COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL ORDINARY MEETING COUNCIL … · 5/15/2008 · c29 reports and resolutions awaiting implementation 48 c30 bank balances and investments for march 2008 52

COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

COFF AND CASTLE STREETS, COFFS HARBOUR

15 MAY 2008

Contents ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORTS CONFIDENTIAL ITEM The following item (8) either in whole or in part may be considered in

Closed Meeting for the reasons stated:

A portion of these reports are confidential for the reason of Section 10A(2):

(c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business,

(d) commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed: (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council, or (iii) reveal a trade secret; and

(e) information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law.

and in accordance with Section 10A (1) the meeting may be closed to the public.

8 NATIONAL SURF LIFE SAVING CHAMPIONSHIPS, COFFS HARBOUR; SURF LIFE SAVING AUSTRALIA - RENEGOTIATION OF CONTRACT

1

Note: General Manager’s Report No. 8 has been withdrawn to allow for additional information to be obtained.

9 QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORTING FOR QUARTER ENDED 31 MARCH 2008

17

lidleonie

Note

Minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Land Use, Health & Development meeting on 5 June 2008 to be held in the Council Chamber.

ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE

CORPORATE BUSINESS DEPARTMENT REPORTS C23 QUARTERLY BUDGET REVIEW FOR MARCH 2008 22C24 ORARA VALLEY COMMUNITY SWIMMING POOL 33C25 LOAN TO SAWTELL TOORMINA SPORT AND RECREATION CLUB INC 35C26 APPOINTMENT OF FOI OFFICERS 39C27 AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNCIL MEETING DATE SCHEDULE 42

CONFIDENTIAL ITEM The following item (C28) either in whole or in part may be considered in

Closed Meeting for the reasons stated:

A portion of these reports are confidential for the reason of Section 10A(2):

(d) commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed: (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council, or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

and in accordance with Section 10A (1) the meeting may be closed to the public.

C28 TENDER: SUPPLY OF DUCTILE PIPE AND WATER SERVICE FITTINGS

43

C29 REPORTS AND RESOLUTIONS AWAITING IMPLEMENTATION 48C30 BANK BALANCES AND INVESTMENTS FOR MARCH 2008 52

LAND USE HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT L8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 1132/07 - MULTI-UNIT HOUSING (10

APARTMENTS) AND STRATA SUBDIVISION - LOT 9 SECTION 61 DP 758258, LOT 1 DP 1091932, LOTS 2 AND 3 DP 1118480, NO. 7 MOORE STREET AND CLOSED PUBLIC ROAD, COFFS HARBOUR

56

COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING

15 MAY 2008

Mayor and Councillors GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORTS

8 NATIONAL SURF LIFE SAVING CHAMPIONSHIPS, COFFS HARBOUR; SURF LIFE SAVING AUSTRALIA - RENEGOTIATION OF CONTRACT

Note: Report withdrawn to allow for additional information to be obtained.

CORPORATE BUSINESS COMMITTEE 15 MAY 2008 - 1 -


9 QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORTING FOR QUARTER ENDED 31 MARCH 2008

Purpose: To report on the achievement of customer service guarantees and performance targets for the January to March 2008 quarter. Description of Item: Council’s Management Plan contains, among other things, customer service guarantees and performance targets for the year. The quarterly performance report describes the actual performance results as compared to the expected performance results. A summary of results for each customer service guarantee is provided in Attachment 1 to this report. A list of significant achievements for the quarter is provided in Attachment 2 to this report. A summary of actual performance against each performance target is detailed in a separate booklet, which is available in the Councillors’ Room. Sustainability Assessment: This report monitors Council’s performance of strategies as outlined in the 2007-2010 Management Plan. An assessment using social, economic and financial indicators applies to individual strategies and an overall assessment is not required.

Consultation: Managers from all Council departments have submitted performance reports for objectives that relate to their areas of responsibility. This involved consultation with appropriate staff and capturing data from Council’s electronic information systems. Related Policy and / or Precedents: Quarterly Performance Reports have been submitted to Council since the implementation of Council’s first Management Plan in the 1994/95 financial year. Statutory Requirements: Section 407 of the 1993 Local Government Act requires the General Manager to submit performance reports to Council within two months following the end of each quarter (ie July to September, October to December, January to March and April to June). The report is to describe the extent to which performance targets set out in Council’s Management Plan have been met during the quarter. Council’s Annual Report is to include a yearly review on the achievement of performance targets set out in Council’s Management Plan for that year. Issues: There are 18 principal objectives incorporating 197 performance measures identified in Council’s 2006-2009 Management Plan. Of the performance measures, 189 were either achieved or not yet due for completion during the quarter.


9 Quarterly Performance Reporting For Quarter Ended 31 March 2008 …(Cont’d)

Original Measure

Revised Measure

Comment

LIVEABLE CITY

Implement Water Sensitive Urban Design policy by March 2008.

September 2008 Draft Policy completed. Internal workshops underway. Trials underway in conjunction with North Sapphire development

Open Space Strategy reviewed by December 2007.

August 2008 Extensive consultation & resourcing issues hampered progress

CIVIC INFRASTRUCTURE

Bakers Road detention basin construction completed by December 2007

September 2008 Labour diverted to alternative projects eg Hogbin Drive. Tender currently being prepared

Completion of Moonee Beach Road upgrade by June 2008.

December 2008 Schedule of work priorities diverted to City Facilities Program

UNIQUE ENVIRONMENT

Conduct and monitor education programs in accordance with the plan.

Ongoing Council without Environmental Education Officer until 28 February 2008, currently working 2 days per week.

Status of Biodiversity Strategy activities

N/A Biodiversity officer unfunded

Adoption of Vegetation Strategy by June 2008.

To be determined Strategy on hold.

COUNCIL’S ORGANISATION

Development of Coffs Harbour Visitor Information Centre Business Plan by December 2007.

September 2008 Significant workflow has impeded progress

9 Quarterly Performance Reporting For Quarter Ended 31 March 2008 …(Cont’d) Achievement of 96% of performance measures is considered acceptable. Comparison of Council’s customer service guarantees as detailed in Attachment 1 to this report shows the response time has generally remained at a high level. Implementation Date / Priority: Management will continue to monitor the organisation’s performance with a view to improving service delivery. Recommendation: 1. That Council adopt the revised strategies and performance indicators in the 2007-2010

Management Plan as outlined in the Issues section of this report. 2. That Council note the issues surrounding those measures that have not been

achieved for the period ending 31 March 2008, as listed in the body of this report. 3. That Council note the achievements of customer service guarantees, as outlined in

Attachment 1 of the General Manager’s Report for the January to March 2008 quarter. 4. That Council note the organisation’s significant achievements, as outlined in

Attachment 2 of the General Manager’s Report for the January to March 2008 quarter. 5. That Council note the achievement of performance targets, as outlined in a separate

booklet which is available in the Councillors’ Room for the January to March 2008 quarter.

6. That Council continues to monitor its performance with a view to improving service

delivery.

Stephen Sawtell General Manager


- 20 -

Attachments:

ATTACHMENT 1 CUSTOMER SERVICE GUARANTEES – QUARTERLY COMPARISON

Guarantee

2007/2008 Jan-Mar

2006/2007Jan-Mar

Respond to verbal enquiries within three working days

97%

(1,359)

97%

(1192) Ensure waiting time at the customer service counter does not exceed five minutes

100%

100%

Respond to major pollution incidents within one hour

N/A (0)

0% (1)

Investigate 85% of complaints relating to stray dogs and stock within four hours

86% (160)

99% (439)

Attend to 90% emergency call outs within one hour

N/A (0)

N/A (0)

Reply to requests for work in public parks within seven days

100% (294)

100% (129)

90% of all requests for building inspections will be attended to within two days

97%

(1,284)

100%

(2,149) 100% development applications will be processed within forty days

81% (292)

83% (297)

Seal potholes on local roads within seven days

80% (59)

96% (45)

Repair or remove dangerous signs within one day

95% (10)

88% (8)

Repair defective signs within seven days

83% (6)

88% (8)

Grade gravel roads at least once per year

Completed

On Target

Clear blocked drains causing property damage within twenty four hours

100% (47)

100% (64)

Issue payment certificates within 14 days of receipt of claim from the contractor

78% (23)

78% (18)

Respond to water supply disruptions within two hours

99% (78)

99% (145)

Respond to sewer system failures within two hours

94% (273)

96% (173)

- 21 -

ATTACHMENT 2

SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENTS Hogbin Drive extension completed and opening ceremony held Cavanbah Hall redevelopment commenced Water treatment plant earthworks complete. Woolgoolga-northern Beaches cycleway works commenced near High street North Bonville Release Area collector road tender accepted Draft Crime Prevention and Safety Plan placed on exhibition Coldwater Creek bridge replacement commenced Official launch of “Camp Rabbitoh” staged Sawtell Headland Community Facilities works commenced Park Beach nourishment & Harbour dredging undertaken Australian Touch football championships held at Coffs Coast Sport & Leisure Park Contract for design of Brelsford Park City Park consept awarded Environmental Levy draft program submitted to Council & adopted for inclusion in

Draft Management Plan Harmony day activities successfully staged with around 2,000 people attending at the

Botanic Gardens Park Beach Holiday Park expansion Stage 3 works underway High Street Woolgoolga cycleway construction commenced Roll out of Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) commenced Oz Tag State Cup held at Coffs Coast Sport & Leisure Park Australia Day celebrations well attended Coffs Creek mouth opened by Council staff to mitigate possible flooding Increasing number of stalls at the growers markets Event Management workshop staged by EDU with excellent attendance New season launched at the Jetty Theatre with 13 shows, including 3 shows aimed

at youth theatre. Continuance of the implementation of the 2006 Organizational Review report Construction of water mains at Moonee complete Water Reclamation Plant works continue on schedule


CORPORATE BUSINESS DEPARTMENT REPORTS

C23 QUARTERLY BUDGET REVIEW FOR MARCH 2008

Purpose: To report on the estimated budget position as at 31 March 2008. Description of Item: Estimated Budget Position as at 31 March 2008: General Water Sewer Account Account Account $ $ $ Original Budget adopted 21st June 2007 Nil 2,514,877 (D) 2,900,460 (D) Approved variations to 29 February 2008 152,604 (D) 38,135 (D) 48,135 (D) Recommended variations for March per attached exception report 121,606 (S) 1,871,549 (S) 2,305,651 (S) Estimated result 2007/08 as at 31 March 2008 30,998 (D) 681,463 (D) 642,944 (D) Sustainability Assessment: This report is one of procedure only. • Environment

There are no perceived short or long-term environmental impacts. • Social

There are no perceived short or long term social impacts.

• Economic

Management Plan Implications

The Original budget for the General Account adopted on the 21 June 2007 provided for a balanced position. For substantial budget adjustments the associated council reports have addressed the TBL factors independently in 2007/08.

Consultation: Managers have been provided with budget analysis reports for each program. Requested variations and variations adopted by Council have been included in the report.


C23 Quarterly Budget Review For March 2008 …(Cont’d) Statutory Requirements: Under local government regulations Council is required to submit a quarterly budget review to Council. Therefore Council is under no obligation to provide monthly reviews but has recommended they be completed as part of prudent financial management. The Responsible Accounting Officer believes this report indicates the financial position of the Council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of Income and Expenditure. Recommendation: 1. The variations in the attached exception report be approved. 2. The revised Budget position as at 31 March 2008 be noted: General Water Sewer Account Account Account $ $ $ Original Budget adopted 21st June 2007 Nil 2,514,877 (D) 2,900,460 (D) Approved variations to 29 February 2008 152,604 (D) 38,135 (D) 48,135 (D) Recommended variations for March per attached exception report 121,606 (S) 1,871,549 (S) 2,305,651 (S) Estimated result 2007/08 as at 31 March 2008 30,998 (D) 681,463 (D) 642,944 (D)

Attachments:

- 24 -

- 25 -

- 26 -

- 27 -

- 28 -

- 29 -

- 30 -

- 31 -

- 32 -


C24 ORARA VALLEY COMMUNITY SWIMMING POOL

Purpose: To report to Council on investigations to provide additional privacy to the property adjoining the pool. Description of Item: At its meeting held on 7 February 2008, Council resolved to extend the pool opening times until 6.00pm on Saturdays and Sundays, with discretion to extend to 8.00pm as required. Council further resolved to investigate appropriate ways to improve the privacy of the adjoining property, possibly by way of additional fencing. A report was presented to Council on 20 March 2008 suggesting a combination of fencing and screen planting to improve the privacy. At that meeting Council deferred the matter for further consideration, and requested the amount of funds spent to date by Council on this issue. Council’s Project Manager for the pool has advised that funds spent on this issue over and above what was required as part of the development would only be a few hundred dollars. Options are those set out in the earlier report estimated to cost $8,500 (Option 1) or the enhancement of the existing planting along the fence line estimated to cost $1,500 (Option 2). The second option is recommended. As mentioned in the report of 20 March 2008, Council has also been approached by a member of the local committee requesting Council pay for the erection of a fence between the school and the pool car park. The timber for the fence has been donated and only erection is required. The estimated cost to erect the fence is $1,500. Sustainability Assessment: • Environment

The works will have a beneficial environmental impact by providing an aesthetically pleasing screen arrangement.

• Social

The works will over time improve the privacy of the neighbouring property and its occupants.

• Economic

Broader Economic Implications The works are not of such a scale to have a broad impact. Management Plan Implications Funding will be from the Community Facilities Programme.


C24 Orara Valley Community Swimming Pool …(Cont’d) Consultation: Council’s horticultural staff have advised in relation to the planting. Statutory Requirements: Provided that the conditions of the development approval for the pool have been complied with Council is not obliged to carry out further work. Issues: The adjoining owners have objected to the pool, mainly on the basis of noise and loss of privacy. Although measures have been taken to mitigate these impacts, they are still not happy about the outcomes. At its meeting on 7 February 2008 Council was obviously concerned about the privacy issue and requested a further report. The proposed work will improve the amenity of the adjoining property as the plantings mature. In relation to the request to erect a fence between the school and pool car park, it is recommended that this work be carried out to take advantage of the donation of the timber. Implementation Date / Priority: The matter will be actioned immediately if Council approves the expenditure. Recommendation: 1. That Council carry out the Option 2 works described in this report to improve the

privacy of the property adjoining the Orara Valley Community Swimming Pool and to erect a fence on the western side of the car park.

2. That the estimated cost of $3,000 be funded from the Community Facilities

Programme.


C25 LOAN TO SAWTELL TOORMINA SPORT AND RECREATION CLUB INC

Purpose: To report to Council on a request from Sawtell Toormina Sport and Recreation Club Inc to waive repayment of a loan. Description of Item: In 2003 Council acquired the assets of the Coffs Harbour Rugby Club on Hogbin Drive. Council entered into a lease with Sawtell Toormina Sport and Recreation Club (the Club) for the premises. The Club was already the lessor of the adjoining Rex Hardaker Oval. At the same time Council loaned the Club $10,000 to assist them in taking over responsibility for the premises. The loan was for 5 years with interest at 5% pa. The loan matured in February 2008. The Club has been paying the interest on the loan. On 27 February the Club wrote to Council requesting a $30,000 contribution to upgrade the ground lighting (out of a total of $149,500) and that the $10,000 debt be waived (copy of letter attached). The request for $30,000 towards lighting is being treated as a submission to the 2008/2009 Management Plan. The purpose of this report is to consider the request to waive the debt of $10,000. The Club has done a great job of managing the two facilities over a long period and has spent a considerable sum of money and volunteer labour improving the facilities. Sustainability Assessment: • Environment

There are no environmental issues pertaining to this matter. • Social

Any assistance Council can give the Club will help them provide better recreation facilities for use by the community.

• Economic

Broader Economic Implications This is addressed under the issues section. Management Plan Implications This will depend on Council’s decision. If Council resolves to waive the debt it will increase the current budget deficit by $10,000.

Consultation: Council’s Director Corporate Business (Acting) advises that, given Council’s financial position and the precedent that may be set in relation to other community loans, the loan should not be written off but extended.


C25 Loan To Sawtell Toormina Sport And Recreation Club Inc …(Cont’d) Related Policy and / or Precedents: Council has no stated policy and a request such as this is treated on its merits. Statutory Requirements: In accordance with Clauses 131 and 213 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005, Council has fixed the amount of $10,000 and above which, by resolution of Council, it may write off debts to Council. Issues: The issue for decision is should Council, in the circumstances, write off the debt. Council has made loans to many sporting clubs over the years. At present there is approximately $324,000 in outstanding loans to clubs. There can be no question that if you take into account the work and money spent on the premises by the Club, that the request is reasonable, particularly as they are struggling to raise the funds to improve the ground lighting. Balanced against that is the precedent it may set in relation to the other outstanding loans to sporting clubs. It is therefore recommended that the loan be extended for another 5 years at the same rate of interest. Implementation Date / Priority: The Club be advised of Council’s decision. Recommendation: That the loan to Sawtell Toormina Sport and Recreation Club Inc of $10,000 be extended for a further 5 years.

Attachments:

- 37 -

- 38 -


C26 APPOINTMENT OF FOI OFFICERS

Purpose: To formally appoint Freedom of Information Officers to deal with applications submitted to Council under the Freedom of Information Act, 1989, (FOI Act). Description of Item: Council has received advice that staff, other than the general manager, dealing with applications submitted to Council under the Freedom of Information Act, 1989 should be appointed by a resolution of Council. The General Manager has the power to deal with such applications as the ‘principal officer’ of Council. Therefore, to comply with the requirements of the FOI Act, a resolution of Council appointing FOI officers is needed. Sustainability Assessment: • Environment

There are no perceived current or future environmental impacts. • Social

There are no perceived current or future social impacts.

• Economic

Broader Economic Implications The costs for the appointment of FOI officers will be met from existing staff budget allocations within the Administration Branch. Management Plan Implications The Management Plan aims to enhance Council as a corporate leader, with systems, processes and organisational infrastructure maintained at or above best practice standards. The outcomes to be achieved through the appointment of the FOI officers by resolution of Council are to achieve compliance with legislative requirements, and Council business conducted at or above industry best practice standard. These Management Plan objectives will be achieved at no additional cost to Council.

Consultation: The issue of appointing FOI officers by resolution of Council was discussed during a recent presentation by Peter Timmins. Mr Timmins has been engaged as a consultant to represent and advise Council on FOI and privacy issues on several occasions. Related Policy and / or Precedents: This issue should be read in conjunction with Councils policy on Access to Information.


C26 Appointment of FOI Officers …(Cont’d) Statutory Requirements: The relevant statutory requirements are found in s.18 of the Freedom of Information Act, 1989: 18. Persons by whom applications to be dealt with etc (1) An application shall be dealt with on behalf of an agency:

(a) by the principal officer of the agency, or

(b) by such other officer of the agency as the principal officer of the agency may direct for that purpose, either generally or in a particular case.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), an application for access to a local authority’s document shall be dealt with on behalf of the authority:

(a) by the principal officer of the authority, or

(b) by such other officer of the authority as the authority may, by resolution, direct for that purpose, either generally or in a particular case.

(3) An application shall be dealt with as soon as practicable (and, in any case, within 21 days) after it is received.

Section 6 of the FOI Act provides definitions of the terms used, in particular: 6. Definitions "agency" means a Government Department, public authority, local authority or public office, but does not include a body or office that is, by virtue of section 9, exempt from the operation of this Act in relation to all of its functions. "local authority" means a council or county council within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993 . "principal officer" means: in relation to a local authority-the general manager of the authority. Under the Local Government Act, s. 377, Council has a general power to delegate certain functions of Council to the General Manager of any other person. However, that power is limited: Local Government Act, 1993. 377 General Power of the Council to Delegate. (1) A Council may, by resolution, delegate to the general manager or any other person or body

(not including another employee of the council) any of the functions of the council, other than the following:

(u) any function under this or any other Act that is expressly required to be exercised by

resolution of the council.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/foia1989222/s6.html#agency

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/foia1989222/s6.html#local_authority

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/foia1989222/s6.html#document


C26 Appointment of FOI Officers …(Cont’d) Issues: Section18(2) of the FOI Act has an express requirement that an application for access to a council’s document shall be dealt with on behalf of the council by the general manager of the council, or by such other officer of the council as the council may, by resolution, direct for that purpose, either generally or in a particular case. By application of the exception under s.377(u) of the Local Government Act, council cannot delegate the function of the appointment of FOI officers to the general manager. Council must therefore must appoint its FOI officers by resolution of council. Council currently employs 2 staff in the role of FOI officers, with the internal review functions being performed by the Manager, Administration, and / or the Director of Corporate Business. It is proposed that the following staff members of Coffs Harbour City Council be appointed as FOI officers for the purposes of dealing with FOI applications under s.18 of the Freedom of Information Act: Administration Officer, Sylvia Henderson Administration Officer, Nicole Baker Administration Manager, Bruce Coffee Director Corporate Business, Dale Allen Implementation Date / Priority: Appointment of the FOI officers is to be implemented immediately after the passing of the resolution of council. Recommendation: 1. That Council appoint Administration Officers, Sylvia Henderson and Nicole Baker as

Freedom of Information Officers, to deal with Freedom of Information applications on behalf of Coffs Harbour City Council.

2. That Council appoint Administration Manager, Bruce Coffee and the Director of

Corporate Business, Dale Allen as FOI officers for the purpose of dealing with Freedom of Information applications on behalf of Coffs Harbour City Council when required to do so due to the work requirements of the Administration Branch.


C27 AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNCIL MEETING DATE SCHEDULE

Purpose: To propose the Council meeting scheduled for 18 September 2008 be cancelled and all business be considered at the first meeting of the new Council on Thursday 2 October 2008. Description of Item: At its meeting held on 6 September 2007 Council adopted its meeting schedule for the remaining term of Council, up to and including 18 September 2008, with regular meetings occurring on the first and third Thursday commencing at 5pm. At the time of adopting the meeting schedule, the Local Government Election was scheduled for 27 September 2008. It has since been moved to 13 September 2008 and it is now considered inappropriate to hold a Council meeting on 18 September 2008, as it is too soon after the Local Government Election. It is suggested that the Council meeting scheduled for 18 September 2008 be cancelled and all business be carried over to the first meeting of the new Council, which is proposed to be held on 2 October 2008. Sustainability Assessment: The cancellation of the Council meeting date should not have any environmental consequences. Consultation: The matters have been considered by the Executive Team. Related Policy and / or Precedents: Council policy is to meet on the first and third Thursday of the month with some exceptions. Statutory Requirements: S365 of the Local Government Act provides for Council to meet at least ten times each year. Issues: Due to the Local Government Election now scheduled for 13 September 2008, it is not considered appropriate to hold a Council meeting on 18 September 2008. There is not expected to be any issues arising from the postponement of business normally considered at the Corporate Business Committee, to the first meeting of the new Council on 2 October 2008. Recommendation: That the Ordinary meeting of Council, including the Corporate Business Committee, scheduled for Thursday 18 September 2008 be cancelled and all business be carried over to the meeting on Thursday 2 October 2008 commencing at 5pm.


C28 TENDER: SUPPLY OF DUCTILE PIPE AND WATER SERVICE FITTINGS

Purpose: To report on tenders received for the supply of Ductile Pipe and various Water Service Fittings and to gain Council approval to accept one (1) tender for the supply and delivery of all relevant categories. Description of Item: Council called tenders for the Supply of Ductile Pipe and various Water Service Fittings, Contract No- 08/09-346-TO that closed on Tuesday 25th March 2008. Tenders were evaluated on the following criteria: • Tender Price • Delivery Lead Times • Previous Experience • Quality Assurance • Customer Service Four (4) tenders were received. Vinidex was the only non-conforming tender: - 1. Crevet Iplex

2. P & L Pipelines

3. Tyco Water

4. Vinidex Pty Ltd

Sustainability Assessment: The supply of Ductile Pipe and Water Service Fittings will be made directly to Council's Water Inventory storage yard at Marcia St depot. Though minimal, triple bottom line issues were addressed in the assessing of Tenders: • Environment

The supply of Ductile Pipe & Water Service Fittings has virtually a nil environmental impact. The Purchasing & Supply section of Council has been responsible for the procuring and storage of these items for many years and all items delivered are non-hazardous and do not release any residue upon storage.

• Social

There is no adverse noise or dust emitted to Marcia St residents when deliveries are made, and at no time has Council received any formal complaints. Deliveries to Marcia St by large vehicles and Semi-trailers normally take place between the hours of 8.30am & 3.00pm Monday to Friday.


C28 Tender: Supply Of Ductile Pipe And Water Service Fittings …(Cont’d)

• Economic

The approval of this contract will have no economic impact on Council as the awarding of the Tender will not change our current Purchasing and Supply practices in respect of tying up further capital in the investment of Inventory.

The supply of all-Ductile Pipe and Water Service Fittings is entered into Council's Finance

One Purchasing and Inventory Management System. All items are ordered based on the systems mathematical Inventory carrying quantities and costs, as well as collated historical information.

Stock items are then issued on a job need basis to our Water, Sewerage and Construction staff that utilise an appropriate job allocated Account Number within their Budget limitations.

Consultation: Council’s Executive Manager Operations – Coffs Harbour Water has advised that ductile pipes and fittings form an important part of Water and Sewer operations. Related Policy and / or Precedents: Tendering procedures were carried out in accordance with Council policy. Council’s Tender Value Selection System was applied during the tender review process to determine the most advantageous offer. Council’s policy is that the tender with the highest weighted score becomes the recommended tender. Statutory Requirements: The calling, receiving and reviewing of tenders was carried out in accordance with Part 7 of the Local Government (General) Tendering Regulations 2005. Issues: Assessment of the tenders is contained in the attached confidential supplement. The Tender document was written in a format that advised Tenderers that Council reserved the right to award the contract in separate categories or as a whole contract. As a result of the tender value selection system applied as per Council’s policy it was evident that one (1) tenderer had scored the highest weighted total score in all relevant categories. One of the tenderers tendered economically in a number of categories, but failed to satisfy the panel in the important criteria of Delivery Lead Times and Quality Assurance. Their delivery lead times were considered unsatisfactory and would fail to satisfy Council’s requirements. The Assessment Panel considered the Delivery Lead Times to be a critical criteria and the recommended tenderer scored well in this area as well as quality assurance.


C28 Tender: Supply Of Ductile Pipe And Water Service Fittings …(Cont’d) Contract Duration: The contract is for a 12 month period with a further 12 month option commencing from the date of the successful letter sent by Council. Recommendation: That Council considers tenders received for the Supply of Ductile Pipe & Water Service Fittings, Contract No. 08/09-346-TO & move the motion as detailed in the confidential attachment.


C29 REPORTS AND RESOLUTIONS AWAITING IMPLEMENTATION

Purpose: To provide Council with an update of requests for reports and previous resolutions to Council awaiting implementation. Description of Item: As a process of ensuring that reports requested by Council are submitted and that resolutions are put into effect, Council has resolved that a report be submitted on the progress of each. Sustainability Assessment: The sustainability issues will have been addressed in reports prior to resolution being adopted or will come forward in the reports yet to be submitted. Consultation: To prepare this report the updated information is supplied by the Departments to the Executive Team prior to the submission of this report. Related Policy and / or Precedents: Council has adopted this procedure to ensure public accountability. Statutory Requirements: Reports to Council are provided for in the Local Government (Meetings) Regulations 1999 and Code of Meeting Practice. Issues: Individual comment is made on the attached list of outstanding matters. Implementation Date / Priority: Implementation and priority is dependent on a range of factors and circumstances. Recommendation: That the report be noted.

- 49 -

Attachments:

OUTSTANDING REPORTS

MEETING DATE: REPORT REQUIRED ON CURRENT

POSITION EXPECTED COMPLETION DATE

CORPORATE BUSINESS

21/06/07 Questions Without Notice No. 2 – Farm Machinery Heritage Museum Cr Palmer asked if a suitable site has been found for the proposed Farm Machine Heritage Museum.

The General Manager indicated that a couple of options are currently being investigated, and discussions have been held with Glenreagh Mountain Railway and the Department of Lands to secure a site and obtain federal funding. A report will be brought back to Council.

Meetings held with Clarence Valley Council. Report to be provided to Clarence Valley Council officers at same time as CHCC. Proposed budget in Rolling Works Program.

August 2008

17/04/08 C18 - Encroachments onto Laneway at Coramba – No 4 That the matter be deferred subject to a further report to Council with regards to the works to be undertaken and the costs with respect to the diversion of water.

Work has commenced.

2008

CITY SERVICES

1/11/07 S66 Botanic Gardens of Australia & New Zealand – Third Annual Congress1. That Council acknowledge this report

2. That a follow up report be written after six months outlining the progress made on the above matters.

Report will be prepared - June 2008

June 2008

- 50 -

RESOLUTIONS OF COUNCIL AWAITING IMPLEMENTATION CORPORATE BUSINESS COMMITTEE MEETING – 18 OCTOBER 2006 GENERAL BUSINESS No 2 - No Fault, Catastrophic Injury Insurance Scheme Cr Smithers provided Council with details of a ‘No Fault, Catastrophic Injury Insurance Scheme’ currently being lobbied by Community Care organisations in the lead up to the Federal Election, and suggested Council support the concept as it could remove the need for individuals to sue Council following freak accidents which cause significant personal injury. The General Manager undertook to consider the proposal. Current Status: The Scheme is currently being researched. CITY SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING – 3 APRIL 2008 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE No. 4 - Memorial in Jetty Memorial Theatre Outcome of minutes received by Council of a meeting on – 19th March 2008 re. Memorial in Jetty Memorial Theatre

The Director of City Services outlined the staff's understanding of the current position and he

sought clarification from Council if this was acceptable. Following further discussion it was agreed a briefing or report would be brought back to Council on strategies for the use of the name and marketing of the Theatre.

Current Status: Work is in progress. GENERAL BUSINESS No.2 - Hiring of Consultants

Councillor Smithers queried that Council is frequently hiring consultants and would it be possible for an update on a 3 monthly basis re. costs involved. The General Manager undertook to provide information readily available. Current Status: In progress. GENERAL BUSINESS No.5 - Natural Disaster Insurance Fund Councillor Bonfield queried if this Fund which is federally funded could be called upon at times when unforeseen, unbudgeted issues occur. The General Manager and Mayor Rhoades noted this and will follow through. Current Status: Council’s Risk Co-Ordinator is currently investigating this matter.

- 51 -

CORPORATE BUSINESS COMMITTEE MEETING – 17 APRIL 2008 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE No. 1 - Alternate Access to Health Campus Cr Palmer enquired as to whether there is an alternate access to the health campus

The Director of Land Use, Health & Development indicated the current masterplan for the health campus shows an alternate access via Stadium Drive, and suggested Council write to the Department of Health requesting the timeframe for which this access will be upgraded to full standard. Current Status: Request sent to Dept Health on 7/5/08, IR 1919564 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE No. 4 - Morrow’s Road Bridge Cr McKelvey advised that Morrow’s Road bridge at Nana Glen is no longer trafficable to farm machinery since Council upgraded it. The General Manager took this question on notice. Current Status: Update on issue caused by bridge repairs to be given to Councillors and Executive Team, including copies of recent correspondence. GENERAL BUSINESS No.3 - Speeding Traffic Cr Smithers suggested traffic calming or policing may be required in Beryl St and Bray St to combat speeding traffic and asked if the issue could be referred to the Traffic Committee for consideration. Current Status: This has been referred to the next Traffic Committee Meeting.


C30 BANK BALANCES AND INVESTMENTS FOR MARCH 2008

Purpose: To list Council’s Bank Balances and Investments as at 31 March 2008. Description of Item: A copy of the state of Bank Balances and Investments as at 31 March 2008 is attached. It should be noted that Council is now required to account for investments in accordance with the Australian International Financial Reporting Standards. As such the ledger balances at the end of each month reflect market value movements which would be inclusive of accrued interest. Interest when paid, say quarterly, would result in reductions in the market value of the investments. The Investment Report reflects the above requirements and reflects the interest earned (or accrued) on each investment, based on the acquisition price. Sustainability Assessment: • Environment

There are no perceived current or future environmental impacts. • Social

There are no perceived current or future social impacts.

• Economic

Council’s investments are held according to the requirements stated within Council’s investments policy and the returns are acceptable in relation thereto.

Recommendation: That the bank balances and investments totalling one hundred and ninety four million, one hundred and three thousand three hundred and forty six dollars ($194,103,346) as at 31 March 2008 be noted. D C Allen Director Corporate Business (Acting)

Attachments:

- 53 -

- 54 -

- 55 -


LAND USE HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT

L8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 1132/07 - MULTI-UNIT HOUSING (10 APARTMENTS) AND STRATA SUBDIVISION - LOT 9 SECTION 61 DP 758258, LOT 1 DP 1091932, LOTS 2 AND 3 DP 1118480, NO. 7 MOORE STREET AND CLOSED PUBLIC ROAD, COFFS HARBOUR

Purpose: The application proposes the construction of a residential development on the above described property, comprising 10 apartments and associated parking and landscaping. The multi-unit housing development is to be strata subdivided. The estimated cost of the project is $2.7 million. The Development Application file will be available for review prior to the meeting in the Councillor’s room. A peer review of the application has been undertaken by Petersen Consulting Group (see Appendix D). Conditional approval of the application is recommended. Description of Item: The site is located at the intersection of Moore and Jarrett Streets, Coffs Harbour. The site comprises four parts: • Lot 9, Section 61, DP 758258 (the original dwelling lot known as 7 Moore Street). • Lot 1, DP 1091932 (formerly Crown public road and now in ownership of Tony Barker Pty Ltd,

purchased from the Crown). • Proposed Lots 2 and 3 (Council public road reserve in the process of sale to Tony Barker Pty

Ltd, to be purchased from Coffs Harbour City Council) – now known as Lots 2 and 3, DP 1118480.

The above land parcels are to be consolidated to form one lot as part of the road closure and sale of Lots 2 and 3 by Council to the developer. The consolidated land parcel will have an area of 1697m2. The site is occupied by a single dwelling and shed. The site is of irregular shape, the street frontage to both Moore and Jarrett Streets is kerbed and guttered. The site is “basin shaped” and falls from Jarrett Street towards Moore Street. The proposal is for the construction of a 4 level building – a basement level, cut into the property accommodating 20 car spaces, entry court, lift lobby and plant room; levels one and two, each comprising 4 x 3 bedroom apartments and level 3 comprising 2 x 3 bedroom apartments. Vehicle access to the development is from Moore Street. The Moore Street setback area will include 2 visitor car spaces, a car wash bay, lpg gas tank, a waste enclosure, letterboxes and landscaping. The driveway will also provide pedestrian entry to the lift/stair lobby.

L8 Development Application 1132/07 - Multi-Unit Housing (10 Apartments) And Strata

Subdivision - Lot 9 Section 61 DP 758258, Lot 1 DP 1091932, Lots 2 And 3 DP 1118480, No. 7 Moore Street And Closed Public Road, Coffs Harbour …(Cont’d)

A pedestrian access “bridge” is proposed from Jarrett Street to level 2 of the building. The building finishes include tiled concrete decks and balconies with stainless steel and glass balustrades, colourbond “dune” roofing, a combination of rendered masonry and rendered fibre cement wall cladding, powdercoat louvre and timber batten screens for privacy and ventilation. The building has a low pitch (3o and 4o) metal 2 way skillion roof. The built form comprises a double module row form, bisected by a central glazed vertical circulation core, providing access linkages to both Jarrett Street at level 2 and Moore Street at the carpark level. Garaging is screened from the street.




Sustainability Assessment: • Environment

The development is not likely to have any deleterious impacts on the environment. Two native trees will be removed as part of the proposal. Suitable compensatory planting can occur in the landscape treatment. The proposal is accompanied by a BASIX “Building Sustainability Index” Certificate indicating the building’s compliance with the NSW Government’s requirements for sustainability. Passive solar design in the orientation of living and balcony areas, cross ventilation, insulation, efficient appliances lighting and water heating. Roof water is harvested and stored on site and utilised for toilet flushing and gardens. Suitable environmental controls will be implemented during construction. The proposal will contribute to urban consolidation

• Social

The proposal will add to the variety of dwelling accommodation options available in this medium high density part of the City. No adverse social impacts are likely to result from the development.





• Economic

The proposal will provide employment opportunity and other economic benefits during and post construction. No adverse economic impacts are likely from this proposal, noting that one submission to the application raised depreciation of property value resulting from the development as a concern.

Management Plan Implications Nil

Consultation: • Notification Process

The application has been subject to a comprehensive consultation process. The application was initially advertised and notified to adjoining and nearby property owners in May 2007. 15 submissions were received by Council concerning the development. A number of the submissions raised “height” of the development and its associated impacts on views for nearby properties as a concern. In response Council instructed the applicant to erect height profiles on the site to more affectively gauge the height of the proposal, view corridors and the extent of impacts on affected properties. Height profiles were installed on the site in September 2007 and those persons who previously made submissions to Council on the application were renotified and invited to make further comment. 8 submissions were received following this renotification. A summary of issues raised following this renotification includes: - access and traffic impacts; - parking (on street and off street); - pedestrian access to the building from Jarrett Street; - view impact - vegetation loss; - building envelope should accord with the Medium High Density Housing DCP; - proposal should relate to the site’s topography; - proposal not in context with streetscape; - proposal is an overdevelopment; - potential reflectivity from roofing; - no details on external colours; - setbacks to Jarrett Street; - heritage considerations for Moore Street; - decline in property valuations; - sale of part of the public road to facilitate the proposal.




The above issues were raised with the applicant and the architect in November 2007. In response amended drawings were submitted to Council on 21 December 2007. The amendments detailed: - a lowered building height (lowered by 1.2 metres); - the provision of 2 on site visitor car spaces; - realignment of the driveway to overcome any perceived headlight glare.

The applicant was also required to provide an external finishes, colours and materials palette and an on-street parking study for the Moore / Jarrett Streets frontage of the development site. Further, the applicant altered the height profiles to reflect changes to the height of the proposal (i.e. the lowered building envelope). In January 2008 Council renotified those persons who had made any submissions on the proposal (the 15 parties). In response 7 submissions were received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds: - privacy impact; - visitor parking adequacy; - Jarrett Street adequacy for traffic and parking; - Development Control Plan compliance; - reflectivity from roofing; - pedestrian bridge – should be deleted; - landscaping controls - view and breeze impacts; - habitat loss; - streetscape compatibility, heritage; - property values impact; - design; - excavation along Jarrett Street boundary; - road closure process and propriety; - the development should relate to the original lot and not the expanded site (resulting from

the road closure).

The site has been inspected from the affected properties by Council staff. Those persons who made representations to Council concerning the sale of public road to the developer were provided with a letter on the history and process of this contractual arrangement in October 2007.

• Other Department’s Comments

The application has been reviewed by Council’s internal sections, including City Services (subdivision, development and landscaping), Health (waste), Strategy and Sustainability (biodiversity), Land Use Management (BCA) and Corporate Business (developer contributions and property) and no objections have been raised to the proposal, subject to conditions.




• Road Closure and Sale

Appendix C details the history of the sale process of proposed Lots 2 and 3 DP 1118480 (formerly public road owned by Council) to the developer. This attachment includes a copy of the report to Council of 1 December 2005 consenting to closure of the public Council road and sale to Mr Tony Barker.

• Related Policy and/or Precedents

Council’s Executive Team resolved on 6 February 2008 that where Council sells land and a subsequent development application is received for assessment, the assessment be subject to a peer review by an external party. This process has been undertaken and a copy of the peer review is appended to this report (Appendix D). This review draws the following conclusion:

“Having reviewed Development Application 1132/07 and associated material we are of the opinion that Council’s assessment is comprehensive and adequate, but that it should extend to providing further detail regarding: - corner location - pier/pole construction and cut and fill; - underground car parking; and - privacy.

In relation to the draft conditions of consent, these are considered sound and reasonable, and reflect the comments of Council’s internal officers.”

Statutory Requirements: • Section 79C Evaluation

Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 specifies the matters which a consent authority must consider when determining a development application. The consideration of matters is limited in so far as they must be of relevance to the particular application being examined. The Section 79C evaluation is appended to this report (Appendix A) and provides a detailed assessment of the application.




• Relevant Statutory Instruments

- North Coast Regional Environmental Plan - Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan 2000 - State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land - State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat

Development - State Environmental Planning Policy No 71 – Coastal Protection - Medium High Density Housing Development Control Plan - Waste Development Control Plan - Subdivision Development Control Plan - Notification Development Control Plan

Issues: A summary of issues raised in submissions to the application and comments on these issues follows. A copy of the submissions following the last notification of the application is appended to the file. • Privacy

Impacts on the privacy of neighbouring properties has been raised particularly upon the dwelling at 9 Jarrett Street, situated to the south east and across Jarrett Street from the proposal. Comment: Windows and courts to the east, south and western elevations of the proposal are located in bedrooms, bathrooms and ensuites. The courts are screened, the bathroom and ensuite windows are frosted glass. Privacy impacts claims are unfounded.

• Visitor Parking; the Pedestrian Bridge

The proposal provides inadequate parking on site. Residents and visitors will park on street, on Jarrett Street which is narrow and unsafe. The Jarrett Street pedestrian bridge will promote parking on Jarrett Street and not on the site. Cumulative effects of on street carparking from future development should be considered. Comment: The initial application was amended to provide 2 on site visitor car spaces. (although the application was lodged when visitor spaces were not a requirement for this form of development). An on street parking survey was undertaken by the developer and provided to Council. Council’s City Services department has reviewed parking considerations for this proposal as follows: “the parking study shows that residents of existing properties in the area are parking on the Jarrett Street frontage of the site: The developer has provided 2 on site visitor spaces on the Moore Street side of the development. The site has approximately 150m of kerbed road frontage although some of this is on bends. It is estimated that 9 cars could be parked along the frontage. If there is a future problem the inappropriate areas can be signed posted.”




The proposal satisfies Council’s current carparking controls. The site has an extensive frontage for overflow parking, should this occur. There is no justification to require more on site carparking or to delete the Jarrett Street pedestrian bridge and building entrance. It is noted that this bridge and building entry from Jarrett Street makes a positive design contribution to this elevation as well as providing for outlook and activity to increase street surveillance and thereby contribute to a safer street environment. Adequate carparking is available to the development.

• Jarrett Street Jarrett Street requires widening to support more on street parking, traffic calming for safety and a footpath. The current configuration does not support parking on both sides. Comment: Council’s City Services Department has advised: “the road surrounding the development, Moore and Jarrett Streets, are sealed and kerb and guttered. They are 8 metres wide and are of adequate width to serve the development.” “The verge area drops off quite steeply on the Jarrett Street frontage of the development site. Similarly, on the Opposite side of Jarrett Street, the verge rises steeply off the kerb and gutter. This can cause drivers to park cars on the road rather than ½ off ½ on as is normal for roll top kerb. This would be further exacerbated by a footpath immediately behind the kerb for the frontage of the subject site. Council can require the footpath to be set back 1.5m from the kerb so that the existing situation is not worsened. There is a marginal increase in traffic however roads are sufficient capacity to cope with this development. The road geometry in this area is of sufficient curvilinear design to restrict vehicle speeds to acceptable levels. Traffic calming is not warranted.”

• Roofing A non-reflective roof is requested. Comment: A non-reflective colourbond trimdeck profile roof is proposed. The colour “dune” is proposed.

• Habitat Loss and Landscaping Limited height new tree plantings are requested in site landscaping to protect outlook; redevelopment of the site will destroy the habitat of the wildlife.




Comment: Landscape requirements can be conditioned to address view preservation whilst providing suitable landscape treatment of the development. Additionally, native trees and shrubs can be prescribed to compensate for native trees lost during the development. The proposal will not, in any event, have a significant affect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats. A 7 part test under Section 5A of the Act is not required.

• Streetscape and Heritage The development is not considered to be in keeping with the surrounding area, the proposal will diminish the streetscape and the heritage value of the street. Comment: The site is located in a Medium High Density zone in the Jetty area precinct. This precinct is an area in development transition. The site adjoins one lot directly (9 Moore Street) occupied by a dwelling. Properties 10 and 12 Moore Street comprise single dwellings. 149 Edinburgh Street is developed with 7 townhouses. 147, 145 and 143 Edinburgh Street comprise single dwellings as does 9 and 11 Jarrett Street. 13 and 15 Jarrett Street are developed with townhouses. Numerous townhouse and residential flat developments are situated in other parts of Moore and Jarrett Streets, as well as in Edinburgh, Nile and Victoria Streets. Consequently this proposal is not considered “not in keeping with the surrounding area”, despite the presence of single dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the site. The proposal does accord with the desired future character for this precinct for multi-unit housing. The Land & Environment Court has applied the planning principle that in assessing a proposal’s impact on streetscape in an area zoned for redevelopment the scale of existing development is of secondary importance. The appropriate scale is that dictated by the Council’s planning controls applicable to the area. The nearest listed heritage items to the site under Council’s LEP 2000 are 23 Moore Street and 151 Edinburgh Street (7 lots to the north and 3 lots to the east of the site respectively). It is recognised that “older style timber/fibro houses” are located closer to this site but these properties are not listed items. The substantial road width of Moore Street, accommodating wide verges and mature street trees provides a reasonable buffer between the two housing forms (older dwellings and the proposed contemporary multi-unit housing development) to support their coexistence and hence to support the application. There are no cogent grounds to refuse the application on heritage considerations.

• Compliance with the Medium-High Density DCP – Height, Setbacks, Carparking, Density, Design The development exceeds the height limit, the 2 “penthouse” units are above the height restriction; the Jarrett Street setback should be the same as Moore Street, other setbacks are in non compliance; additional off-site carparking is required; the height and density of the proposal should relate to the original land parcel (excluding the closed public road); the development should be distributed across the site and not stacked to one end; the size height and scale of the proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site.




Comment: The Section 79C report (Appendix A) comprehensively assesses the proposal’s compliance with the DCP. In terms of height it is correct that the two penthouse units encroach the 10m height limit by 600mm to 1900mm on the Moore Street elevation. The penthouse level occupies only a portion of the building footprint (approximately one half). This level is roofed with a low pitch 3o and 4o skillion, and not by a conventionally pitched gable or hip roof that would result in a taller proposal even with complying height to eave. The remaining elevations are in general compliance with this DCP regarding height. The DCP provides different setback criteria for the Jetty precinct. As detailed in the Section 79C evaluation the setbacks are in general compliance with this DCP. Minor encroachments are supported and these result from the building’s footprint on the unusually shaped lot. Importantly no adverse overshadowing will result from the development. The carparking for the proposal (20 spaces plus 2 visitor spaces) complies with the DCP however the visitor spaces are positioned in the Moore Street setback. This variation from the DCP is supported on the basis of the location, accessibility and landscape treatment of these visitor spaces. As previously reported the site has a frontage of approximately 150m, enabling substantial on street parking if required. In terms of density the proposal is fully compliant. It is inappropriate to limit density to only a part of the development site (exclude the closed road) as requested in one submission. The proposal is centrally placed on the site, it is not “stacked to one end” as stated in one submission. In terms of scale the proposal is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site. The upper level, whilst marginally higher than the set control comprises only 2 apartments and is well recessed from the eastern and western boundaries of the property. When viewed from Jarrett Street the proposal has a 2 storey appearance. An important consideration for this proposal is that the planning controls envisage a change of character in this precinct and that future character is more appropriate than that existing in assessing the design performance of the proposal. In the interim it is expected that existing neighbouring developments will coexist with this proposal.

• View Impact and Breeze Impact The top floor will totally block our existing views and sea breezes from 1/13 Jarrett Street and obstruct views and winds from 11 Jarrett Street. Comment: Claims that the development will block sea breezes and winds from residences situated 25 to 30 metres from this building are not realistic. Topography and building separation will maintain air movement. Properties situated south of this site may be impacted by loss of view. The height profiles have been inspected from units 1, 2 and 3 in 13 Jarrett Street, 11 Jarrett Street, 9 Jarrett Street as well as 15 and 19 Jarrett Street. Outlook from these properties to the north encapsulates the Jetty residential area, vegetation and distant ocean views including Park Beach and headlands.




The Land & Environment Court has adopted a four-step assessment to decide whether view impact (view sharing) resulting from a proposal is reasonable. Step 1: Assessment of views to be affected – water views are valued more highly than land

views. Iconic views (e.g. of Muttonbird Island or the Jetty structure) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views (e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

Step 2: Consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the

protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

Step 3: Assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not

just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes the Jetty structure. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

Step 4: Assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development

that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

Unit 1, 13 Jarrett Street has the potential to be disadvantaged in terms of view impact. Current outlook from a sitting and standing position in the living, bedroom, kitchen and balcony areas of this unit is directly over the site and comprises buildings, vegetation, and distant ocean headland/ridge lines/islands. Some of the existing water views are obscured by immediate and distant vegetation. The initial proposal would have seen the loss of most of the ocean views from this unit. The revised proposal, lowering the building by 1.2 metres, will preserve most of this outlook – from a standing position and a seating position. The removal of some of the vegetation on the site will expand the view range from this unit (and other neighbouring properties). The more immediate Jetty urban outlook will be impacted by the proposal but importantly most of the “water” view will be retained.




Unit1/13 is one of four townhouses at 13 Jarrett Street and is the lowest sited unit on this property. Views from units 2-4/13 Jarrett Street are not affected by the proposal. Views from 9, 11, 15 and 19 Jarrett Street are not adversely affected by this proposal – distant views of the ocean, headland/ridges and islands are preserved. In terms of 1/13 Jarrett Street the view loss has been qualitatively assessed as severe under the initial proposal to minor under the current proposal, noting that ocean views from a standing position and some ocean views from a sitting position from this unit will be maintained. The height of the proposal when viewed from this unit (and from the Jarrett Street frontage) is less than 10m to eave (the proposal will appear as a 2 level building). The proposal has a low pitch skillion roof, thereby limiting the overall height of the building. View impact caused by the proposal on nearby properties is not considered so unreasonable so as to require rejection of the proposal or amendment to the design.

• Road Closure and Sale The public road should not have been sold by Council to the developer. By selling the public road to the developer the proposal is now closer to Jarrett Street and higher on the expanded land parcel. The propriety and process for the sale of this Council land is questioned. Jarrett Street residents were not notified of the proposed sale of the public road. Comment: Appendix C explains the history of the public road closure and sale process. The application before Council for determination includes the closed public road (Lots 2 and 3 DP 1118480). The 4 existing lots that currently comprise the development site are required to be consolidated into one lot (prior to any Construction Certificate issuing and as a condition of sale). Relevant and required owners consents accompany the development application. The site (inclusive of the closed public road) is zoned Medium-High Density Housing. The planning evaluation of the application cannot take into account the road closure process, prior ownership, sale history or contractual arrangements associated with “assembling” the development site. The application should not be rejected or be required to be amended because of the way in which the development site was consolidated into its current form.

• Decline in Property Value The owners of 1/13 Jarrett Street point out that the loss of ocean views will depreciate this unit in the range of $350,000 to $550,000, depending on the amenity after the proposed development is completed. Comment: Council’s role is to determine the application on planning grounds. The development is permissible with consent. The proposal has been evaluated in accordance with the relevant planning considerations and supported subject to conditions. The application has been amended to address carparking, height and view impact. There is no statutory requirement to consider impact on property values in the assessment process. Impact by the proposal on the amenity of this unit is not considered unreasonable.



• Determination Process

Copies of submission following the last notification process are appended to the file. Some submissions request that the proposal is reported to Council for determination. The owners of 1/13 Jarrett Street have requested that the proposal be subject to a site inspection before determination. Comment: Councillors should determine whether a site inspection is required as part of the consideration of the application. Height profiles are still installed on the site.

Summary This is a large site relative to many of the land parcels at the Jetty. The proposal is for a large building – 10 apartments sitting over 20 car spaces. The jetty precinct is a development area in transition. Numerous multi-unit housing developments are located in proximity to this site and vary from residential flat buildings to townhouses. The proposal accords with the desired future character of the medium-high density zone. The proposal has been evaluated against the relevant planning controls. Minor departures from the controls have been assessed and are supported having regard to the building design, site placement, scale, bulk, site characteristics and impacts on affected properties. Council’s assessment under Section 79C, now covers in more detail the matters outlined in the peer review. A much discussed and contested issue is that of the sale of part of the public road to the developer to consolidate the development site. Affected parties contest the propriety and process of this land sale, and in particular the notification process involved in this process. Whilst this may be a relevant concern to objectors to the proposal it is not relevant to Council’s consideration of the planning aspects associated with the determination of the application. The sale of public road to the developer and the consideration of this development application are separate considerations. The peer review process supports the recommendation that the application be approved subject to conditions. Recommendation: 1. That Development Application 1132/07 for a multi-unit housing development and strata

subdivision at - Lot 9 Section 61 DP 758258, Lot 1 DP 1091932, Lots 2 and 3 DP 1118480, No. 7 Moore Street and closed public road, Coffs Harbour be approved subject to technical conditions (see Appendix B).

2. That those persons who made a submission on this application be informed of Council’s determination.

Mark Salter Director Land Use, Health & Development


- 69 -

Attachments:

APPENDIX A

Section 79C Evaluation Development Application 1213/06

a. the provisions of,

i. any environmental planning instrument, and

• North Coast Regional Environmental Plan

Clauses 15, 32B and 43 of this Plan are relevant to this site. Clause 15: Stormwater is to be discharged to the existing street drainage system via a detention system. An on-site water storage tank forms part of the development. The site is located some 300m from Coffs Creek. The proposal will not impede access to the foreshore, and will not adversely impact on water quality or quantity of flows to waterways. Clause 32B: Council is to take into account: a) The NSW Coastal Policy 1997; b) The Coastline Management Manual; c) The North Coast Design Guidelines.

The Coastal Policy calls up a number of strategic actions for consideration including impacts of development on adjacent estuaries, physical and ecological processes and hazards, design and locational principles. The site is approximately 300m from Coffs Creek. Stormwater treatment is via the existing street system with discharge from an on-site detention system; the site is not subject to any coastal process or hazard, some native species will be lost through demolition and site clearing but can be compensated by new site landscaping. The proposal satisfies the design and locational principles of this policy (noting that the site is distant from the physical coastline and is not on a headland). The Coastline Management Manual focuses primarily on coastal processes and is therefore not relevant to this proposal. The North Coast Design guidelines detail a number of design feature considerations for “larger developments”, including breaking up the building form, use of shading devices and verandahs, linkage to surrounding landscape, avoidance of steep roofs and recessive colours. The proposal satisfies these requirements with the double module row form, balconies, eave overhangs, screens, landscaping and finishes. Clause 43: This clause requires Council to be satisfied that the density of the dwellings has been maximised without adversely affecting the environmental features of the land. The proposal, for 10 units, provides a suitable balance between maximising yield yet maintaining the desired future character of the medium – high density area.

- 70 -

• State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

The site is not mapped as potentially contaminated under Council’s Agricultural Chemical Residues Policy. The site has been used for low density residential purposes, and road reserve purposes, for many years. Site investigations for agricultural chemical residues or other forms of contamination are not considered necessary.

• State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

This Policy requires the design quality of the proposal to be evaluated in terms of the “Residential Flat Design Code” and the following principles: - context - scale - built form - density - resources, energy and water - efficiency - landscape - amenity - safety and security - social dimensions - aesthetics In this regard the following comments are made on context, scale, built form and aesthetics principles: In terms of “context” it is relevant to note that the precinct is a medium-high density zone. Whilst many of the properties in the precinct are occupied by dwellings and townhouses this zone supports three storey walk-up flats. This proposal is for a 3 storey residential flat buildings (RFB), over carpark. In terms of context, the area is in transition. The proposal, will be able to coexist with the changing precinct. The “scale” of this proposal (bulk and height) is considered to suit the scale of the street and surrounding buildings mindful that the locality is in transition. The proposal is considered to achieve the scale identified for the desired future character of the area despite the marginal encroachment by the upper level into the 30º setback building plane and the 10m to eave height encroachment due to the reasons detailed in this evaluation under “Medium High Density DCP”. The “built form” of the proposal is supported in terms of the alignment of the footprint to each elevation (the property has a frontage of approximately 150m to Moore and Jarrett Streets); the proportions (the split modular form, the building’s articulation and the partial upper level); and the proposed external finishes and materials. The height of the building will not result in an unreasonable or dominating impact on the streetscape due to the nature of the site, the building’s design and the building’s positioning on the site. This aspect is further detailed in the evaluation under “Medium High Density DCP”. The ”aesthetics” of the proposal are considered suitable. An external finishes and materials palette accompanies the application. The building will suitably respond to the desired future character of the area.

- 71 -

The design architect has reported on these design principles, demonstrating their achievement in the project. This SEPP stipulates that the designer be a registered architect. The report, prepared by the design architect acknowledges that the locality is experiencing a transition from predominantly single dwellings and older style flats to a contemporary medium density environment. The proposal satisfactorily addresses the design principles established by this Policy. The proposal has been evaluated in terms of the “rules of thumb” of the Residential Flat Design Code. In particular the proposal accords with requirements for deep soil zones (greater than 25% of the open space area); open space; planting on structures (some terraces are to be landscaped); safety; site amenity; visual privacy; pedestrian access; vehicle access; apartment layout (no single aspect dwellings, kitchens within 8 m of a window, depth, width and size appropriate); balconies (adequate size and location); ceiling heights; ground floor apartments (access to a terrace); storage; daylight access; natural ventilation (cross ventilation provided); and waste management.

• State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection

The site is within the coastal zone. It is, however, remote from the physical coastline and Coffs Creek. The proposed development satisfies the “matters for consideration” under Clause 8 of this policy in that the site is being developed for the “zoned purposes” and is in keeping with the sites’ environmental constraints. The site is not subject to any coastal hazards. As the site has been urbanised for many years it is unlikely to be a source of aboriginal relics or artifacts. The proposal will not impact adversely on the water quality of the Coffs Creek subject to controls during and post construction. The proposal will contribute to urban consolidation and incorporate water and energy efficiency measures.

• Coffs Harbour City LEP 2000

The land is zoned Residential 2C Medium High Density. The proposal is for “multi-unit housing and subdivision (strata)” which is permissible with consent in this zone. Adequate services are available to the site (clause 14). The land is mapped as Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soils. The proposal involves site excavation, however these works are not likely to lower the water table below 1 metre AHD on adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land (Clause 23).

ii. any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public

exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority, and There are no draft instruments of relevance to this application.

- 72 -

iii. any Development Control Plan (DCP)

• Medium-High Density Housing DCP

The development has been evaluated in terms of this Plan. - A site analysis, accompanies the proposal.

- 10 extra large dwellings are proposed, requiring a minimum site area of 1500m2 under the density controls. The site has an area of 1697m2.

- The DCP specifies a 3.5m setback for single storey development, 5m for two storey and additional storeys are to be setback within a 30o building plane. The carpark, ground and first levels exceed the prescribed front setbacks to Moore Street. Part of the upper level encroaches the 30o plane from Moore Street.

Moore Street is determined as the frontage of the site, acknowledging that the site is also bordered by Jarrett Street.

The DCP specifies side and rear setbacks of 6m with a permitted encroachment to 3m for buildings with a height less than 6m.

Due to the shape of the site there are partial encroachments of these setbacks at the north western and north eastern corners. The upper level satisfies the side and rear setback requirements.

The building observes a typical setback of 5m to Jarrett Street, with a 6m Jarrett Street setback to the upper level.

Options to achieve full compliance with the Moore Street setback requirement include deletion of the upper level; to move this level into the 30º building plane; to further lower the development. These options each require a full redesign of the proposal. The application seeks support of a variation to the DCP for this control. The variation is supported on the basis of the upper level being a partial storey only (2 units over 4); the upper level being broken into two parts; the upper level’s central positioning; the buildings skillion (low) roof; the building’s considerable setback to Moore Street (7.4m to 17m whereas the DCP enables the ground and first floors to observe 3.5m and 5m setbacks respectively); the building’s regard for view sharing and the attributes of the site (shape, topography, frontage).

Encroachments into the other setbacks are minor and are supported having regard to the shape and topography of the site, the building’s placement on the site, the design and form of the building, and the relationship and impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties.

- The design of the building is supported, the building has a varied skillion roofline, a distinctive top, middle and base and a compatible mix of external finish materials. The residential footprint of the building is 38.5m in length, however no wall planes exceed 30m without the roof and wall design being broken. The carpark exceeds the specified 45m maximum length by 1.5m, however its recessed location and landscape treatment supports the layout of this level. Suitable design treatments have been incorporated in the Jarrett / Moore Streets elevation – roof form, materials, setback, landscape provision and openings.

- 73 -

- The DCP provides that height of the building is limited to 10m (to eaves of the top most floor measured to the natural ground level immediately below that point) and underground parking should not protrude more than 1m above natural ground level.

The site has a general fall of 1:4 from the south boundary in Jarrett Street to a flatter area near Moore Street. The end elevations and the Jarrett Street frontage present a 2 storey form and satisfy the DCP height controls. The upper level two apartment portion of the building encroaches the 10m to eave height control (by 600mm to 1900mm). This height encroachment applies to one elevation only. It applies to the upper level that occupies only part of the building’s footprint. This upper level is well distant from boundaries (7.4m to 12m from Moore Street, 10m minimum from the east boundary and west boundary).

The building has limited its overall height by incorporating a low pitch 3o and 4o metal 2 way skillion roof, and not a conventional hip or gable roof. Whilst the proposal will impact on partial view loss from neighbouring properties due to the height (and scale) such impact is not considered unacceptable. A reasonable sharing of ocean, headland and island views from the most disadvantaged property (1/13 Jarrett Street) will be maintained. The height of the proposal is supported.

The basement carpark is benched into the site, and is screened from the street. The site topography dictates that part of the carpark level is exposed by greater than 1 metre. This variation from the DCP is supported.

- The application is accompanied by solar access diagrams that indicate compliance with the DCP controls.

- The proposal includes privacy treatments (screens, solid balcony balustrades, frosted glazing) and setbacks to mitigate adverse impacts on neighbouring properties. All neighbouring developments are greater than 12m from this building other than 9 Moore Street. Impacts on this property is considered minimal.

- The proposal provides for a minimum of 30% of the site to be landscaped in accordance with the DCP.

- Decks and terraces for each unit exceed the minimum 16m2 area requirement and locational considerations for private open space.

- Each unit has 2 carparking spaces in the basement. The application has been amended to provide 2 visitor spaces in the Moore Street setback area as well as a carwash bay. (Note the application was lodged with Council prior to the introduction of visitor carparking requirements for this type of development.) The location of the visitor spaces is supported on the basis of their accessibility and landscape treatment.

- The driveway has been designed to alleviate potential impacts on neighbouring properties from car headlights. This access will comply with the DCP controls in terms of constructions and design.

- The consent will be conditioned to address sediment and erosion controls.

- 74 -

- The development will comply with the infrastructure requirements of this DCP, including footpath, drainage, water meters and letterboxes.

- The nearest heritage items to this site is 23 Moore Street and 151 Edinburgh Street. This proposal will not result in any adverse impacts on the heritage values or significance of these properties.

• Waste Management DCP

The development satisfies the requirements of this DCP. A waste storage area is proposed adjacent to the Moore Street driveway entrance.

• Subdivision DCP Strata subdivision of the development is proposed in the application. Services and access arrangements and layout of the development supports the strata subdivision of the development which conforms to the relevant provisions of this DCP.

• Notification DCP The application has been advertised and notified in accordance with the Plan.

iv. the regulations (to the extent that may prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), that apply to the land to which the development application relates,

Clause 92 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 requires Council to take the Coastal Policy 1997 and AS2601-1991 The Demolition of Structures into consideration in its determination. As previously detailed the proposal satisfies the relevant provisions of the Coastal Policy. Relevant conditions covering demolition will be applied to the determination of the application for demolition.

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 natural environment of the site and neighbourhood has changed since urbanization. Future landscaping of the site will include local native tree and shrub species. Controls will be put in place to address sediment and erosion impacts. The water quality of Coffs Creek will not be compromised as a result of the project. The site is generally clear of natural hazards. The built environment is characterized by a mix of dwellings and 2 and 3 storey multi-unit housing developments. The Jetty precinct is an area in transition. The proposal is in keeping with the desired future character for this precinct. Access to the site is from Moore Street. A secondary pedestrian access point is available from Jarrett Street. The local road system is adequate to accommodate the increased vehicle trips generated by the 10 unit proposal. Normal urban services are available to the project. Footpath works will be required as part of the development. Positive economic impacts will result from the creation of construction and post construction activities. Future household expenditure will benefit the local economy. Adequate social infrastructure will be available to new residents of the building.

- 75 -

In terms of impacts by this proposal on property values of affected properties it is not appropriate to consider property values in isolation, nor should Council consider perceived impacts of a proposal that may impact on property’s value.

c. the suitability of the site for the development,

The site is capable of supporting this proposal. The proposal accords with the desired future character for the Jetty precinct, the site is suitable in terms of access and services and is not constrained by natural hazards.

d. any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, The application has been reviewed by the following sections within Council and recommended conditions / actions have been incorporated into the evaluation process and consent conditions: - Health (waste) - Strategy and Sustainability (biodiversity) - Land Use Management (building) - City Services (subdivision and landscaping) - Corporate Business (developer contributions)

The application has been advertised and notified in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Notification DCP (15 submissions). The application was renotified following the erection of height profiles (8 submissions). The application was again notified following the receipt of amended plans and adjustment to the height profiles (7 submissions). The site has been inspected by staff from relevant locations on a number of occasions. A summary of issues raised following the notifications includes: - Privacy impact. - Adequacy of visitor parking. - Suitability of Jarrett Street – parking, width and traffic and safety. - DCP compliance – height, setbacks, carparking and density. - Roofing – reflectivity. - Pedestrian bridge – should be deleted. - Landscaping – removal and height of new plantings. - View and breeze impact. - Loss of habitat. - Streetscape – compatibility, heritage. - Property values – impact. - Design – concerns. - Excavation near Jarrett Street – structural concerns. - Road closure process and propriety. - The development should relate to the original lot and not the expanded site (resulting from

the road closure).

- 76 -

These issues are considered in the report to Council. Representations concerning the road closure are not of statutory planning relevance to Council’s determination of the development application.

e. the public interest,

The development is in the public interest. The multi unit housing proposal is compatible with the Jetty precinct, the development will contribute towards urban consolidation and more efficiently utilise existing infrastructure that is afforded to this site.

APPENDIX B

- 77 -

- 78 -

- 79 -

- 80 -

- 81 -

- 82 -

- 83 -

- 84 -

- 85 -

APPENDIX C

History of the Road Closure and Sale The Site: The land the subject of the development comprises four parts. • Lot 9, Section 61, DP 758258 (the original dwelling lot known as 7 Moore Street).

• Lot 1, DP 1091932 (formerly Crown public road and now in ownership of Tony Barker Pty Ltd, purchased from the Crown).

• Proposed Lots 2 and 3 (Council public road reserve in the process of sale to Tony Barker Pty Ltd, to be purchased from Coffs Harbour City Council) – now known as Lots 2 and 3, DP 1118480.

History of the Sale Process of Proposed Lots 2 and 3, DP 1118480: • Application was received from Tony Barker Pty Ltd in September 2005 to close two sections of

public road adjoining 7 Moore Street with the intention of purchasing the land and consolidating it with his land and Lot 1, DP 1091932.

• The application was considered by Council at its meeting of 1 December 2005 (copy of report attached) when it was resolved:

1. Council apply to the Department of Lands to close that section of road identified on the plan attached to this report.

2. Following approval of the road closure by the Department of Lands, the land be sold to Mr Barker or nominee on the terms contained within this report.

3. Council enter into a deed of Agreement with Mr Barker on the terms stated within this report.

4. The land created from the closure be classified as Operational land under the Local Government Act, 1993.

5. Any necessary documents be executed under the Common Seal of Council.

6. The nett proceeds from the disposal of the land be determined in consultation with the Councillors.

• Council has since entered into a contract with Tony Barker Pty Ltd setting out the terms of the land purchase.

• Application was made by Council to the Department of Lands in January 2006, on behalf of Tony Barker Pty Ltd, for the formal road closure.

• The Department of Lands processed the closure in the normal manner, including public advertising of the closure in the Advocate, on Monday 5 June 2006.

• The Department, after proper consideration, consented to the closure and advised Council of special requirements (in this case an easement from Country Energy is required over the closed road).

• A Survey Plan of the road to be closed was prepared.

• The Survey Plan was sent to the Department of Lands for their approval.

• The Survey Plan was sent to Land and Property Information for registration.

• Upon registration of the plan a copy was sent to the Department of Lands to arrange for notification of the formal closure of the land as road in the Government Gazette.

- 86 -

• Council is now in a position to complete the land purchase and ensure a plan of consolidation is registered combining the applicants existing land with the closed road to form a single lot.

This process commenced in June 2005. The agreement for purchase of the closed road was entered into in December 2005. The subject development application was lodged with Council on 1 May 2007. The road closure and purchase process was not conditional to a development consent, as the purchaser was already contractually obligated to purchase the land in question. Likewise Council was obligated to honour this contract for purchase.

- 87 -

- 88 -

- 89 -

- 90 -

APPENDIX D

Peer Review

- 91 -

- 92 -

- 93 -

- 94 -

- 95 -

Documents

COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL ORDINARY MEETING COUNCIL … · 5/15/2008 · c29 reports and resolutions awaiting implementation 48 c30 bank balances and investments for march 2008 52