in width depending on the type of allotment proposed (eg: corner – 20m, fan shaped – 15m or battle-axe – 3.5m).
The proposed development seeks to create two (2) allotments, one of a standard form, Lot 1 and one of a battle-axe form, Lot 2. Lot 1 has a total area of 384sqm and a frontage of 16.2m. The proposed frontage is adequate in accordance with Council’s Residential Subdivision Standards policy at greater than 15m. The proposed area of the lot at 384sqm is, however, under the required standard of 450sqm. This shortfall of 66sqm has not compromised the design of the three (3) bedroom dwelling with adequate provisions for car parking, landscaping, usable open space and drying areas. Therefore the creation of the undersized lot is considered acceptable as part of this proposed development.
The battle-axe block proposed as Lot 2 has adequate frontage to Brunswick Street at 4.2m that exceeds the standards requirement of 3.5m. It also provides adequate area for this lot at 953sqm excluding the access corridor, which is significantly larger than the required 450sqm as specified in the policy. In addition to the area required all battle-axe allotments must have frontage also to a public street or reserve of at least 12m. A frontage of 46m and 20m is provided by the adjoining lanes (Flooks and Lawrence) that bound Lot 2 to the north and east respectively.
In summary, the proposed subdivision to create two (2) allotments will create one undersized allotment and one large battle-axe allotment in accordance with Council’s Residential Subdivision Standards policy. The proposed undersized allotment provides adequate area for the provision of a single dwelling and meets the requirements of DCP No. 22 for medium density housing. The proposed development of dwellings on the land as medium density housing is acceptable and in this circumstance the subdivision of the land into two (2) lots incorporating this housing development is considered acceptable.
Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposed of this paragraph
Not Relevant
Section 79C(1)(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 impact associated with this form of residential development are minimal given the residential location of the site.
The proposed development is consistent with the context and setting of the surrounding residential area. The site is provided with all forms of public utilities and local services exist within walking distance of the site.
Page 157 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN (Cont.) The proposed site design of the dwellings meets the provisions of DCP No. 22 that provides guidelines for development of medium density housing. The proposed subdivision seeks to create one undersized allotment as a variation to the provisions of Council’s Residential Subdivision Standards policy to accommodate the proposed medium density housing development. This variation is considered to be acceptable given the design of the dwellings and their placement on the land that has ensure adequate provision of usable open space, car parking and landscaping.
Section 79C(1)(c) the suitability of the site for the development
The site is suitable for this development being zoned appropriately to allow for medium density housing.
The site is not subject to flooding or any other natural hazards.
Section 79C(1)(d) any submissions made in accordance with this act or the regulations
Public Submissions
The development application and accompanying information were placed on public exhibition for a period of 14 days from 27 November 2000 to 11 December 2000. As a result of the notification process, a total of eight (8) submissions were received and are provided as Attachment 3 to this report.
The main issues raised by the objectors are summarised below and comment provided:
“My house faces Lawrence Lane which is narrow and only gravel in very poor condition and already we get too much speeding traffic around here!….and I can see this and Guide Lane use as a back entrance to these units.”
“…recently been broken into 3 times…the increase population in rental properties in close proximity….Our access is Guide Lane and the already increase in speeding traffic on this and Lawrence Lane could only be accentuated by more high density units.”
“increase density will lead to an increase in Lane usage. The lane is used by…neighbourhood children to go to and from school, it is narrow unsealed and already unsafe.”
Planners Comment
The proposed development does not seek to use Flooks or Lawrence Lane for access purposes by vehicles or pedestrians. It is anticipated that usage of the lanes will remain consistent with present levels.
“The unique characteristics of the street will be compromised by the new unit development. Medium density development is not in keeping with the character Page 158 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN (Cont.) and age of the existing dwellings in the street.”
“In general I believe the development is out of character for a streetscape which contains some significant homes.”
“Brunswick Street has a number of architecturally significant residential buildings…density similar to this proposal will undoubtedly affect and influence the streetscape and the social fabric of this street”
“The development is out of character with the general streetscape of Brunswick St…will detract from the general amenity of this area.”
“…I do not feel that this type of development is in keeping with the existing developments in the area.”
Planner's Comment
The locality comprises a number of large allotments still supporting the original housing. However, this does not limit the potential of the subject site for redevelopment for medium density housing. The dwellings proposed as part of this redevelopment are well designed and well spaced across the site, and as they are located one behind the other, their impact on the streetscape of Brunswick Street will not be significant.
“It would be detrimental to the community’s quality of life, quiet enjoyment, property values and resale potentials if development mistakes like those in Skilton Avenue were repeated this end of Brunswick Street.”
Planner's Comment
The proposed development on this site consists of three (3) single storey detached dwellings, as opposed to the attached and group housing located in Skilton Avenue. This form of higher density group housing is a style of development that is no longer pursued in residential zones as development standards for this type of housing are now stringently controlled.
“…if this development proceeds then other developers will want to transfer the adjoining properties to similar developments and along will come the social disfunctionality associated with concentrations of rental properties in one street.”
“The new developments on corresponding blocks along Lawrence Lane and Brunswick Street have introduced two residences not three to the blocks.”
“There are a number of other properties with similar potential…it will set a precedent..”
“The current arrangements allow for an additional residence on the back portions of the land…The new residence has maintained a six metre clearance from the Lane to the building line which is unlike that proposed in the development under consideration.”
Page 159 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN (Cont.)
“…the precedent for development that has been set in the street has been for one additional dwelling to be constructed on the lot. The proposal sets a new undesirable precedent with three dwellings…We consider two dwellings acceptable but three dwellings an undesirable precedent.”
“…we wish to strongly object…Unfortunately rental apartments bring high density, traffic, increased crime and a tendency to attract more development in close proximity of the same.”
Planner's Comment
The proposal does highlight the potential for other allotments within the locality to be developed for medium density housing. However, this form of development has occurred in the locality prior to this proposal due to the generous size of the original allotments in this street.
The development of medium density housing is permissible on all residential land within the Maitland City Council area in accordance with DCP No. 22. Development proposals for two or three dwellings on residential land are considered on individual merit and are assessed in accordance with the provisions of DCP No. 22.
“The lane known as Flooks Lane already has a major drainage problem…the lane cannot cope with the existing situation and I believe that the development will only exasperate the current unsatisfactory situation.”
“The storm water drainage from this development is an issue that is of concern…a considerable amount of run off water already moves down Flooks Lane…This development has the potential to increase this problem.”
Planner's Comment
Council’s Drainage and Subdivision Engineer has considered the issues related to drainage of the site and appropriate conditions requiring a concrete dish drain have been applied.
“I purchased for privacy and this development will remove that from me…”
“Unit 3 backs onto my property and appears to be considerably higher than my property. This will create a privacy issue…”
Planner’s Comment
The dwelling proposed at the rear of the site is elevated due to the natural fall across the land to a maximum of approximately 1.5m above the natural ground level. At this maximum height the dwelling is located approximately 11m from the adjoining residential allotment’s boundary across Flooks and Lawrence Lanes. The window located at this point is a bedroom window, a private room, from which
Page 160 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN (Cont.) privacy is maintained. Given the distance from the neighbouring boundaries, the potential for loss of privacy is not considered significant.
“The plan that has been supplied does not show any fencing along Flooks Lane.”
Planner’s Comment
Fencing to a height of 1.8m would be required along both lanes by consent conditions.
“However if council does approve this development application, I would like the following made a condition of approval…” (See Attachment 3)
Planner’s Comment
The conditions listed in this submission are reasonable as they relate to this development application and will be applied where relevant.
Submissions from public authorities
None Applicable
Page 161 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN (Cont.)
Section 79C(1)(e) the public interest The proposed development seeks to provide additional dwellings in a location of high accessibility in an established residential area. The proposed subdivision is considered acceptable in this circumstance as a variation to the Residential Subdivision Standards policy as this undersized allotment (Lot 1) is able to provide adequate provision for a single residential dwelling.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward estimates.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS
Statutory implications of Council in assessment of the subject application have been addressed in the body of the report
CONCLUSION
In summary the proposed development of medium density housing on the subject site with a variation to Council’s Residential Subdivision Standards to create two (2) allotments is considered acceptable for this site and locality.
The proposed development for medium density housing and subdivision has been assessed under the relevant matters for consideration in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended and is considered to generally comply with the provisions of the Act and accordingly is recommended for approval.
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS COMPLIANCE Reason: The following condition(s) have been applied to confirm and clarify the terms of Council’s Approval.
1 The proposed development is to be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans dated November 1999 and the amended subdivision plan dated March 2001 submitted with the application, and any amendments to those plans arising through conditions to this consent.
LANDSCAPING Reason: The following condition(s) have been applied to ensure that adequate provision is made for the landscaping of the site in association with the proposed development, to enhance
Page 162 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN (Cont.) the external appearance of the development, and to ensure that existing and proposed landscaped areas are appropriately maintained.
2 A 1.8 m high fence (from the natural and the altered ground level as proposed as part of this application) shall be erected on all boundaries of the subject site, including Flooks Lane and Lawrence Lane at cost to the applicant. 3 The landscaped area of the development is to be maintained at all times in accordance with the approved landscape plans.
SITE CONSIDERATIONS Reason: The objectives of the following conditions is to provide for a safe and healthy environment for the occupants of the allotment and to maintain an adequate level of safety and cleanliness for the local environment.
4 Excavated or filled areas adjacent to the building are to be retained and drained to prevent the subsidence of the cut or filled area and entry of water to the building or neighbouring buildings and land. Where the retaining walls exceed 600mm in height, plans and specifications of the construction shall be approved before works commence. Where any retaining wall exceeds 1.0m in height a design plan prepared by a practicing professional engineer shall be required.
5 All building refuse on this building site shall be stored in such a manner so as not to cause a nuisance to adjoining properties.
6 If an excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation to be made.
i) Must preserve and protect the building from damage, and
ii) If necessary , must underpin and support the building in an approved manner, and
iii) Must, at least 7 days before excavating below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, give notice of intention to do so to the owner of the adjoining allotment of land and furnish particulars of the excavation to the owner of the building being erected or demolished.
The owner of the adjoining allotment of land is not liable for any part of the cost of work carried out for the purposes of this condition, whether carried out on the allotment of land being Page 163 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN (Cont.) excavated or on the adjoining allotment of land. (Includes a public road and any other public place). 7 If the work involved in the erection or demolition of a building:
i) is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient, or
ii) involves the enclosure of a public place
a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place.
If necessary, an awning is to be erected between the work site and the public place.
The work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place. Any such hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed when the work has been completed. 8 A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any work site on which work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is being carried out:
i) stating that unauthorised entry to work site is prohibited, and
ii) showing the name of the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number at which that person may be contacted during work hours.
Any such sign is to be removed when the work has been completed.
This condition does not apply to:
i) building work carried out inside an existing building, or
ii) building work carried out on premises that are to be occupied continuously (both during and outside working hours) while the work is being carried out. 9 Approved toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site on which the work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is being carried out, at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site. The provision of toilet facilities in accordance with this Clause must be completed before any other work is commenced.
Page 164 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN (Cont.) 10 The site is to be cleared of all building refuse and spoil immediately after completion of the building.
11 No building materials, refuse or spoil is to be deposited on or be allowed to remain on Council's footpath.
12 Soil erosion and sediment controls are to be provided in accordance with Council's policy prior to and during the construction of the proposed development.
13 The applicant is required to notify Council in writing prior to commencing building operations, of any existing damage to kerbing and guttering and/or footpath paving; and that absence of such notification signify that no damage exists and the builder therefore be liable for the cost of the reinstatement of any damage to kerbing and guttering or footpath paving which may be necessary after completion of the building operation.
14 Where a lot has frontage to existing concrete foot paving or a cycle path within the footpath, then the location of the proposed vehicular driveway access to the residence is to be identified and the concrete paving removed over the width of the access. Access to the site by construction traffic will only be permitted at this location. Any damage to the remainder of the footpaving/cyclepath is to be reinstated by the property owner to Council's satisfaction. CARPARKING Reason: The following condition(s) have been applied to ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities constructed to a suitable standard commensurate with the demand likely to be generated by the proposed development.
15 The provision of on-site car parking for the subject application has been assessed at: a) three spaces required to be covered b) four spaces not required to be covered.
TRAFFIC/ROADS/FOOTPATH Reason: The following conditions(s) have been applied to ensure that the surrounding road system, footpaths, access/egress and internal; parking and maneuvering areas are designed and constructed to a standard adequate to service the proposed development.
16 Where a battleaxe lot is proposed by the approved subdivision layout the construction of pavement within the battleaxe handle is required. The pavement shall be designed with a minimum standard of a two coat seal (or higher standard if Page 165 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN (Cont.) desired) appropriate to guarantee dust free all weather access for the design life (minimum 20 years) of any use it serves.
17 Concrete kerb laybacks are to be constructed in accordance with Council's Standard Drawing SD50.
18 Vehicular footpath crossings shall be constructed as either full width concrete slabs or wheel strips in accordance with the design criteria contained in Maitland City Council Standard Drawings SD77 and SD78. Concrete shall be 125mm thick, unreinforced or 100mm thick if reinforced with F62 mesh with 25mm clear cover to the top. Only ready mixed concrete of 28 day compressive strength, not less than 20Mpa shall be used. Finish shall be plain concrete broomed finish unless some other finish has been specified in the Development Application.
19 Barricades and lights are to enclose the whole of the vehicular crossing work area, and are to be maintained for the duration of the work. Adjacent footpath areas are to be kept clear of debris etc. at all times and in a safe condition for pedestrian access.
20 Where concrete has been poured, the works shall be closed to traffic for seven days after the pour. After completion of works, and removal of formwork, the adjacent footpath shall be trimmed or filled along the edges of the works to an even grade of 1(V) to 4(H). Concrete surfaces shall be finished with a coving flat, and all edges and dummy joints finished with a 75mm edging tool. The kerb layout and footpath crossing slab shall not be integral, but be separated by a full depth bitumen impregnated joint filling strip. For a vehicular crossing, a dummy joint shall be tooled parallel with the kerb line and 1,500mm from the property boundary.
UTILITY SERVICES Reason: The following condition(s) have been applied to ensure that adequate utility installations are provided to the site to serve the development and to satisfy the requirements of the various servicing authorities.
21 Consultation and compliance with the requirements of the following authorities: (i) Energy Australia (ii) Telstra prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.
Page 166 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN (Cont.) 22 Water and sewerage facilities are to be provided to each allotment within the proposed subdivision.
23 A Certificate under Section 50 of the Hunter Water Corporatisation Act, 1991, shall be obtained prior to endorsement of the final survey plan. Applications for Section 50 Certificates are to be made direct to the Hunter Water Corporation.
24 Consultation with and compliance with the requirements of the Hunter Water Corporation. A Compliance Certificate from the Hunter Water Corporation shall be submitted to Council prior to issue of the Construction Certificate. Application for the Compliance Certificate shall be made direct to the Hunter Water Corporation.
DESIGN Reason: That the following condition(s) have been applied to ensure that: i) Buildings are constructed in a manner which has regard for the constraints affecting the subject land. ii) Buildings are constructed of suitable materials with respect to their function and location and that colour schemes and restoration works are appropriate and retain the integrity of existing structures.
25 The provision of external clothes hoists/clothes lines at the rate of 10 lineal metres per unit located and screened. OR The provision of mechanical clothes dryers in each unit.
HEALTH & AMENITY Reason: The objectives of the following conditions are to ensure that a building is so designed and constructed so that it and adjoining properties are not subject to dampness and are weatherproof, provide adequate toilet and washing facilities, room sizes are adequate for the use and purpose, light ventilation is adequate for the occupants and adequate insulation against noise transmission is provided.
26 Roof waters are to be disposed to the street gutters where possible or in accordance with Council policy.
DRAINAGE & SEDIMENT/EROSION CONTROL Reason: The following condition(s) have been applied to ensure that: i) Adequate sediment/erosion control structures are provided to prevent siltation of existing drainage systems and waterways; ii) Stormwater internal and external to the proposed development site is controlled to minimise the risk of flooding to upstream and downstream properties; and iii) Due regard is given to the development of flood liable land or land in the vicinity of flood liable
Page 167 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN (Cont.) 27 The applicant shall construct a concrete dish drain in Lawrence Lane between the property boundary and Lawes Street. The drain shall discharge to the letterbox pit near Lawes Street. Plans for the proposed drain shall be submitted to Council for approval. 28 Stormwater runoff from large impervious areas, driveways and roof areas is to be collected and disposed of to Council's drainage system or an appropriate inter-allotment drainage system in accordance with Council's publication "A Guideline for Stormwater Drainage Design".
29 On site detention shall be provided in accordance with Council's publication "A Guideline for Stormwater Drainage Design".
30 An approved stormwater drainage plan shall be submitted to Council for future reference.
31 The site and its surrounding environs are to be protected from the effects of sediment and erosion by the application of generally accepted sediment and erosion control principles. In this respect, a sediment and erosion control plan shall be submitted to Council for reference, and site controls shall be established in accordance with that plan.
CONTRIBUTIONS/FEES Reason: The following condition(s) have been applied to ensure that: i) Where the proposed development results in an increased demand for public amenities and services, payment towards the cost of providing these facilities/services is made in accordance with Councils adopted contributions plan prepared via the provisions of section 94 of the environmental planning and assessment act, 1979. ii) Council's administration expenses are met with
32 A final plan of survey and thirteen (13) copies shall be submitted to Council for endorsement by the Council. 33 A house numbering fee of $8.80 is required to be paid to Council prior to the release of the final survey plan, for the allocation of house numbering being $8.80 per residential/commercial allotment and $15.40 per rural/industrial allotment. 34 A final survey plan endorsement fee applicable at the time of release of plans shall be paid to Council prior to the release of the plan. (currently $126.50)
35 The payment of a monetary contribution in accordance with Council's policy adopted on the 1st September, 1995 for the Provision of public amenities and services within the Maitland
Page 168 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN (Cont.) Local Government Area as follows: -
City Wide 1. Community Amenities & Services $2,642 2. Recreation & Open Space $1,026 3. Cycleway $242 5. Urban Roads $102 6. Administration $296 East Sector $1,138 TOTAL $5,446
NOTE: The above rates are effective from 1st January 2001, and will be subject to inflation adjustment, calculated as at the date of payment. The method of adjustment shall be based on the Implicit Price Deflator (Total Public Gross Fixed Capital Expenditure) as published by the Australian Bureau of Census and Statistics. The above payment is to be made prior to release of the final plan of survey.
GENERAL PROVISIONS Reason: The objectives of the following conditions is to draw to the attention of the applicant and owner their responsibilities to comply with various provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations, 1994, Local Government Act 1993; Regulations; Building Code of Australia and Local Policies relating to building construction and maintenance.
36 Where the proposed development involves the disturbance or destruction of any existing survey monuments, those monuments affected will need to be relocated by a Surveyor registered under the Surveyors Act. A plan showing the relocated marks will then be required to be lodged as a mtter of public record at the Lands Title Office. 37 It is the Applicants responsibility to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act, 1992 (DDA). Note: Compliance with the Building Code of Australia does not necessarily meet the requirements of the DDA.
38 A construction certificate is to be obtained prior to commencing construction works. The construction certificate application is to include detailed plans and specifications for the construction of the premises and where applicable installation of fittings, furnishings and equipment to all food preparation and storage areas.
39 All aspects of the building design shall comply with the applicable performance requirements of the BCA for a Class 1(a) building so as to achieve and maintain acceptable
Page 169 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN (Cont.) standards of structural sufficiency, safety (including fire safety), health and amenity for the ongoing benefit of the community. Compliance with the performance requirements can only be achieved by; a) complying with the deemed to satisfy provisions, or b) formulating an alternative solution which: i) complies with the performance requirements, or ii) is shown to be at least equivalent to the deemed to satisfy provision, or c) a combination of a) or b).
40 All building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.
41 Owner should note that the issue of the development consent does not amount to a release, variation or modification by Council of any covenant applicable to this property and that any action taken by the applicant for consent in accordance with the consent which results in the incurring of any loss or damage by way of breach of the covenant will not be the responsibility of Council.
42 The building shall be set out by a registered surveyor. A Survey Certificate shall be submitted indicating the location of the footprint of the building relative to the boundaries of the lot and where applicable other buildings.
43 The applicant shall consult with Asset Planning & Management Group at the Council for all advice concerning; 44 1) Building work that involves residential building work (within the meaning of the Home Building Act, 1989) must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates; a) in the case of work to be done by a licensee under that Act: i) has been informed in writing of the licensee’s name and contractor licence number, and ii) has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land, that states that reasonable market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work is less than the amount prescribed for the purposes of the definition of owner-builder work in Section 29 of that Act, and is given appropriate information and declarations under paragraphs a) and b) whenever arrangements for the doing of the Page 170 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
NOTICE OF RESCISSION – SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS RAY FAIRWEATHER, TED LEVERENCE AND BOB GEOGHEGAN (Cont.) work are changed in such a manner as to render out of date any information or declaration previously given under either of those paragraphs. 45 All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely and in accordance with appropriate professional standards.
46 All excavations associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.
47 The applicant is required to submit to Council, Notice of Commencement and Appointment of a Principal Certifying Authority at least two (2) days prior to the commencement of construction works.
48 All demolition works are to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2601-1991.
49 The requirements of the Hunter Water Corporation with regard to construction works over or adjacent to a sewer main are to be adhered to.
50 Inspections are required to be carried out at the following stages of the construction. Continuation of any further works is to be suspended until a satisfactory inspection has been carried out and a compliance certificate issued. NOTE: It is an offence to fail to call for an inspection or carryout any works found to be defective, without the consent of the Principal Certifying Authority, then a minimum of 24 hours notice will be required prior to each inspection. All inspections must be booked with Council by 3.00 pm on the day before the inspection is required. Facsimile requests for inspection will not be accepted. The approval fee must be paid for the inspections. Inspection bookings can be made by telephoning the Council on (02) 4934 9850 in normal office hours.
Slabs - after site is formed, reinforcing steel is laid and fixed prior to pouring concrete.
Frame - when construction has reached lockup stage with external cladding and roof material fixed but prior to fixing any internal linings or insulation.
Wet Area Flashing - after application of an approved product but prior to its covering. Alternatively, a certificate of installation may be submitted to Council from an approved flashing installer after its application but prior to calling for a final inspection.
Final - on completion of all works BUT prior to occupation/use.
Page 171 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
14 URGENT BUSINESS
15 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Page 172 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
16 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
16.1.1 EXPRESSION OF INTEREST - SUPPLY OF MOTOR VEHICLES
FILE NO: 137/883
Responsible Officer: Graeme Tolhurst Group Manager Business & Finance
Author: Graeme Tolhurst Group Manager Business & Finance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council advertised for Expressions of Interest for the supply of part or all of Council’s Passenger Fleet. There were 9 firms that responded. After assessing the respondents, three are recommended to be asked to tender.
OFFICERS' RECOMMENDATION THAT Council move into Confidential Session to discuss this item under the terms of the Local Government Act 1993 Section 10A(2), as follows:
(d)(i) commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed: prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it
Page 173 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
16.1.2 REGIONAL HOCKEY FACILITY AND LONG TERM OPEN SPACE STRATEGY
FILE NO: 101/30
Responsible Officer: Brad Everett Group Manager Planning and Environment
Author: Leanne Harris Environmental Strategist
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides Council with options for consideration in relation to the provision of a Regional Hockey Facility, having regard to longer-term recreation and open space strategy and planning for the City. The report discusses a number of options including rationalisation of existing open space and users as well as future acquisition of property. Given the commercial sensitivities of these issues, the report is presented to Council in the Committee of the Whole.
OFFICERS' RECOMMENDATION THAT Council move into Confidential Session to discuss this item under the terms of the Local Government Act 1993 Section 10A(2), as follows:
(c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business
Page 174 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
16.1.3 CEMETERIES MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
FILE NO: 137/882
Responsible Officer: Warwick Randall Group Manager, Asset Planning and Management
Author: David Bortfeld Recreation Planning Co-ordinator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report deals with the maintenance contract for Council's cemeteries. The existing contract is scheduled to be renewed in July, 2001 and the existing contractor, Endeavour Industries, has resigned from any further dealing with the current contract.
OFFICERS' RECOMMENDATION THAT Council move into Confidential Session to discuss this item under the terms of the Local Government Act 1993 Section 10A(2), as follows:
(d)(iii) commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed: reveal a trade secret
Page 175 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
16.1.4 REVIEW OF COUNCIL'S ORGANISATION STRUCTURE
FILE NO: 130/69
Responsible Officer: David Evans General Manager
Author: David Evans General Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to present a discussion paper to the Council on a review of the Council’s organisation structure. The discussion paper follows from Council’s redetermination of the present structure at its meeting held on 22nd August, 2000, and Council’s adoption at the same meeting of a number of principles for the ongoing review and refining of the structure.
OFFICERS' RECOMMENDATION THAT Council move into Confidential Session to discuss this item under the terms of the Local Government Act 1993 Section 10A(2), as follows:
(f) personnel matters concerning particular individuals
Page 176 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 26 JUNE 2001
17 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
18 CLOSURE
Page 177