COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL ORDINARY MEETING COUNCIL ... · CITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORTS 44 CS11/4 IMPLEMENTATION OF AUS-SPEC ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SPECIFICATIONS 44. Minutes

COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

COFF AND CASTLE STREETS, COFFS HARBOUR

24 FEBRUARY 2011

Contents

ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE

MAYORAL MINUTE 1

MM11/1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT & SHIRES ASSOCIATIONS NSW ELECTION PRIORITIES 2011 TOOLKIT FOR COUNCILS

1

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 4

GM11/5 2010/2014 DELIVERY PROGRAM - SIX MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT

4

GM11/6 QUARTERLY OPERATIONAL PLAN REPORTING FOR QUARTER ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2010

8

CORPORATE BUSINESS DEPARTMENT REPORTS 12

CB11/4 BANK BALANCES AND INVESTMENTS FOR OCTOBER, NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 2010

12

CITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORTS 44

CS11/4 IMPLEMENTATION OF AUS-SPEC ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SPECIFICATIONS

44

mahmaureen

Sticky Note

Minutes for this meeting will be confirmed at the Council Meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, Council Administration Building, on 10 March 2011 commencing at 5.00pm

CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

The following two items either in whole or in part may be considered in Closed Meeting for the reasons stated

CS11/5 TENDER ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY OF QUARRY PRODUCTS -CONTRACT NO. 10/11-454-TO

48

A portion of this report is 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.

LAND USE HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT

L11/4 TENDER: COLLECTION OF CHEMICALS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

58

A portion of this report is 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.

L11/5 COFFS HARBOUR CITY CENTRE PLAN - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

63

ORDINARY MEETING 24 FEBRUARY 2011 - 1 -

COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING

24 FEBRUARY 2011

MAYORAL MINUTE

MM11/1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT & SHIRES ASSOCIATIONS NSW ELECTION PRIORITIES 2011 TOOLKIT FOR COUNCILS

Purpose: To discuss LGSA NSW Election priorities, recommend support of these and participation in the LGSA media campaign. Description of Item: On Monday 7 February 2011, The Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW (LGSA) launched its NSW Election Priorities 2011. The document outlines to all political parties the current issues for councils and the proposed solutions. The LGSA’s NSW Election Priorities 2011 covers major issues of significance for councils under six key themes, which can be found at www.legsa.org.au/election2011:

1. Improved Local Government financial viability. 2. Restore the balance to land use planning. 3. Stronger support for communities. 4. Greater natural environment protection. 5. Enhanced infrastructure provision and maintenance. 6. Better local governance. The LGSA has requested an official response from all NSW political parties contesting the 2011 NSW Election by Monday 28 February 2011 and will be publishing these responses. The majority of the serious problems facing Local Government in NSW are not new, and the LGSA are seeking the support of all NSW councils for their NSW Election Priorities 2011 and participation in their campaign at a local level.


MM11/1 - Local Government & Shires Associations NSW Election Priorities 2011 Toolkit for Councils (Cont'd) The LGSA have written to all Councils in NSW encouraging them to review the NSW Election Priorities 2011 and embark on locally based ‘sister’ campaigns to strengthen the case for Local Government in NSW. Council has been sent a ‘tool kit’ of useful information to assist with local media campaigns. The LGSA have also recommended that we write to our own Local Members, bringing the NSW Election Priorities 2011 to their attention and asking for their individual response on the six themes, and issues of particular relevance to our Council. The following key issues of relevance to Coffs Harbour City Council are suggested:

1. Part 3A of the EP&A Act: there are a number of local developments within the Coffs Harbour LGA that are being considered by the State Government under Part 3A which is of great concern to our community. This needs to be repealed or clearly limited to only infrastructure and associated development that is of state significance and return the decision making powers for local/regional developments to those communities.

2. CBD redevelopment: NSW government offices need to be located in the CBD, not as proposed at the Forests NSW depot site. The substantial office space required by NSW government departments will, along with other opportunities currently being pursued by Council, provide the scale required to drive redevelopment of the CBD, which was identified as a key objective of the City Centre Plan.

3. Tourism Infrastructure: investment in two urgently required projects in the Coffs Coast area requires continued partnerships and resourcing from NSW Government:

i. Bruxner Park / Ulidarra Ecotourism project: development of a café, high ropes course, interpretive centre and connections to other activities in the Coffs Coast as an ‘adventure hub’.

ii. Harbour and Jetty Foreshores: pursuing development opportunities, creating a high quality environment and investing in harbour infrastructure.

4. State Framework for Dealing with Climate Change and Associated Coastal Impacts: it is imperative that a state wide framework is developed and provided by the State Government to enable coastal councils to develop local policies that are consistent with this framework that will provide consistency right across the state.

The LGSA is aiming to strengthen and build a more consultative relationship between the NSW Government, all political parties, independents and Local Government in the future. Sustainability Assessment: Environment

Depending upon how the State Government responds to the identified priorities, adverse environmental impacts may be realised within the community. It is imperative that robust and appropriate State Government policies are put in place that complement and support the strategic framework that is in place for the Coffs Harbour LGA.


MM11/1 - Local Government & Shires Associations NSW Election Priorities 2011 Toolkit for Councils (Cont'd) Social

Depending upon how the State Government responds to the identified priorities, social impacts may be realised within the community. It is imperative that robust and appropriate State Government policies are put in place that complement and support the strategic framework that is in place for the Coffs Harbour LGA

Civic Leadership The identified local priorities are key issues for the community. In ensuring their successful resolution, Council is fulfilling its role of being strong civic advocates on behalf of the community.

Economic Broader Economic Implications The proposals for redevelopment of the CBD and tourism projects represent substantial economic development opportunities for the Coffs Harbour LGA Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications The issues raised support key objectives in the Coffs Harbour 2030 plan, but do not at this stage have impacts on the delivery program or operational plan.

Consultation: Consultation on each of the issues raised has occurred at a number of levels across the community and with State Government authorities. Recommendation: 1. That Coffs Harbour City Council support the Local Government & Shires Associations

NSW Election Priorities 2011 seek an official response from all political parties contesting the 2011 NSW Election.

2. That Coffs Harbour City Council will participate in the Local Government & Shires Associations media campaign during the lead up to the 2011 NSW Election by contacting our local member and writing to our local members of parliament seeking their response to the NSW Election Priorities 2011.

Keith Rhoades, AFSM Mayor


GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT

GM11/5 2010/2014 DELIVERY PROGRAM - SIX MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT

Purpose: To provide a progress report on the first six months of implementation of Council’s 2010/2014 Delivery Program. Description of Item: Coffs Harbour City Council began implementing its 2010/2014 Delivery Program on 1 July 2010, under the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993. The Delivery Program must include a method of assessment to determine the effectiveness of Council’s principal activities in achieving the objectives of the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan. Progress reports must be provided to Council at least every 6 months. The first Six-Monthly Progress Report (for the period 1 July to 31 December 2010) on the Coffs Harbour City Council 2010/2014 Delivery Program is tabled at this time. The document is posted on Council’s website. Printed copies are available in the Councillors’ Room and (once adopted) at Council’s display locations. The ongoing Coffs Harbour 2030 project includes the proposed development of community/sustainability indicators to help measure performance against the 2030 Plan. The Delivery Program was adopted with a set of interim “Objective Measures” to assist the assessment process until appropriate indicators are available. The Six-Monthly Progress Report identifies specific achievements or challenges recorded during the reporting period. It also attempts to provide an overview of the way in which Council’s performance has contributed towards achieving each 2030 Objective. It is evident that additional benchmark/baseline data is required to support effective reporting at this level on an ongoing basis. It is recommended that the Six-Monthly Progress Report be adopted for public release. Sustainability Assessment: Environment

There are no environmental impacts associated with the preparation or content of this report.

Social There are no social impacts associated with the preparation or content of this report.


GM11/5 - 2010/2014 Delivery Program - Six Monthly Progress Report (Cont'd)

Civic Leadership The IPR framework enables Council to identify and respond to community aspirations and co-ordinate the provision of appropriate works and services to help achieve the city’s strategic objectives. This is consistent with the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan strategy LC2.2.1: Enable and support all levels of government to serve the local community.

Economic Broader Economic Implications There are no broad economic impacts associated with the preparation or content of this report. Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications The ongoing development and review of the IPR framework are accommodated within Council’s budget structure. This expenditure is monitored through Council’s monthly and quarterly budget reviews. The establishment and review of benchmark/baseline data (to assist future reporting) may necessitate the provision of additional Council resources.

Consultation: The preparation of this report involved consultation with Senior Staff, Managers and project supervisors across Council. Related Policy and / or Precedents / Statutory Requirements:

Section 404 of the Local Government Act 1993 applies. In summary, it requires that:

A council must have a Delivery Program, detailing the principal activities it will undertake to achieve the objectives established in the Community Strategic Plan, within the resources available under the Resourcing Strategy.

The Delivery Program must include a method of assessment to determine the effectiveness of each principal activity detailed in the Delivery Program in achieving the objectives at which the activity is directed.

The General Manager must ensure that progress reports are provided to the council, with respect to the principal activities detailed in the Delivery Program, at least every 6 months.

Issues:

The Six-Monthly Progress Report is an overview of the effectiveness of Council’s principal activities in implementing the strategies and achieving the objectives of the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan. It refers to the period 1 July to 31 December 2010.



In the 2010/2014 Delivery Program, Council’s ‘principal activities’ are identified as its Budget Programs. Each Budget Program encompasses a range of related projects and services. The projects and services are aligned with one or more of the Strategies that are set out in the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan. The implementation of 2030 Strategies contributes to the achievement of the 2030 Objectives.

The IPR alignment can be viewed as:

Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan

Theme

Outcome Delivery Program

Objective Objective Operational Plan

Strategy Strategy Strategy

Budget Program Budget Program

Projects (4 years) Projects/Services (1 year)

Council’s Quarterly Performance Reporting helps to measure the implementation of strategies; using Performance Planning software, we are able to track the progress of projects and services according to Budget Program (as set out in Council’s Operational Plan). This measures “outputs” with the assistance of traffic lights and performance percentage figures.

To assess our progress in achieving objectives, we need to take a broader view of the combined impacts of Council activities in delivering “outcomes”. Interim “Objective Measures” are included in the 2010/2014 Delivery Program to assist this process. The development of long-term, community/sustainability indicators is an ongoing project for Coffs Harbour 2030. The interim Objective Measures in the Delivery Program will be reviewed as sustainability indicators are finalised.

There are 41 Objectives in the 2010/2014 Delivery Program. Managers have been asked to provide comments on the contribution that their Budget Programs have made to the achievement of those Objectives during the period.

In addition, this report provides the ‘traffic light’ status and achievement percentage (as generated by Performance Planning) for every Council Budget Program for the six months to 31 December 2010. A Budget summary for each Program is also provided.

Similarly, a ‘traffic light’ status and achievement percentage shows the six-monthly progress of each specific Project identified in the Delivery Program for 2010/2011.

In some instances, the absence of baseline/benchmark data limits Council’s ability to comment on any change in status in regard to the Objective. The establishment and review of appropriate baseline/benchmark data is a process that is to be addressed as part of the development of community/sustainability indicators for the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan.



Implementation Date / Priority: If adopted by Council, the Six-Monthly Progress Report on the 2010/2014 Delivery Program will be released immediately. Recommendation: That Council adopt the Six-Monthly Progress Report (for the period 1 July to 31 December 2010) on the Coffs Harbour City Council 2010/2014 Delivery Program.


GM11/6 QUARTERLY OPERATIONAL PLAN REPORTING FOR QUARTER ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2010

Purpose: To report on the progress of the performance measures contained in Councils 2010-2011 Operational Plan. Description of Item: As part of the introduction of the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) framework, Council has developed an Operational Plan for the 2010-11 financial year to monitor operational performance. This report provides details of the progress of performance measures contained in the 2010-11 Operational Plan. A summary of actual performance against each performance target is detailed in a separate booklet titled 2010-2011 Quarterly Operational Report, which is available in the Councillors' Room for perusal. A list of significant achievements for the quarter is provided in Attachment 1 to this report. Sustainability Assessment: This report monitors Council’s performance against measures as outlined in the 2010-2011 Operational Plan. An assessment using social, environmental, economic, and civic leadership indicators applies to individual measures and an overall assessment is not required. Consultation: Managers from all Council departments have submitted performance reports for operational activities within their areas of responsibility. Statutory Requirements: Sections 404 and 405 of the Local Government Act 1993 detail a council’s obligations in regard to its Delivery Program and Operational Plan. There is no legislative requirement for Council to report quarterly on the performance measures within the 2010-2011 Operational Plan. However it is considered prudent management practice to continue to monitor the ongoing performance of Council to ensure timely delivery of facilities and services. Report Format: The booklet entitled 2010-2011 Quarterly Operational Report is generated from Council’s Performance Planning software package. It includes a total of 238 project and service measures and indicates a percentage achievement against each measure, together with relevant comments.


GM11/6 - Quarterly Operational Plan Reporting for Quarter Ended 31 December 2010 (Cont'd) Underlying many of these projects and services are approximately 200 additional indicators “feeding up” to the performance measures. The majority of measures are aimed at achieving a 50% result which is representative of the expected level of achievement for the first two quarters of the 2010-2011 year, (the full year being 100%). The Performance Planning software currently utilizes “traffic lights” to indicate the level of risk associated with completion of performance measures. A green light indicates that the measure is either on track or achieved. An amber light indicates the measure is manageable, and a red light indicates the measure is at risk. Issues: There are 438 performance measures identified in Council’s 2011 Operational Plan. Of the measures, 8 were not achieved. The remaining 430 (98.1%) were either achieved or not yet due for completion. The following measures indicate areas where processes can be improved or where targets or resourcing levels may need to be reviewed: Pursue Markets for sale of telemetry services – No clear timeframe on firm sales Review Investment Policy and report by March 2011 – Staff resourcing issues have lead to

re-prioritizing till June 2011 Report on investment strategy comparisons of results achieved versus targeted – Staff

resourcing issues have delayed progress Activities to optimize the use of the Jetty Memorial Theatre by the community - Previous

management issues have lead to over budget expenditure which is hampering progress Economic Development Unit to report on City Image projects successfully implemented by

Council or the community – Nil projects to date – awaiting direction following appointment of new General Manager

Ensure the timely response to requests regarding playgrounds (maintenance and repair) – Budgetary constraints have resulted in works being unable to proceed

Ensure the timely response to requests for street tree maintenance – increased levels of requests and budgetary constraints have resulted in an inability to provide the required level of service provision

Ensure the timely response to requests relating to potholes, failed pavement and damaged kerb and gutter on local roads – Increased overhead costs, material costs and prolonged wet weather creating additional works have all had a significant effect on budgets

Council’s electronic records management system provides data related to completion of tasks assigned across the organisation. A total of 4,572 tasks were recorded in the system for the quarter with 3,745 tasks (81.9%) being attended to within the required timeframe. The results are considered satisfactory as this represents a minor improvement compared to the September 2010 quarter during which 81.5% of tasks were attended to within the required timeframe. Implementation Date / Priority: Management will continue to monitor the organisation’s performance with a view to improving service delivery.


GM11/6 - Quarterly Operational Plan Reporting for Quarter Ended 31 December 2010 (Cont'd) Recommendation: 1. That Council notes the issues surrounding those measures that have not been

achieved for the period ending 31 December 2010, as listed in the body of this report.

2. That Council note the achievement of performance targets, as outlined in a separate booklet which is available in the Councilors’ Room for the October to December 2010 quarter.

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

Steve McGrath General Manager

- 11 -

Attachment:

Significant Achievements Environmental Levy Submissions invited with 39 submissions received War Memorial Olympic Pool refurbishment completed and pool opened Purchase of 215A Harbour Drive completed providing for a new site for the city museum Installation of additional lighting at BCU stadium commenced Rigby House solar power “switched on” Supplementary State of the Environment Report completed and adopted Design contract awarded for upper Shephard’s Lane and Bennetts Road detention basins Sports Facilities Plan adopted City Centre Local Environment Plan adopted Contract awarded for extensions to SES offices Coffs Regional Community Gardens Incorporated Association granted a licence to establish

the Coffs Regional Community Garden Bakers Road detention Basin works complete Park Beach Improvements Program announced The $2m grant funded “Our Living Coast “ sustainability program launched The work to create the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan with the community was Joint Winner with

Blacktown Council in Division C of the 2010 Local Government Excellence in the Environment Local Sustainability Award.

BCU Stadium announced as the venue for week 3 of the AFL NAB Challenge game


CORPORATE BUSINESS DEPARTMENT REPORTS

CB11/4 BANK BALANCES AND INVESTMENTS FOR OCTOBER, NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 2010

Purpose: To list Council’s Bank Balances and Investments as at 31 October 2010, 30 November 2010 and 31 December 2010. Description of Item: A copy of the state of Bank Balances and Investments as at 31 October 2010, 30 November 2010 and 31 December 2010 is attached. It should be noted that Council is 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. Monthly commentaries which examine economic and financial markets data for October 2010, November 2010 and December 2010 are attached. All the previously mentioned reports have been provided by CPG Research & Advisory Pty Ltd (Council’s investment portfolio advisors). Sustainability Assessment: Environment

There are no perceived current or future environmental impacts. Social

There are no perceived current or future social impacts. Civic Leadership

Council invests surplus funds to maximize investment income and preserve capital to assist with funding requirements for projects listed under the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan.

Economic

Broader Economic Implications

Council’s investments are held according to the requirements stated within Council’s investments policy and the returns are acceptable in relation thereto. In the long term earnings from investments can vary due to economic conditions and financial markets. Council constructs its investment portfolio with consideration of current conditions and to comply with the DLG investment policy guidelines.


CB11/4 - Bank Balances and Investments for October, November and December 2010 (Cont'd)

Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

For October 2010 it is noted that after deducting, from the total bank and investment balances of $174,918,872 the estimated restricted General, Trust, Water and Sewerage cash and investments ($173,631,695), the Unrestricted Cash is $1,287,177. For November 2010 it is noted that after deducting, from the total bank and investment balances of $182,492,409 the estimated restricted General, Trust, Water and Sewerage cash and investments ($181,205,232), the Unrestricted Cash is $1,287,177. For December 2010 it is noted that after deducting, from the total bank and investment balances of $173,171,247 the estimated restricted General, Trust, Water and Sewerage cash and investments ($172,069,573), the Unrestricted Cash is $1,101,674. Further details are provided as a note on the attachment.

Recommendation: 1. That the bank balances and investments totalling (from loans, Section 94 and other

avenues that form the restricted accounts and are committed for future works) one hundred and seventy four million, nine hundred and eighteen thousand, eight hundred and seventy two dollars ($174,918,872) as at 31 October 2010 be noted.

2. That the general fund unrestricted cash and investments totalling one million, two hundred and eighty seven thousand, one hundred and seventy seven dollars ($1,287,177) as at 31 October 2010 be noted.

3. That the bank balances and investments totalling (from loans, Section 94 and other avenues that form the restricted accounts and are committed for future works) one hundred and eighty two million, four hundred and ninety two thousand, four hundred and nine dollars ($182,492,409) as at 30 November 2010 be noted.

4. That the general fund unrestricted cash and investments totalling one million, two hundred and eighty seven thousand, one hundred and seventy seven dollars ($1,287,177) as at 30 November be noted.

5. That the bank balances and investments totalling (from loans, Section 94 and other avenues that form the restricted accounts and are committed for future works) one hundred and seventy three million, one hundred and seventy one thousand, two hundred and forty seven dollars ($173,171,247) as at 31 December 2010 be noted.

6. That the general fund unrestricted cash and investments totalling one million, one hundred and one thousand, six hundred and seventy four dollars ($1,101,674) as at 31 December be noted.

Craig Milburn Director Corporate Business

- 14 -

Attachments:

Attachment 1

- 15 -

- 16 -

- 17 -

- 18 -

- 19 -

- 20 -

- 21 -

- 22 -

- 23 -

- 24 -

Attachment 2

- 25 -

- 26 -

- 27 -

- 28 -

- 29 -

- 30 -

- 31 -

- 32 -

- 33 -

- 34 -

Attachment 3

- 35 -

- 36 -

- 37 -

- 38 -

- 39 -

- 40 -

- 41 -

- 42 -

- 43 -


CITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORTS

CS11/4 IMPLEMENTATION OF AUS-SPEC ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SPECIFICATIONS

Purpose: To report on impacts of the adoption of AUS-SPEC 2008 standards on Council’s operations and the development industry and to advise of any modifications to the documents required. Description of Item: Council resolved at its meeting of 18 December 2008: EN54 1. That Council adopt and implement AUS-SPEC 2008 Specifications as the Development

Design and Construction Specifications for all engineering works carried out by Council and private developers:

00 Planning and Design 11 Construction – Roadways 13 Construction – Public Utilities.

That a review be undertaken in 12 months time to assess the impacts of the new standards on Council’s operations and the development industry and modify the AUS-SPEC documents as required This report address the impacts of AUS-SPEC 2008 on the development industry and comments on the implementation of AUS-SPEC on Council's operations. The 2008 AUS-SPEC 00 Planning and Design specifications have been implemented over the last two years covering the design aspects of infrastructure provided by private developers. Similarly, the 2008 AUS-SPEC 11 Construction-Roadways and 13 Construction-Public Utilities covering construction aspects. The specifications were first published on Council’s website in January 2009 and compliance has become a standard development consent condition. The Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (the Act) is required to certify compliance with the specifications at the time of issuing the Construction Certificate and at time a registration of Linen and handover of infrastructure to Council by way of a Subdivision Certificate. Sustainability Assessment: Environment

The Specifications have had favorable impacts on the environment as they set high standards for erosion and sedimentation control and fauna protection in line with current statute and practices.


CS11/4 - Implementation of AUS-SPEC Engineering Development Specifications (Cont'd) Social

Neighboring Councils have adopted similar AUS-SPEC specifications with some minor amendments to reflect local conditions. This has proven beneficial to the development industry due to consistency and has also aided in the acceptance of the standards. The specifications have clearly defined the roles and responsibilities of the various players in the development industry. The beneficiary of the subdivision development consent is now required to appoint a Superintendent (usually a design consultant) to manage the construction contractor and to seek approvals from the PCA (normally Council) to any design variations. Developers and consultants now know that it is their responsibility to manage and certify the design and construction of infrastructure and to involve Council at critical stages. The specifications have provided an impetus for many construction contractors to develop and implement their own quality systems involving check sheets, tests, witness points and hold point releases.

Civic Leadership Council is providing leadership through the establishment of best practice standards for design and construction of private infrastructure that will become public property under the care and control of Council.

Economic Broader Economic Implications When Council adopted the specifications it was considered they would increase the developer’s costs but these costs would be negligible in terms of the overall cost to develop land. This has proven to be the case. The design consultants (Superintendent) quickly realised that they have a much more proactive role to play in the supervision and certification of construction. This meant they would have to spend more time in the field looking after their contractors and acting as a communication conduit between Council and the contractor. This would have increased the consultant’s costs which would either be absorbed or passed onto the developer. Initially there was some resistance from construction contractors to improve their quality systems. However, with the assistance and guidance of Council staff, standard pro forma quality control documents were developed at minimal cost and adopted. The contractor now has to price in additional tests like vacuum testing of sewer access chambers and CCTV inspections of sewer pipes which have come at a price but have led to more care being taken to avoid the relaying costs. Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications The specifications will have negligible impact on Council’s Operational Plan and Delivery Program. They mandate more frequent inspections by the PCA, to witness works and release Hold Points, which will need to be paid for by the developer. Council’s fees and charges for PCA functions have been progressively reviewed and increased in a sustainable manner.


CS11/4 - Implementation of AUS-SPEC Engineering Development Specifications (Cont'd) Consultation: During implementation of AUS-SPEC numerous discussions were held with consultants and construction contractors to advise and clarify any new requirements. There was some initial reticence to adopt the changes but these were overcome by the realisation that change is for the benefit of local ratepayers and that all contractors and consultants are playing on a level playing field in a competitive industry. One of the busiest local consultants, de Groot Bensen, was consulted to comment on the implementation. They initially provided an extensive submission on AUS-SPEC before it was adopted and they were largely supportive but were concerned about the cost. They report now that costs have increased but not to the extent that had been expected. They advised that developers had complained but generally accepted that it was a cost of doing business. They believe the extra cost of meeting the AUS-SPEC requirements are relatively minor in the overall cost of developing land. Related Policy and / or Precedents: Nothing to report. Statutory Requirements: Council and the development industry are required to comply with the Act. Compliance with Council’s 2008 AUS-SPEC 00 Planning and Design, 11 Construction-Roadways and 13 Construction-Public Utilities specifications is a condition of development consent preventing the PCA from issuing a Construction Certificate under s146 of the Act until complied with. Council cannot issue a Subdivision Certificates authorising registration of a plan of subdivision under the Conveyancing Act until the development consent conditions have been satisfied. Issues: The objectives in adoption of AUS-SPEC 2008 were to:

Provide a functional, attractive and safe environment for residents that is consistent with community standards and needs.

Draw on industry best practice for civil infrastructure design, construction and maintenance by adopting an industry wide specification which also reduced costs in having to update standards in-house.

Provide for the needs of future users of the land in respect to vehicular and pedestrian access, provision of services and an amenity appropriate to the zoning of the land.

Ensure that future Council infrastructure provided by developers is constructed to an acceptable quality standard.

Minimise adverse effects on the natural environment.

Ensure greater consistency of standards with other like authorities.

Place responsibility for meeting standards onto the appropriate people.

Minimise Council's future maintenance costs for roads, services and open spaces.


CS11/4 - Implementation of AUS-SPEC Engineering Development Specifications (Cont'd) It is believed that these objectives have been realised. Previous identified problems have been largely overcome through higher quality standards:

Infiltration of stormwater into sewerage lines has been reduced through better control over laying and inspection of sewer mains including CCTV.

Water valves and fittings are now correctly installed as Contractors are more aware of Council’s standards.

Debris getting into live sewer reticulation has been overcome by not allowing new sewers to be connected to Council’s system until they are flushed, tested and video inspected with CCTV.

Inaccurate Work as Executed Drawings have been overcome through better supervision of installation, Council staff vigilance, cross checking against CCTV tapes and the requirement for WAX plans to be Survey Accurate. This will further improve over time as Superintendents submit electronic WAX plans.

Quality of design plans (eg. amount of detail) has improved overall but there are still some recalcitrant designers requiring repeated design review by Council. This will be addressed through the application of further fees and charges for repeated design review.

Use of unapproved materials (road gravel) has been overcome through regular testing and certified stockpiles.

Test results not being available to Council staff has been overcome through the rigor of AUS SPEC requiring Superintendents to produce compliance paperwork at sign off.

Contractors taking shortcuts during construction to save money has been addressed through regular witness points, hold point releases and the risk of being directed to uncover completed works for inspection.

Unauthorised design changes made in the field has been addressed through better awareness of the variation approval process under the EP&A Act

So far there have been no identified areas in the specifications requiring modification. The capital works constructed by Council’s operational staff are carried out to the standards required in the 2008 AUS-SPEC Construction Specification. Further work is underway in implementing an improved quality system that will demonstrate AUS-SPEC compliance and meet RTA prequalification standards. This will result in a robust quality system that can be transferred to any specification and ensure that the works will comply to the relevant quality standard. Implementation Date / Priority: AUS-SPEC 2008 has been fully implemented. Recommendation: That Council note the report on implementation of AUS-SPEC 2008 Specifications and impacts on the development industry.


CS11/5 TENDER ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY OF QUARRY PRODUCTS -CONTRACT NO. 10/11-454-TO

Purpose: To obtain Council approval to accept tenders for inclusion within a panel tender for the supply or supply and delivery of quarry products for a period of twelve (12) months following the awarding of this contract. Description of Item: Tenders were called and closed on 18th January, 2011 for the supply of quarry products for civil works undertaken by Coffs Harbour City Council. These works are scheduled to be undertaken over the following twelve (12) months. In order to ensure that Council obtained the best value, tenders were called to establish a panel of suitably qualified suppliers of quarry products. Six tenders were received as follows, each tendering on various items.

1. Coastal Homesites Pty Ltd (Woolgoolga)

2. Espedan Pty Ltd (Central Bucca)

3. Holcim Ltd (North Boambee Road)

4. Shane D & Tracey M Timms (Partnership) ( Ulong)

5. T J Jung Quarries Pty Ltd (Redhill)

6. Wyanga Holdings Pty Ltd (Taylors Quarry Corindi)

Sustainability Assessment: Environment

All quarries are required to operate in accordance with the NSW Department of Mineral Resources operational and environmental guidelines. The rate of use that Council proposes of this non renewable resource is within each quarry’s operating licenses. Outside the quarry boundaries there are no environmental impacts.

Social

The quarry products supplied under this contract are mostly used for civil construction works such as sealing aggregate for road surfacing, road base materials for road pavement construction and other material for drainage and gabion retaining walls etc. Quarry products play an integral part in providing and maintaining infrastructure for the community.


CS11/5 - Tender: Annual Contract for Supply of Quarry Products (Cont'd)

Economic Broader Economic Implications

All quarries are located locally, thus supporting local community employment and business. The amount of quarry products purchased by Council in relation to the total amount sold by the quarries operating within the City of Coffs Harbour is minimal. Current works by Leighton, Fulton Hogan Joint Venture on the Sapphire to Woolgoolga Deviation and ongoing residential subdivisions by developers have consumed the majority share quarry products sold recently. However, Council provides a constant and long term stream of income for the local quarries. Management Plan Implications The funds for supply of quarry products are available in the annual Capital Works and Maintenance Programs.

Related Policy and / or Precedents: Tendering procedures were carried out in accordance with Council's policy. Council's Tender Evaluation System has been applied during the tender review process, as detailed in the attachment. Statutory Requirements: The calling, receiving, opening and reviewing of tenders were carried out in accordance with the Local Government (Tendering) Regulations. Issues: In previous years, Council CityWorks utilised an annual contract for the supply and delivery of aggregate for its bitumen sealing and maintenance activities. The supply of other quarry products such as road base and natural gravel materials needed to be sourced and quoted for on a project to project basis. The formation of a panel of suitably qualified contractors commenced in the 2008/2009 financial year to simplify the purchasing requirements of Council as well as reducing the need for each quarry to provide individual quotations for each project. The distribution of work within the panel of contractors is to be such that it provides the best value for Council. A panel of tenders enables Council to select quarry products from certain Contractors depending upon such considerations as:

1. The ability of a Contractor to supply a suitable product

2. The Contractor's supply rates.

3. Haulage distance and time from quarry to worksite or stockpile

4. The Contractor’s available resources and performance capabilities

5. The Contractor’s current commitments. Implementation Date / Priority: The contract to supply quarry products is an annual contract and should be awarded at the most opportune time to allow the resealing program and other road works to commence when the weather is suitable in August.


CS11/5 - Tender: Annual Contract for Supply of Quarry Products (Cont'd)

Recommendation: 1. That Council accept the tenders received from the suppliers as listed in the

Confidential attachment for Contract 10/11-454-TO, Supply of Quarry Products, on the basis that:

All contractors have demonstrated experience and capacity in fulfilling the requirements of the contract for the quarry products that they can supply.

The rates as tendered are reasonable.

2. That the contract documents be executed under the Common Seal of Council. Ben Lawson Director City Services


LAND USE HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT

L11/4 TENDER: COLLECTION OF CHEMICALS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Purpose: To report on the tenders received by Regional Procurement Initiative (division of Hunter Council Incorporated) on behalf of the Mid North Coast Procurement Alliance Group of Councils for the Collection of Chemicals and Hazardous Materials and to gain Council approval. Description of Item: Coffs Harbour City Council is a financial and Associate Member of the Regional Procurement Initiative for the Mid North Coast Procurement Alliance Group of Councils. Regional Procurement Initiative on behalf of the Mid North Coast Procurement Alliance Group of Councils called tenders for the Collection of Chemicals and Hazardous Materials, Tender No T71011MNC that closed on Thursday 2 December 2010. Tenders were evaluated on the following criteria:

Tender Price (basket of goods) Tender Price (Schedule 2) Previous Experience Referees ESD Customer Service Quality Assurance OH&S

Tenders were received from the following Companies: 1. Dolomatrix Australia Pty Ltd

2. Hazmat Services Pty Ltd

3. Transpacific Industries Pty Ltd t/as Transpacific Technical Services Conforming Tenders All three (3) of the above Companies were conforming to tender document requirements. Sustainability Assessment: Environment

On behalf of the Mid North Coast Procurement Alliance Group of Councils Regional Procurement Initiative have addressed major environmental issues in the form of a compulsory questionnaire in the Tender Schedules as follows: Do the companies have an environmental policy?


11/4 - Tender: Collection of Chemicals & Hazardous Materials (Cont'd)

Is there an identified Manager responsible for ensuring that Ecological Sustainable Development principles are implemented and maintained?

Is the organisation able to provide documented evidence that the environmental impacts of each of the activities, services or products that it offers have been considered?

Has the organisation ever been prosecuted for environmental offences?

As per Regional Procurements Tender documents the successful tenderer must comply with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997 at all times with respect to pollution from noise, air, water, land and waste sources.

Social

Council has provided for the safe disposal of unwanted household hazardous chemicals free of charge for a number of years. The continuation of this waste disposal service will provide the community with a legal, safe and effective means of ensuring that household hazardous chemicals can be disposed of knowing that they will be destroyed or disposed of in an environmental safe manner.

Civic Leadership

This tender has no impact in terms of the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan. This tender though does show Council's leadership within the community by promoting safe and responsible waste management and disposal practices.

Economic


Ensuring an avenue for the safe disposal of these chemicals will avert the much greater cost of dealing with environmental cleanups and collection of dumped and orphaned hazardous wastes.

Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications The tendered amounts are within Council's current and projected budget allocations.

Consultation: Consultation has taken place with the MidWaste Group of Councils and Council’s waste services staff. Related Policy and / or Precedents: Tendering procedures were carried out by Regional Procurement Initiative in accordance with Council’s own policy and procedures. Regional Procurement’s Tender Value Selection System was applied during the tender review process to determine the most advantageous offer. Regional Procurement’s policy is that the tender with the highest weighted score becomes the recommended tender unless a Panel of suppliers is endorsed


11/4 - Tender: Collection of Chemicals & Hazardous Materials (Cont'd) Statutory Requirements: The calling, receiving and reviewing of tenders was carried out in accordance with the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005-Section 7 Tendering. Issues: Assessment of the tenders is contained in the attached confidential supplement. There are no real issues regarding the acceptance of this tender and Council will meet our obligations as mentioned above in accordance with the Local Government Tendering Regulations. The other seven (7) Councils in the MidWaste regional waste group are proceeding with this recommendation. Implementation Date / Priority: The contract is for a 25 month period with a further twelve month option expected to commence from the 1 March 2011 to 31 March 2013. Recommendation: That Council considers and approves tenders received by Regional Procurement Initiative on behalf of Coffs Harbour City Council and the Mid North Coast Alliance Group of Councils for the Collection of Chemicals & Hazardous Materials T71011MNC, and move the motion as detailed in the confidential attachment.


L11/5 COFFS HARBOUR CITY CENTRE PLAN - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

Purpose: The purpose of this report is to present the results of public exhibition of the Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Development Control Plan (DCP). The report includes a summary of submissions received and issues raised by the community. A copy of all submissions relating to the DCP have been made available for perusal by Councillors, as has the summary of matters raised. The Department of Planning’s (DoP) project team have also perused the submissions received. The draft Coffs Harbour City Centre Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011 was the subject of a separate report to Council on 16 December 2010. In accordance with the Council resolution of that date, this report is now put before Council for consideration. The draft Coffs Harbour City Centre DCP will apply only to the City Centre Plan area and will repeal the provisions of all current DCPs for that area. The report recommends that Council adopt the draft Coffs Harbour City Centre DCP (as provided in the Councillor’s Room) as amended. Background: The City Centre Plan applies to the following area:


L11/5 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan - Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Council and DoP established the Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan project in a similar process to those carried out for six other cities. The project involved the preparation of: 1. a Vision document; 2. an amending Local Environmental Plan; and 3. a Development Control Plan. The amending LEP was prepared in accordance with the Standard Instrument (LEPs) Orders (2006). Description of Item: In accordance with Council’s 12 March 2009 resolution, the Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan project (the three documents) were prepared to be placed on public exhibition. In November 2009, with the draft documents nearing completion, the DoP instructed Council that additional matters required resolution, this included: (a) Flooding and Sea Level Rise Impact on the City Centre

In accordance with the NSW Government’s Floodplain Development Manual (2005), Coastline Management Manual (1990), the updated Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) guide and in accordance with the draft NSW Coastal Planning Guideline - Adapting to Sea Level Rise, to finalise the City Centre Plan, Council was to undertake flood modelling of the 2050 and 2100 sea level rise predicted benchmarks of 40cm and 90cm to ascertain the impact of the flooding on land parcels within the City Centre Plan study area.

(b) Car Parking Provisions in the City Centre To encourage future development in the Coffs Central Business District (CBD) and to respond to the current flooding and future sea level rise, DoP suggested a reduction in car parking rates in the city centre, and requested this be investigated to assess safety and development feasibility.

(c) Contributions (Civic Improvement Plan (CIP)) More work was required on the Contributions Plan. Council was requested to follow the draft Local Development Contributions Guidelines (Part 5B) in the preparation of the draft Section 94A Development Contributions Plan for the Coffs Harbour City Centre.

Council has progressed appropriate studies and assessment to enable resolution of (a) and (b) above. With the State Government reviewing the Section 94 Contributions Plan legislation, the CIP was not able to progress until this issue was resolved, and thus, the DoP determined that the CIP not progress as part of the City Centre Plan “package” of documents. As a result, three documents; being Vision, LEP and DCP; were prepared with input from Council and DoP and progressed to public exhibition. A Community Reference Group (CRG) was appointed by the Minister of Planning to assist with input into the preparation of the City Centre Plan. The CRG met on three occasions with the joint Council/DoP Project Team and assisted with feedback for inclusion in the draft documents.


L11/5 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan - Development Control Plan (Cont'd) A Coffs Harbour City Council internal working group was previously established to progress the Comprehensive (Local Government Area (LGA) wide) Standard Instrument LEP. This group was also involved in the City Centre Plan to achieve a coordinated, interdisciplinary approach to the review of the City Centre’s land use and development controls. A Strategic Management Plan (SMP) was prepared to set out details of changes in the new LEP and the rationale behind decisions made throughout the LEP preparation. The City Centre Plan (the three documents) was publicly exhibited from 12 August 2010 until 8 October 2010 with documents available for viewing at Council’s Administrative Building and Council’s three libraries. A free copy of the documents was available on CD and the documents were provided on Council’s website. To assist with providing simple clear information to the community, a series of four Fact Sheets and a summary brochure were prepared and freely made available to the community. A Business/Industry/Key Stakeholder Information Forum and an open Community Information Forum were held to assist with providing information on the plan to the community. These sessions were well attended, with 39 attendees at the business session and 31 attendees at the community session. Council received 391 submissions to the public exhibition. This included 212 “pro-forma” submissions. Of the submissions received 257 related to comments on land east of the railway, i.e. the Harbour. A copy of all the submissions was provided to the DoP to enable appropriate consideration, assessment and feedback. Copies of all the submissions, including a summary, matters raised and how these will be addressed, have been available in the Councillor’s Room, prior to this report being considered. The primary matters raised in submissions, relating to the DCP, are addressed in the Issues section of this report. Sustainability Assessment: Any amendment to the Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan DCP has to address environmental, social and economic sustainability criteria. Environment

The City Centre Plan DCP aims to ensure the City’s development is carried out in an environmentally sustainable manner. To do this the draft DCP shall: apply appropriate provisions for Koala Habitat; recognise appropriate control provisions for protection of riparian areas; apply appropriate protection to ecologically significant vegetation, State Environmental

Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 14 Wetlands and SEPP26 Littoral Rainforest; identify heritage items and includes provisions for culturally significant places; apply provisions for preservation of trees and vegetation; and apply provisions protecting terrestrial biodiversity.


L11/5 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan - Development Control Plan (Cont'd)

Further environmental work is being completed under the Priority Habitats and Corridors Strategy (PHACS), the Coffs Harbour Coastal Processes Hazards Definition Study and the revised Koala Plan of Management (KPoM) Study. Once these projects are completed, it is expected a Planning Proposal to amend the LEP and incorporate necessary changes will be presented to Council.

Social

The City Centre Plan seeks to promote equitable provision of social services and facilities for the community. This is achieved by including provisions and objectives which reflect Council’s long term strategic vision for the City as endorsed in the Our Living City (OLC) Settlement Strategy, Industrial Lands Strategy, Business Lands Strategy and the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan.

Civic Leadership

The preparation of the City Centre Plan will implement appropriate and relevant actions of the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan to achieve the following outcomes: Council has a strong and diverse local economy underpinned by sustainable business and

industry; Our City is a lively and diverse place where people live, work and play; Our built environment achieves sustainable living by only best practice urban design and

infrastructure development to create attractive buildings; Council has a diverse range of housing options that are affordable and adaptable for all the

community; Coffs Harbour has urban spaces that are functional, accessible and useable by all the

community to enjoy; Coffs Harbour has an integrated, accessible, eco focused transport system achieved by

implementing plans and policies with cycleways, walking tracks and footpaths; and Our transport system and road network is well maintained, safe and functional. By implementing these community endorsed actions, as part of the City Centre Plan project, Council demonstrates a transparent decision making process.

Economic

The continued economic growth and development of the City is a primary aim of the City Centre Plan Vision. The process for the City Centre Plan has identified appropriate areas for proposed land uses to enable compatible development to prevail. The City Centre Plan reinforces the business hierarchy established in the endorsed OLC Settlement Strategy and Business Lands Strategy. This has lead to the enhancement of functional smaller business centres whilst maintaining the primacy of the CBD and ensuring Council’s longer term strategic vision is achieved.


The City Centre Plan (Vision, LEP and DCP) aims to improve our city centre area as a place to live, work and play. The aims, objectives and controls contained in the draft City Centre LEP and draft City Centre DCP seek to improve educational and employment opportunities; foster new business and industry opportunities while creating a highly livable urban place in both the built environment and public domain.


L11/5 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan - Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

There are no immediate financial implications or impacts on Council by progressing the City Centre Plan. The implementation of a new DCP is a key outcome sought by the Council’s Delivery Program. Council’s resolution to progress the City Centre Plan will enable this outcome to be achieved.

Consultation: Council staff have been working closely with the DoP and other government agencies to finalise the City Centre Plan DCP. Section 62 Consultation with government agencies has been carried out and relevant matters raised have been incorporated into the City Centre Plan DCP. Community consultation in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EPA) Act and Council’s Community Consultation Plan for the project has been carried out. Additionally, consultation with the Minister’s Community Reference Group has added further input into the project. A number of briefings with elected Councillors have been held, several with representatives of the DoP City Taskforce Team in attendance. Related Policy and / or Precedents: The draft Coffs Harbour City Centre DCP has been prepared in accordance with the EPA Act and Regulations. All statutory requirements of these instruments have been complied with. The City Centre Plan DCP is consistent with the Strategic contents established in State, regional and local policy (including land use patterns and local character). The City Centre Plan DCP is consistent with: the NSW State Plan; Mid North Coast Regional Strategy; SEPPs; the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan; the OLC Settlement Strategy; the Coffs Harbour Industrial Lands Strategy; and the Coffs Harbour Business Lands (Employments Lands) Strategy. Statutory Requirements: The City Centre Plan DCP is consistent with: Mid North Coast Regional Strategy; Various Ministerial 117 Directions; and Planning Practice Notes issued by the DoP.


L11/5 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan - Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Issues: The following section addresses the major matters raised in the community consultation and Section 62 Government agency consultation process. The issues are related to the relevant component of the City Centre Plan DCP. The Council report from 16 December 2010 meeting addressed the issues relating to the Vision and LEP documents. Strong opposition to development of Brelsford Park – total building coverage should not

exceed 20%

Comments

The draft LEP proposes an RE1 Public Recreation zoning for the Brelsford Park site; this is equivalent to the current (LEP 2000) Open Space zoning for this site and is the most appropriate template zone for the site. The range of land uses are limited to those listed in the Land Use Table to the draft LEP – these are considered appropriate. Council has resolved that, subject to further investigation regarding the location of a regional skate facility, the current Masterplan for Brelsford Park be reviewed prior to the commencement of the next stage of planned capital works. This Masterplan process is separate to the provisions of this draft LEP. The draft DCP has been amended to include a reference to site coverage on Brelsford Park.

Arthur Street East

Comments

DoP’s Urban Design Team is confident that heights proposed in this area will be acceptable. A section on view sharing for assessment at the development application (DA) stage has been added to the draft DCP.

Jetty Strip and general Jetty Area

Comments

Submissions related to both heights at the rear of the existing restaurant strip on the south side of Harbour Drive, as well as heights on lands north of Harbour Drive and west of Orlando Street. DoP’s Urban Design Team is confident that heights proposed in this area will be acceptable. A section on view sharing for assessment at the DA stage has been added to the draft DCP. With regard to the Forestry site, an architectural design competition clause applies. Development will be checked against items in the design excellence clause. A cross–section to Figure 8.6 of the draft DCP requires overshadowing to be addressed at DA stage.

Former base hospital site

Comments

The submission requests no more than two storey development in this location. It is considered that this is inappropriate, given the medium density zoning and surrounding development and permissibilities to the east and west of the site. Council staff have been guided by the Urban Design Taskforce team members with regard to height issues in various locations. Concerns, particularly in view sensitive locations like the Jetty can be addressed with the preparation of shadow diagrams and view impact analysis to illustrate the extent of impacts. This is incorporated into the provisions of the draft DCP, rather than requiring amendments to the draft LEP.


L11/5 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan - Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Zoning of Richmond Drive site – environmental and recreation value

Comments

This site is presently zoned for medium-high density residential purposes under LEP 2000; the proposed R3 Medium Density zoning reflects this entitlement as the appropriate equivalent standard instrument zone. The Arthur Street East area is not subject to any mapped environmental restrictions and is presently already zoned for Medium-High Density development under LEP 2000. Any DA lodged in relation to this plan will be subject to the Environmental Management Section of the draft DCP and heads of consideration under Section 79c of the EPA Act which will require applicants to address environmental considerations. Given that the site is currently vacant a few submissions suggested that development of this site would remove an area of open space – from the aerial photography there appears to be a number of informal tracks through the site that provide connectivity to the foreshore. The site is privately owned and has not been zoned for open space purposes and there is no justification for the site to be retained as such.

Government Agency Comments The submissions received from Government agencies are addressed as below: RailCorp

Issues

Supports B4 Business Mixed Use zone for RailCorp’s land. Supports 15.5 metre maximum height of RailCorp’s land. Request RailCorp land to be contained in a single character precinct in DCP. Request DCP be amended to remove reference on page 81 to “Railway land – possible

future development”.

Comment

Relevant changes have been made to the draft DCP. Solitary Island Marine Park/Marine Park Authority

Issues raised in submission

Plan needs to adequately address impacts of climate change.

Comments

Additional flood and climate change modelling was prepared as part of the City Plan process – guidelines for development to respond to flooding and climate change levels are detailed under Section 6.9 Design Response to Developments in Flood Affected Areas of the draft DCP.

Council considers the existing provisions are sufficient in this regard.


L11/5 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan - Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water


Need to provide a footnote in the draft LEP referencing DECCW’s “Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents (April 2010)”.

Comments

The Standard Instrument LEP does not allow reference to other instruments. However, this note was added to the draft DCP.

Department of Housing


The draft LEP and draft DCP do not include specific objectives or measures addressing the need for affordable housing.

Comments

The inclusion of specific housing affordability objectives were sought at Section 62 stage. Whilst there is limited scope for additional objectives to be included within the draft LEP, this is achievable within the draft DCP. As this is evidently the intent of 7.2 Housing Choice and Mix, additional mention of housing affordability is included to address this concern.

NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS)


RFS does not support development of home based child care, without consent in R1, R2, R3, R4, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B5, IN1 and SP3 zones as proposed in draft LEP unless they comply with Special Fire Protection Purpose requirements of the Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 Guideline.

Site 4 (252 Pacific Highway) is mapped as bush fire prone on the Coffs Harbour Bush Fire Prone Maps and therefore development will be required to comply with Section 79BA of the EPA Act 1979 or Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997.

No issues with City Vision document or draft City Centre DCP.

Comments

Provision of Special Fire Protection reference has been added to the draft DCP. NSW Maritime

Issue raised in submission

Do not intend to make a submission regarding draft LEP/DCP at this time.

Comment

Noted


L11/5 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan - Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Civil Aviation Safety Authority


(i) Any development subject to lighting limitations.

Comment

This is added to provisions in the draft DCP.

(ii) Any development which may result in an increase in bird activity should be subject to Airport Bird and Animal Hazard Management Program.

Comment

The provisions have been added in the draft DCP. DCP Document The major matters raised in submissions, relating to the draft DCP, are addressed below: Request for FSR to be defined in glossary to draft DCP

Comment

Floor Space Ratio is defined in Clause 4.5 of the draft LEP – this has been reproduced in the draft DCP glossary for ease of use.

Housing Choice 7.2 (10% studio apartment requirement in a development) is unfeasible

and counterproductive. Claims that the market wants three bedroom and two bedroom/office apartments

Comment

The 10% or one dwelling requirement for studio apartments was introduced to support an element of housing affordability, this is more clearly reiterated in the draft DCP and the trigger for this has been changed to 10 dwellings.

In Table 7.4 Density – large dwellings were not defined

Comment

Table 7.4 to be modified with insertion into the R3 column – a definition of Large Dwellings (85-125m2).

Objects to draft DCP limitations of office floor space to 120m2

per lot (B6).

Comment

This DCP provision was established to reinforce the primacy of the Coffs Harbour CBD area as the principle location for provision of office space and limit the potential for the B6 zone to promote out of centre office development.

The draft DCP has been modified to include restrictions to also apply to business premises and to be on a “per lot” basis i.e. 120m2

per lot.


L11/5 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan - Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Lot 406 , DP 752817, No.14 Market Street Coffs Harbour - Do not support the proposal

for a six metre setback to be applied to the site and recommend a zero setback to Market and Grafton Street

Comment

A new DCP provision introduced to allow consideration to a variation of setbacks on a site by site basis if allotment configuration or other factors are excessive impediments to development.

B6 Zone along Pacific Highway – land owner seeks reduction of setback area

Comments

This required further discussion with Internal Working Group and DoP. Eleven metre maximum height limit under draft LEP, page 23 of draft DCP sets three metre front, side and rear setback requirement. A provision introduced to allow a variation on setbacks on a site by site basis as part of the DA process.

RTA Comment – conflict between policies as the draft DCP states that “driveways

should be located a minimum of six metres from the perpendicular of any intersection of any two roads”. AS28920.1 Figure 3.1 indicates that driveways should not be located within six metres of the tangent point of the kerb for intersecting streets

Comment

This matter has been discussed with Council’s City Services Department and it is considered appropriate that the draft DCP reflect the Australian Standards in this regard.

The draft DCP has been changed to read ‘Driveways not be located within six metres of the tangent point of the kerb for intersecting streets’.

RTA Comment - the RTA considers variable message signs suitable only for messages

that are promoting driver safety. Signs placed near any intersection or driver decision point should be subject to a site specific safety assessment

Comment

Council has reviewed this comment and the following changes were made to this section. Remove reference to variable message signs and incorporate additional section as follows: (l) Signs not for road purposes should not be used adjacent to classified roads; (m) Variable message signs are not suitable for purposes not related to the function and

safety of motorists. Improve energy efficient housing requirements in draft DCP

Comments

Section 6.1 of the draft DCP establishes the requirements for energy efficiency and conservation in new developments. Residential development is required to comply with SEPP BASIX. No change to requirements is warranted.


L11/5 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan - Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Remove potential for new buildings to Overshadow Jetty Strip; Block out proposed

Harbour Drive public plaza; and Harbour Drive sight lines

Comments

The DoP have done an assessment in relation to overshadowing and profiles/shadow diagrams were prepared. A new cross section diagram have been prepared by DoP and inserted in the draft DCP to demonstrate the negligible effect of overshadowing along the Jetty Strip in order to address these concerns.

View impact – Richmond Drive & Jetty area in relation to increased height (some

submissions seek the provision of additional view corridors to protect existing views)

Comments

Included in the draft DCP is a new statement relating to retention of views and the need for applications which may impinge upon existing views to include view impact analysis and erection of building profiles during notification process. Council’s assessment team has required erection of building profiles for a number of multi-unit developments at the Jetty within the existing 2C area; currently this is initiated in relation to the Land and Environment Court planning principles of view sharing.

Jetty Village Special Area – Parking

Comments

A number of submissions queried the capacity for parking areas within this locale – specifically in relation to the area behind the Jetty Strip in terms of manoeuvring etc. The diagram has been modified by DoP to clarify parking provisions.

Australian Rail Track Corporation Comment – request that railway land be separate

“Special area”

Comments

Provisions for the railway land are incorporated into the Jetty Village “Special area”, it is not appropriate to treat this site in isolation from the remainder of the “Special area”.

Jetty Foreshores should be identified as a “Special area” within the draft DCP

Comments

This comment was made in a number of submissions. The significance of the Foreshore area suggests that it warrants “Special area” status and be accompanied by specific objectives that seek to maintain the public recreation value of this land; however these are contained in the Land and Property Management Authority’s 2008 Plan of Management for the area.


L11/5 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan - Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Richmond Drive link up – dangerous, impact to amenity, Arthur Street East development

– potential to affect land values generate negative environmental and amenity impacts

Comments

This issue received significant attention from residents within the Macauley Headland area; many believe the development should be serviced by an internal road. The plan for redevelopment of the Arthur Street East precinct shown in Figure 8.4 of the draft DCP is just a concept – further detail will need to be prepared to ensure road safety is achieved and this will likely be a significant aspect of any future development proposal for the site.

Impacts on view amenity will be reviewed as part of any future application.

The Arthur Street East precinct is not subject to any environmental restrictions and is presently already zoned for Medium-High Density Development under LEP 2000. Any DA lodged in relation to this plan will be subject to Section 6 Environmental Management of the draft DCP which will require applicants to address environmental considerations.

Provision of adequate general parking and parking generated by tourism

Comments

New development will be required to provide on site car parking in accordance with Table 5.1 of the draft DCP. Adequate parking facilities will be provided for increased demand associated with redevelopment/ increased density. It seems excessive to increase these requirements under the plan given the difficulty encountered with new developments meeting parking requirements on typical sites. Council received a number of verbal complaints in relation to this additional requirement for bike and motorbike parking being excessive to on our existing controls. It is deemed appropriate to provide for other healthier forms of transport.

Building Form/ Setbacks in Cul-de-sacs

Comments

To avoid congestion, a statement in relation to minimum frontage requirements for subdivisions in cul-de-sac heads (10 metres per lot) was inserted in the draft DCP.

Densities – request that in R1 zone have same densities apply as R3

Comments

The draft DCP in R3, has the following dwelling sizes:

Small - 1:80m2 Medium - 1:100m2 Large - 1:150m2


L11/5 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan - Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Need better integration to improve access and pedestrian movement between Jetty

Strip and Harbour

Comments

Many submissions reiterate the importance of promoting pedestrian movement between the Foreshore and Jetty Strip and consider this important to future development. DoP have provided a modified plan which has been included in the draft DCP.

Consistency with existing Council documents and strategies

Comments

Consistency of draft LEP is detailed in Council’s Section 64 report prepared prior to exhibition of the plan.

The City Centre Plan (LEP and DCP) is consistent with higher order strategies such as Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan, OLC Settlement Strategy, Industrial Lands Strategy, Business (Employment) Lands Strategy etc but will repeal existing DCPs and LEP for the City Centre Plan area.

Increase cycle linkages

Comments

This is a matter separate to this draft DCP and more relevant to Council’s Integrated Transport Strategy and Pedestrian and Mobility Plan; there is nothing in this draft DCP to restrict the provision of cycle linkages in the future.

Mixed Use buildings - draft DCP too prescriptive with ground floor, retail, commercial

above and residential above that (Figure 3.14)

Comments

This seems to be the logical layout – there is nothing in the actual controls that enforces this, this diagram is indicative and has been modified by DoP to be clearer.

Opposition to Firman Drive to join Hogbin Drive link

Comments

There is no plan to link Firman Drive to Hogbin Drive under the draft City Centre Plan; plans circulated to this effect within the local community were not prepared by Council or Council endorsed. This is a matter to be considered with any development proposal for the site.

More attention should be paid to flooding

Comments

Additional flood and climate change modelling was prepared as part of the City Centre Plan process – guidelines for development to respond to flooding and climate change levels are detailed under Section 6.9 Design Response to Developments in Flood Affected Areas of the draft DCP.


L11/5 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan - Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Include commitment and incentives for on site low scale power generation, water

collection, sewer treatment and reuse

Comments

Section 6 of the draft DCP establishes the requirements for energy efficiency and water use and conservation in new developments. Residential development is required to comply with SEPP- BASIX. The objectives for Section 6 of the draft DCP encourage energy efficiency, water use and conservation and there are no barriers to developers who are seeking greater standards of efficiency to doing so under the proposed planning controls – incentives are not a matter relevant to this plan.

Opposes open space/deep soil provisions and Gross Floor Area controls for upper level

of buildings as per draft DCP

Comments

These provisions have been “tested” on development in other regional cities and developing areas and are appropriate for Coffs Harbour.

Opposes building depth and bulk controls of draft DCP due to urban design outcomes –

a case by case approach should occur

Comments

DoP urban design experts have provided this criteria and it is appropriate for Coffs Harbour. Proposes building setbacks, pro rata with height, impose constraints on smaller land

parcels

Comments

Incentives are provided in draft LEP to encourage allotment amalgamation that provides “bonuses” for larger lots. Smaller lots are always difficult to redevelop.

The character statement in Clause 2.4 of the draft DCP should be reworded as follows:

“This precinct functions well as a regional retail centre serving community. The scale of development in the precinct and its proximity to the City Core means this centre can contribute to the regional status of Coffs Harbour and its economic vitality.”

Comments

The existing character statement under Clause 2.4 reflects the findings of the Local Growth Management Strategy – Business Lands Component and should be retained.


L11/5 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan - Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Arthur Street East (Richmond Drive)

Issues

Proposed height controls work against market forces with opportunities for sea views, which provide higher economic returns, being negated by the proposed controls.

The draft DCP is counter intuitive providing for taller buildings on the lower slopes and lower buildings on the upper slopes. Height controls outlined in submission provide a balance between preserving scenic qualities and providing incentive measures for redevelopment of the site.

Concern about blanket setback of six metres in draft DCP as it provides no incentive for activating the street frontage and should be amended to reflect submission.

Comments

Appropriate clauses on view sharing have been included in the draft DCP. A development proposal will need to be assessed on its merits. As discussed in an above topic, impacts on view amenity will be reviewed as part of any future application. The Arthur Street East precinct is not subject to any environmental restrictions and is presently zoned for Medium-High Density Development under LEP 2000. Six metre setbacks are consistent with requirements currently applied and deemed appropriate for streetscape, amenity and visual impact purposes.

Incorporate coastal erosion study results

Comments

This is mentioned in a few submissions – initially Section 6.6 Erosion and Sediment Control/Foreshore building line requirements are sufficient in this regard. Once Council’s Coastal Hazard Study is complete, any new provisions will be incorporated into the gazetted LEP/DCP.

Plan fails to adequately consider the impact of climate change

Comments

Additional flood and climate change modelling was prepared as part of the City Plan process –guidelines for development to respond to flooding and climate change levels are detailed under Section 6.9 Design Response to Developments in Flood Affected Areas of the Development Control Plan. Again any additional outcomes from future studies will be included in the adopted DCP as relevant.

Midway Motel site and proposal for mixed tourist and commercial development: Have

already referred Masterplan to Council and DoP for review and reiterate importance of the site being designated as “Special Area” under the draft DCP

Comments

The development proposed by the Masterplan is prohibited by current and draft LEPs, as such the proponent can only progress this project using the options detailed previously in the report to Council’s 16 December 2010 meeting in the section relating to the LEP.


L11/5 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan - Development Control Plan (Cont'd) The draft DCP needs to provide and apply appropriate criteria to enable Wind Effects

reports to be prepared for buildings greater than 35 metres in height.

Comments

Wind forcing would be an essential consideration under Australian Standards and Building Code of Australia for any construction of such buildings, and appropriate provisions are contained in the draft DCP.

Two submissions cited that there is some discrepancy between setbacks (identified in

Figure 3.1) and street frontage height diagrams (Figure 3.4 – 3.11)

Comment

The anomalies identified have been corrected in the draft DCP. Implementation Date / Priority: As the LEP component of the City Centre Plan has been progressed to the DoP to be formally made, it is appropriate to progress the draft Coffs Harbour City Centre DCP as a priority matter, otherwise no controls will cover development in the subject area. Recommendation: 1. That Council adopt the amended Coffs Harbour City Centre Development Control Plan

2011 (as provided in the Councillor’s Room).

2. That the adoption of the Development Control Plan be formally advertised to commence when the Coffs Harbour City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2011 is made by the Minister.

3. That parties who made a submission to the City Centre Plan be informed of Council’s decision.

Chris Chapman Director Land Use, Health & Development

Documents

COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL ORDINARY MEETING COUNCIL ... · CITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORTS 44 CS11/4 IMPLEMENTATION OF AUS-SPEC ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SPECIFICATIONS 44. Minutes