Hastings LGA Coast & Estuaries Sub-Committee

 

Business Paper

 

date of meeting:

 

Friday, 1 November 2013

location:

 

Function Room,

Port Macquarie-Hastings Council,

17 Burrawan Street,

Port Macquarie

time:

 

1.30pm


Hastings LGA Coast & Estuaries Sub-Committee

 

CHARTER

 


 

 

·                Advise Council on conditions and management issues in the Hastings, Camden Haven and Lake Cathie/Lake Innes estuaries.

 

·                Advise Council on the implementation of the Hastings, Camden Haven and Lake Cathie/Lake Innes Estuary Management Plans.

 

·                Advise Council on conditions and management issues in the coastline (as described in the NSW Coastal Policy) within the LGA.

 

·                Act as a committee as set out in the NSW Estuary and NSW Coastline Management Manuals.

 


Hastings LGA Coast & Estuaries Sub-Committee

 

ATTENDANCE REGISTER

 

 

Member

09/03/12

16/07/12

02/04/12

 

 

Councillor Lisa Intemann

 

 

P

 

 

Councillor Adam Roberts

 

 

P

 

 

Adrian Button

(Waterways User Rep)

P

P

P

 

 

Alan MacIntyre

(Community Rep)

P

P

P

 

 

Alison Kennedy

(Community Rep - Bonny Hills)

P

A

P

 

 

Bob Jolly

(Community Rep - Lake Cathie)

P

P

P

 

 

Jack Jones

(Lake Cathie Progress Association)

P

P

P

 

 

Laurie Lardner

(Community Rep)

P

P

P

 

 

Kingsley Searle

(Oyster Industry)

X

A

P

 

 

Patrick McEntee

(Community Rep)

A

A

P

 

 

Tony Troup

(Oyster Industry)

A

P

X

 

 

Paul Hyde

(Hastings River Fisherman’s Co-op)

P

A

P

 

 

Staff

 

 

 

 

 

Matt Rogers (PMHC)

P

P

P

 

 

Tim Molloy (PMHC)

P

P

P

 

 

Gordon Cameron (PMHC)

P

P

P

 

 

Dan Croft (PMHC)

X

A

A

 

 

Thor Aaso (PMHC)

P

A

A

 

 

Agencies

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Birse

(Lands Department)

 

 

X

 

 

Lee Burdett

Michael Northam (alternate)

(DPI - Fisheries)

 

 

 

P

 

 

Eric Claussen

Steve Atkins (alternate)

(National Parks Wildlife Service)

 

 

X

 

 

Robert Kasmarik

(Office of Environment & Heritage)

 

 

P

 

 

 

 

Key: P =  Present

         A  =  Absent With Apology

         =  Absent Without Apology

        

 

 

 

 

 


Hastings LGA Coast & Estuaries Sub-Committee Meeting

Friday, 1 November 2013

 

Items of Business

 

Item       Subject                                                                                                      Page

 

01           Acknowledgement of Country............................................................................ 1

02           Apologies......................................................................................................... 1

03           Confirmation of Minutes.................................................................................... 1

04           Disclosures of Interest..................................................................................... 10

05           Business Arising from Previous Minutes........................................................... 14

06           New Code of Conduct..................................................................................... 15

07           Lake Cathie Coastal Zone Management Plan..................................................... 58  

08           General Business

 


AGENDA            Description: Governance Strap.jpgHastings LGA Coast & Estuaries Sub-Committee      01/11/2013

Item:          01

Subject:     ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

 

"I acknowledge that we are gathered on Birpai Land. I pay respect to the Birpai Elders both past and present. I also extend that respect to all other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people present."

 

 

Item:          02

Subject:     APOLOGIES

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the apologies received be accepted.

 

 

Item:          03

Subject:     CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Hastings LGA Coast & Estuaries Sub-Committee Meeting held on 2 April 2013 be confirmed.

 


pmhc_logo_VER_smallMINUTES                                                                          Hastings LGA Coast & Estuaries

                                                                                                          Sub-Committee Meeting

                                                                                                                                  02/04/2013

 

 

 

PRESENT

 

Members:

 

Cr Lisa Intemann - Chair

Cr Adam Roberts

Matt Rogers

Tim Molloy

Gordon Cameron

Adrian Button

Alan MacIntyre

Alison Kennedy

Bob Jolly

Bob Birse

Jack Jones

Kingsley Searle

Laurie Lardner

Michael Northam

Patrick McEntee

Paul Hyde

Robert Kasmarik

 

Other Attendees:

 

Public observers - 25

 

 

The meeting opened at 1.00pm.

 

 

01       ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

The Acknowledgement of Country was delivered.

 

 

02       APOLOGIES

CONSENSUS:

That the apologies received from Dan Croft and Thor Aaso be accepted.

 

 

03       CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

CONSENSUS:

That the Minutes of the Hastings LGA Coast & Estuaries Sub-Committee Meeting held on 16 July 2012 be confirmed subject to the following amendment in relation to Item 6.

Insert the words as underlined below:

Bob Jolly

Disagrees with recommendation 2(b) and believes residents should not have to contribute to works because landowners currently pay higher rates. Matt Rogers indicated that NSW guidelines required all funding options to be considered and included in the CZMP. The option of residents contributing to the works is appropriate and cannot be ruled out. Tim Molloy explained that any future funding for works will be focused on public benefit and a balanced approach is needed.

 

 

04      DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

 

There were no disclosures of interest presented.

 

 

05       BUSINESS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES

 

Nil.

 

 

06       Lake Cathie Coastal Zone Management Plan

 

Cr Intemann acknowledged submissions received from residents about funding mechanisms and the need to include all options in the Plan. Cr Intemann sought comments from the Committee on the draft Plan.

 

Jack Jones

·        Believes the legislation outlined in section 6.3 (Funding) does not allow private landowner contribution if works are constructed on public land.

·        Believes private landowner contribution should be removed.

·        97% of submissions from Management Study (Stage 2) supported no contribution from landowners.

 

Bob Jolly

·        Questioned independence of Royal Haskoning Peer Review. Matt Rogers explained it was independent and confirmed a Grant had been received for the photogrammetric analysis work. It was proposed that Item 1.2 form Table 5 should be amended to delete “per date of photogrammetric analysis” from the “indicative cost column” and amend timing column to “2013”.

·        A comparison of property Rates/values should be included in the CZMP to highlight the current loss of income to Council because of lower property values. Cr Intemann commented rates are based on land values and Valuer Generals requirements. Higher land values will mean that landowners would be contributing to the cost of the revetment. Patrick McEntee commented that the total of the additional rates should be included based on the potential increase in land vaules if the revetment is constructed.

·        Believes section 6.1.1 is irrelevant (environmental approvals) to the Revetment Wall and Beach Nourishment. Matt Rogers explained this section is needed because there are a range of matters to be considered not just the revetment construction.

·        Does not believe CZMP can be exhibited. Cr Intemann commented there are ‘housekeeping’ errors (ie. typos etc) that can be amended easily. The intent is to identify key issues for amendment so the report can be exhibited.

·        Agrees with funding issues identified by Jack Jones.

 

Laurie Lardner

·        No issues.

 

Kingsley Searle

·        Emergency Management Plan should refer to the Lake Cathie Rural Fire Service not the NSW Fire Brigade.

 

Alan MacIntyre

·        Sympathises with residents.

·        Confirmed the CZMP will be assessed by the committee fairly and is willing to accept information from any source.

·        Questioned the Royal Haskoning Peer Review. Matt Rogers explained the review was commissioned outside the committee to resolve issues raised by consultants (Worley Parsons) employed by landowners. The report is publicly available and has been provided to landowners. Cr Intemann apologised for not providing a copy to the committee.  A copy will be forwarded to committee members.

 

Patrick McEntee

·        The reality is the coastline is changing and is concerned the detailed design including detailed cost may require a reassessment of the revetment wall option if it becomes cost ineffective.

·        Information needs to be presented to the wider community. Matt Rogers confirmed the public exhibition will include a survey and fact sheet. The fact sheet will summarise the key issues of the CZMP including funding. Matt also commented that this Management Plan was a ‘high level’ strategy document. When the detail design is done further consultation will occur (ie. there are multiple opportunities for community comments).

 

Paul Hyde

·        No issues.

 

Mick Northam

·        No issues.

 

 

Alison Kennedy

·        Why do planning restrictions apply to Chepana Street if the area is not at risk until 2100? Matt Rogers confirmed different development controls apply of different Planning Horizons. There are no planning controls for land mapped with 2100 hazard lines.

·        Concerned at lack of detail in the plan and the need for additional consultation. Noted that there are 19 Coastal Erosion Hotspots. There needs to be a process for consideration of issues at individual locations working with the community and technical staff. Cr Intemann confirmed this is one stage in the process of management plans and that there will be further opportunities for review and public consultation.

 

Rob Kasmarik

·        Advised that the draft Plan addressed the issues necessary to gain certification by the Minister.

·        50% subsidy potentially available for the works in the CZMP.

·        Alan MacIntyre questioned how indurated sands (coffee rock) and the lack of a stable foundation would be accommodated in the design of a revetment wall. Rob advised these issues can be accommodated  in the detailed design consideration.

 

Adrian Button

·        No issues.

 

Bob Birse

·        No issues.

 

Key issues identified by the Committee:

There was general discussion on the following:

 

1.    Communication of the Management Plan Process

Alison Kennedy

·        Believes there is no trust between PMHC and the affected Lake Cathie community.

·        Will provide a submission on how the process could be improved.

 

2.    Lake Cathie Rural Fire Service

·    To be referenced in Emergency Management Plan (EMP)

 

3.    Item 1.2 in Table 5.

·    Cost of photogrammetric analysis to be clarified as $30,000 and timing to be 2013.

 

4.    Valuations

·    Include comments on the change in valuations overtime and an estimate of rates generated and the impact on Council.

·    Matt Rogers confirmed that the Management Study (Stage 2) contained general Rate and Valuation information. This could be used to provide further general information.

 

5.    Section 6.1.1 (Environmental approvals) irrelevant

Bob Jolly

·    Refer previous comments from Bob above.

 

 

Patrick McEntee

·    Believes this section is necessary. Matt Rogers suggested heading (6.1 revetment) could be revised to be more general.

Alison Kennedy

·    Believes section could be included if information was clearer.

·    Questioned if approvals would consider Lake Cathie sand migration. Matt Rogers confirmed the Management Study (Stage 2) contained information on lake processes (ie. Lake Cathie Hydrodynamic Model) and this would need to be taken into account in the detailed design processes.

 

Cr Intemann

Clearer statement required at the beginning of the chapter with related issues incorporated including Lake Cathie estuary and sand drift being included.

 

6.    Previous submissions - Management Study (Stage 2)

Jack Jones

·        97% of submissions from Management Study (Stage 2) supported no contribution from landowners. Can these submissions be taken into consideration.

Matt Rogers

·    The CZMP has additional specific details and funding proposals so new surveys and submissions are needed.

·    A general comment could be included that reflected the previous submissions in relation to funding.

 

7.    Funding options

Matt Rogers

·    Agreed two (2) more options could be included:

    1. PMHC and NSW Government - 50/50 split.
    2. PMHC, NSW Government and Commonwealth - 33/33/33 split.

·    Further explanation of section 496(b) of the Local Government Act was provided. It was clarified that PMHC does have powers to make special charges or levies on properties benefiting from the coastal protection works on the basis that Council would only fund if landowners contributed. Council could also levy a special rate.

 

Bob Jolly

·    Commented that the residents have undertaken an informal traffic count of Illaroo Road over Easter 2013. Cr Roberts acknowledged the work done in the traffic count.

 

Jack Jones

·    Believes if a levy is to apply it should be spread more widely as more than just the 17 Illaroo Road Landowners will benefit.

 

Kingsley Searle

·    Agreed Table 6 (Funding scenarios) should reflect community opinion from the Management Study (Stage 2) consultation.

 

Patrick McEntee

·        Believes landowners are benefiting given comments that the Revetment Wall will reinstate property prices. It is fair and just residents contribute if a benefit is gained in 2050 not just benefit from present day risk.

 

Alison Kennedy

·    Disagrees with resident funding as the revetment will bring back the situation that existed prior to the erosion risk.

 

Matt Rogers

  • Agreed wording could be more general to describe the powers of PMHC to make special charges or levies on properties benefiting from the coastal protection works. Remove specific details about sections within the Local Government Act (LGA).

 

Cr Intemann

  • There will be further opportunities for review and public consultation
  • Additional funding options need to be included.
  • Externalities including Lake Cathie estuary and sand drift being included.
  • Details on previous submissions need to be included.
  • Amend 1.2 in Table 5 of the draft CZMP to “2013” not “to 2018”
  • Clarified that an adequate description of the study area is contained in the Introduction of the Plan.

 

Cr Roberts

  • Noted the previous submissions to the Management Study (Stage 2) consultation and the traffic study undertaken by residents.

 

The above issues will included in an amended CZMP. The revised draft CZMP (with Tracked Changes on) will be emailed to committee members for final review before presenting to Council for public exhibition. It is likely the CZMP will be presented to the May Ordinary Council Meeting, however this is subject to SMECs availability to make amendments.

 

CONSENSUS:

That it be a recommendation to Council that:

 

The Final Draft Lake Cathie Coastal Zone Management Plan (2013) be placed on public exhibition for six (6) weeks subject to amendment of the report to take account of the following issues identified by the Committee:

1.    Table 2.2 of the Emergency Management Plan to reference the Lake Cathie Rural Fire Service.

2.    Item 1.2 of Table 5 of the Draft Lake Cathie Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) to clarify photogrammetric costs. Amendment to specify $30,000 for photogrammetric analysis with 2013 for timing.

3.    Include a section in the CZMP on valuations and an estimate of lost revenue to Council.

4.    Amend section 6.1.1 of the CZMP to include a more general statement about approvals.

5.    Include a specific reference to consider the sand migration into Lake Cathie as part of the Environmental Assessment and Approvals process.

6.    Expand section 2.2.3, last paragraph of the CZMP to include a comment about previous Management Study (Stage 2) submissions on funding.

7.    Include two (2) additional funding scenarios as follows:

a)    PMHC and NSW Government - 50/50 split

b)    PMHC, NSW Government and Commonwealth - 33/33/33 split.

8.    Amend section 6.3 to more generally describe the powers of PMHC to make special charges or levies on properties benefiting from the coastal protection works. Remove specific details about sections within the Local Government Act (LGA).

 

 

07       GENERAL BUSINESS

1.    Committee Charter and Procedures

 

Cr Intemann

·    There is a need to review this committee’s charter, general procedures, voting procedures. Councillors will undertake a review and will submit a proposal to the next Committee Meeting for comment.

·    The two hours allotted for Committee Meetings allows for other issues to be considered. However, meetings may finish earlier if the allocated time is not required.

 

Patrick McEntee

·    Believes meetings need to be more regularly and include a review of Estuary Management Plans, Stingray Creek Bridge, Flynns Beach seawall, Birdon Marine and TBT etc. Councillors to consider how these types of issues could be accommodated within the committee charter.

 

Kingsley Searle

·    Does not believe estuary issues are being addressed.

 

Cr Intemann

·    Indicated members may need to take ownership of issues, investigate and present issues.

 

Matt Rogers

·    Reminded the committee about the limited resources to service the committee and that a move to meetings on an ‘as-needed’ basis was a result of a lack of agenda items and in part a result of a move from the ‘planning‘ phases to the ‘implementation’ phases of Estuary Management Plans.

 

Patrick McEntee

·    Suggested a minimum of two (2) set meeting per year. If no issues that meetings could be cancelled.

 

Alison Kennedy

·    Questioned the need for more email communications between members. Cr Intemann confirmed this protocol would be reviewed.

 

2.    TBT

 

Matt Rogers

·    Provided a brief update on TBT excavation at Birdon Marine and confirmed that the bunding should have provided protection from the recent flood.

 

Laurie Lardner

·    Questioned if a representative from the EPA could attend the next meeting. Matt Rogers indicated an invitation was made previously but the EPA declined. A further invitation can be made.

 

Cr Intemann

·    Requested TBT update emails be sent to Cr Roberts and herself.

 

Mick Northam

·        Confirmed Birdon have complied with Fisheries Permit requirements.

 

3.    Lake Innes Reversion

 

Matt Rogers

·        Commented the Lake Innes Reversion EIS will go on public exhibition shortly.

 

4.    General

Cr Intemann and Cr Roberts thanked the gallery, staff and committee members for their involvement.

 

 

The meeting closed at 2.59pm.

 

 

 

 

 


AGENDA            Description: Governance Strap.jpgHastings LGA Coast & Estuaries Sub-Committee      01/11/2013

Item:          04

Subject:     DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Disclosures of Interest be presented

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST DECLARATION

 

 

Name of Meeting:     ………………………………………………………………………..

 

Meeting Date:           ………………………………………………………………………..

 

Item Number:            ………………………………………………………………………..

 

Subject:                      ………………………………………………………………………..

                                    …………………………………………………….……………...…..

 

 

I, ..................................................................................... declare the following interest:

 

 

        Pecuniary:

              Take no part in the consideration and voting and be out of sight of the meeting.

 

 

        Non-Pecuniary - Significant Interest:

              Take no part in the consideration and voting and be out of sight of the meeting.

 

        Non-Pecuniary - Less than Significant Interest:

              May participate in consideration and voting.

 

 

For the reason that:  ....................................................................................................

 

.......................................................................................................................................

 

 

 

Signed:  .........................................................................  Date:  ..................................

 

 

Growth Bar b&w(Further explanation is provided on the next page)


 

Further Explanation

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

A conflict of interest exists where a reasonable and informed person would perceive that a Council official could be influenced by a private interest when carrying out their public duty. Interests can be of two types: pecuniary or non-pecuniary.

 

All interests, whether pecuniary or non-pecuniary are required to be fully disclosed and in writing.

 

Pecuniary Interest

 

A pecuniary interest is an interest that a Council official has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the Council official. (section 442)

 

A Council official will also be taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter if that Council official’s spouse or de facto partner or a relative of the Council official or a partner or employer of the Council official, or a company or other body of which the Council official, or a nominee, partner or employer of the Council official is a member, has a pecuniary interest in the matter. (section 443)

 

The Council official must not take part in the consideration or voting on the matter and leave and be out of sight of the meeting. (section 451)

 

Non-Pecuniary

 

A non-pecuniary interest is an interest that is private or personal that the Council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Act.

 

Non-pecuniary interests commonly arise out of family, or personal relationships, or involvement in sporting, social or other cultural groups and associations and may include an interest of a financial nature.

 

The political views of a Councillor do not constitute a private interest.

 

The management of a non-pecuniary interest will depend on whether or not it is significant.

 

Non Pecuniary – Significant Interest

 

As a general rule, a non-pecuniary conflict of interest will be significant where a matter does not raise a pecuniary interest, but it involves:

(a)   A relationship between a Council official and another person that is particularly close, for example, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child of the Council official or of the Council official’s spouse, current or former spouse or partner, de facto or other person living in the same household.

(b)   Other relationships that are particularly close, such as friendships and business relationships. Closeness is defined by the nature of the friendship or business relationship, the frequency of contact and the duration of the friendship or relationship.

(c)   An affiliation between a Council official an organisation, sporting body, club, corporation or association that is particularly strong.

 

If a Council official declares a non-pecuniary significant interest it must be managed in one of two ways:

1.     Remove the source of the conflict, by relinquishing or divesting the interest that creates the conflict, or reallocating the conflicting duties to another Council official.

2.     Have no involvement in the matter, by taking no part in the consideration or voting on the matter and leave and be out of sight of the meeting, as if the provisions in section 451(2) apply.

 

Non Pecuniary – Less than Significant Interest

 

If a Council official has declared a non-pecuniary less than significant interest and it does not require further action, they must provide an explanation of why they consider that the conflict does not require further action in the circumstances.

SPECIAL DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST DECLARATION

 

 

By

[insert full name of councillor]

 

 

In the matter of

[insert name of environmental planning instrument]

 

 

Which is to be considered at a meeting of the

[insert name of meeting]

 

 

Held on

[insert date of meeting]

 

 

PECUNIARY INTEREST

 

 

Address of land in which councillor or an  associated person, company or body has a proprietary interest (the identified land)i

 

 

Relationship of identified land to councillor

[Tick or cross one box.]

 

Councillor has interest in the land (e.g. is owner or has other interest arising out of a mortgage, lease trust, option or contract, or otherwise).

 

Associated person of councillor has interest in the land.

 

Associated company or body of councillor has interest in the land.

 

MATTER GIVING RISE TO PECUNIARY INTEREST

 

 

Nature of land that is subject to a change

in zone/planning control by proposed

LEP (the subject land iii

[Tick or cross one box]

 

The identified land.

 

Land that adjoins or is adjacent to or is in proximity to the identified land.

Current zone/planning control

[Insert name of current planning instrument and identify relevant zone/planning control applying to the subject land]

 

Proposed change of zone/planning control

[Insert name of proposed LEP and identify proposed change of zone/planning control applying to the subject land]

 

Effect of proposed change of zone/planning control on councillor

[Tick or cross one box]

 

Appreciable financial gain.

 

Appreciable financial loss.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor’s Signature:  ……………………………….   Date:  ………………..


 

 

Important Information

 

This information is being collected for the purpose of making a special disclosure of pecuniary interests under sections 451 (4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1993.  You must not make a special disclosure that you know or ought reasonably to know is false or misleading in a material particular.  Complaints made about contraventions of these requirements may be referred by the Director-General to the Local Government Pecuniary Interest and Disciplinary Tribunal.

 

This form must be completed by you before the commencement of the council or council committee meeting in respect of which the special disclosure is being made.   The completed form must be tabled at the meeting.  Everyone is entitled to inspect it.  The special disclosure must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i.   Section 443 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that you may have a pecuniary interest in a matter because of the pecuniary interest of your spouse or your de facto partner or your relativeiv or because your business partner or employer has a pecuniary interest. You may also have a pecuniary interest in a matter because you, your nominee, your business partner or your employer is a member of a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.

ii.  Section 442 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that a pecuniary interest is an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person. A person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to the matter or if the interest is of a kind specified in section 448 of that Act (for example, an interest as an elector or as a ratepayer or person liable to pay a charge).

iii.   A pecuniary interest may arise by way of a change of permissible use of land adjoining, adjacent to or in proximity to land in which a councillor or a person, company or body referred to in section 443 (1) (b) or (c) of the Local Government Act 1993 has a proprietary interest—see section 448 (g) (ii) of the Local Government Act 1993.

iv.   Relative is defined by the Local Government Act 1993 as meaning your, your spouse’s or your de facto partner’s parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child and the spouse or de facto partner of any of those persons.

 

 


AGENDA            Description: Governance Strap.jpgHastings LGA Coast & Estuaries Sub-Committee      01/11/2013

Item:          05

Subject:     BUSINESS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES

 

Nil.

 

 

 


AGENDA            Description: Governance Strap.jpgHastings LGA Coast & Estuaries Sub-Committee      01/11/2013

 

 

Item:          06

 

Subject:     New Code of Conduct

Presented by: General Manager, Anthony Hayward

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the information in and the attachments to the New Code of Conduct report be noted.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Division of Local Government has released a Circular with the purpose of informing Council and its Sub-Committees that the new Model Code Framework commenced on 1 March 2013 and that the Division has made available a number of resources to support the new Model Code Framework.

 

This report provides information regarding the Council’s newly adopted Code of Conduct and availability of key supporting resources.

 

Discussion

 

The Division of Local Government released a Circular, 13-06, with the purpose of informing Council that:

·    The new Model Code Framework commenced on 1 March 2013.

·    A simple guide, Model Code Summary, is available in relation to the standards of behaviour required by council officials.

·    The Division has created a Model Code of Conduct 2013 webpage, featuring key resources to support implementation of the new code.

 

The Division of Local Government has made available a number of resources on the webpage, which include:

·    FAQs on the implementation of the new framework.

·    The Model Code of Conduct, Model Code summary and Model Code Procedures.

·    Standalone versions of the Model Code targeted at different types of council officials containing only those standards relevant to those officials.

·    Guides to Model Code procedures for general managers, Mayors and complaints coordinators, containing easy to understand summaries of their roles in the complaints management process.

·    Guides to Model Code procedures for complainants and people the subject of investigation. The prescribed procedures require that persons being investigated be provided with information about the investigation process.

 

The Model Code of Conduct 2013 webpage may be accessed from the Division’s website at www.dlg.nsw.gov.au.

 

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 20 February 2013, Council resolved to adopt a new Code of Conduct as required by the Local Government Act 1993, based on the recently revised Model Code from the Division of Local Government.

 

Attachment 1 to this report is the Council’s newly adopted Code of Conduct.

 

Attachment 2 to this report is a document from the Division of Local Government outlining the obligations of Council Committee members.

 

Attachment 3 to this report is another document from the Division of Local Government providing a summary of the Model Code of Conduct relevant to Council officials (including Committee members).

 

All attachments are provided for information.

 

Planning & Policy Implications

 

This report communicates to the Sub-Committee the newly adopted Code of Conduct and the availability of key supporting resources and supplementary information to Council’s recently adopted Code.

 

 

Attachments

 

1View. Code of Conduct

2View. Your Obligations as a Council Committee Member

3View. Model Code of Conduct - Summary

 


ATTACHMENT

Hastings LGA Coast & Estuaries Sub-Committee

01/11/2013


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Hastings LGA Coast & Estuaries Sub-Committee

01/11/2013


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Hastings LGA Coast & Estuaries Sub-Committee

01/11/2013


 


AGENDA            Description: Governance Strap.jpgHastings LGA Coast & Estuaries Sub-Committee      01/11/2013

 

 

Item:          07

 

Subject:     Lake Cathie Coastal Zone Management Plan

Presented by:  Development & Environment, Matt Rogers

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the Lake Cathie Coastal Zone Management Plan (2013).

 

 

Discussion

 

Introduction

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Council (PMHC) has been directed by the NSW State Government to prepare a Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) for Lake Cathie. The purpose of a CZMP is to:

 

1.   Identify the coastal hazard,

2.   Identify management options for the coastal hazards, and

3.   Describes the priorities for implementing the management actions.

The initial phase in the CZMP process was the preparation of the Lake Cathie Coastal Hazard Study which was completed by SMEC in 2008 and latter revised in 2010 to take into account the introduction of the NSW Government’s sea level rise planning benchmarks. While the current NSW Government has unendorsed the Sea Level Rise Policy (benchmarks), this is still considered the best available information for Council planning processes.

The subsequent Lake Cathie Coastline Management Study - Stage 1 (2009) provided a preliminary assessment of 13 potential options to address coastal hazards. At its meeting of 16 December 2009, Council adopted the Lake Cathie Coastline Management Study - Stage 1 and resolved to further examine coastal management options with the preparation of a Coastline Management Study (Stage 2) report. The following four (4) options were assessed in more detail:

a) 400m Revetment protection for Illaroo Road
b) Groyne
c) Beach Nourishment
d) Planned retreat including acquisition/voluntary purchase

 

The Lake Cathie Coastline Management Study - Stage 2 (2012) Report was exhibited from 2 April to 8 June 2012 and following overwhelming support for a revetment with beach nourishment, Council resolved on 25 July 2012 to:

 

1.       Proceed with the preparation of the Lake Cathie Coastal Zone Management Plan incorporating a revetment and beach nourishment as the management option for Illaroo Road.

2.       Include the following provisions in the Lake Cathie Coastal Zone Management Plan:

a)      Construction of the revetment at an appropriate trigger point.

b)      Funding source options for the management and maintenance works including State Government, ratepayers and residents benefiting from the works.

c)      Geological testing up to the currently defined 2100 zone of reduced foundation capacity to confirm the geological profile and the extent of Coffee rock and other material that may impact on the rate of erosion and the extent of the zone of reduced foundation capacity.

d)      Long term development control provisions.

e)      A review of s149 Certificate Notations.

3.       Lift the current prohibition on development for properties forward (seaward) of the 2050 zone of slope adjustment and apply the following interim controls for this area pending the adoption of the Lake Cathie Coastline Management Plan and construction of the revetment.

a)      Additions to existing dwellings (excluding detached garages and outbuildings) be limited to a maximum 10% increase in floor area.

b)      Any redevelopment or reconstruction above 10% being undertaken as relocatable structures.

c)      New detached garages and outbuildings being relocatable structures.

d)      No subdivision including strata subdivision.

4.       Apply the following interim controls for properties behind the (landward) 2050 zone of slope adjustment and forward of the 2050 zone of reduced foundation capacity.

a)      Additions to existing dwellings (excluding detached garages and outbuildings) be limited to a maximum 10% increase in floor area or provide for foundation footings to extend into the stable foundation zone.

b)      All new buildings (that are not relocatable) be subject to a requirement for foundation footings to extend into the stable foundation zone.

5.         Adopt the Lake Cathie Emergency Action Plan.

 

Consultation/Submissions

 

The draft Lake Cathie CZMP was placed on public exhibition from 26 July to 13 September 2013. In conjunction with the exhibition a fact sheet and questionnaire were uploaded to Council’s website during the course of the exhibition. Details of the exhibition were advertised in local print media.

 

Following the exhibition of the CZMP, a total of 15 written submissions, one (1) questionnaire and numerous petition sheets were received. The following is a breakdown of the submissions received:

 

Written submissions

·    15 detailed written submissions.

·    One (1) written submission was accompanied by survey sheets from a traffic survey undertaken in March 2013 by local residents.

·    One (1) written submission was accompanied with copies of submissions (4,162) originally submitted as part of the previous Lake Cathie Coastline Management Study - Stage 2.

·    All written submissions from within the LGA with 12 being specific to Lake Cathie.

·    Two (2) written submissions were in favour of resident contributions to funding the revetment wall.

·    Twelve (12) written submissions were not in favour of resident contributions to funding the revetment wall.

·    One (1) written submission promoted the AuSSeaWall system.

 

Questionnaire

·    One (1) questionnaire form was returned in favour of resident contributions

 

Petition

·    4,721 signatures on multiple petition sheets prepared by the Lake Cathie Coastal Residents Group. The petition supports the preservation of Illaroo Road and states that Illaroo home owners should not be required to contribute to the costs of the preservation.

·    487 of the signatures were from outside the LGA.

·    739 of the signatures were from the Lake Cathie area.

 

The following Summary Table outlines the main issues raised in the written submissions.

 

Summary Table - main issues raised

 

Issue and Response

1

Illaroo Road is used primarily by the general public and not residents. It’s value justifies residents not contributing to the revetment wall and beach nourishment.

The value of Illaroo Road has been acknowledged in the development of the funding scenarios through a public funding component in all funding scenarios. However the primary purpose for the construction of the revetment is considered to be for the protection of the dwellings along Illaroo Road and not just for the protection of the road itself.

Illaroo Road is not an essential link to existing foreshore reserves, as both Jonathan Dickson Reserve and Aqua Reserve are serviced by Kywong Street & Bundella Avenue respectively. Whilst the loss of the link would impact on ‘tourist’ traffic, access to the key ‘tourist’ or visitor points (Jonathan Dickson Reserve and the southern headland) would still be available. Council could therefore apply a portion of the funding for the construction of the revetment to the residents. This issue is discussed further under funding options below.

2

The Interim Planning Guidelines (relocatable buildings) are unrealistic.

The Interim Planning Guidelines were developed to reflect Council’s resolution of 25 July 2012 and reflect a risk management approach to the coastal hazard identified in the Hazard Study.

Until the revetment wall is constructed there remains a coastal hazard for development and re-development adjacent to Illaroo Road. It is not appropriate to allow large-scale re-development of those affected properties given the current knowledge of risk exposure and uncertainty associated with funding.

The current Interim Planning Guidelines allow for an appropriate level of development in line with the current risk profile.

Any relocatable dwellings must be structurally designed and be in accordance with relevant building and planning standards.

3

Additional rate revenue not correctly considered if revetment constructed and values return to pre building prohibition values

 

It is considered outside the scope of the CZMP to undertake a detailed

analysis of land valuations. The amended CZMP includes a note that “Assuming that land values are currently reduced by 20% land values would increase by an average of $91,000. This would equate to approximately $291 per annum in additional rates from each of the affected landowners based on the rate structure for 2012/2013. Note the 20% reduction in land values has been assumed for the purpose of estimating revenue increase relative to other funding sources. It does

not reflect a detailed analysis of property values and actual property values may have reduced by a greater or lesser amount,” Based on the preceding assumption the current amount of rates that is lost to Council is $291 per annum per property. An analysis of rating values from 2006 to the most recent valuation in 2012 shows that land values in Illaroo Road decreased on average by 7.9%. Properties in Chepana Street north of Kywong and outside the coastal impact area have remained the same since 2006.

 

In relation to the specific example in one of the submission that raised this issue, Council’s records indicate that the rateable value of the property prior to the building restrictions in 2008 was $384,000, not $522,000 as suggested in the submission. The $522,000 value for the property was for the purpose of land tax and not part of Council’s valuations for rating purposes.

 

If Council’s determines to proceed with component of Landowner funding a detailed assessment of land values should be carried out at the time Council decides to proceed with the revetment. Accordingly in the absence of detailed valuations for the Illaroo road properties (based on a revetment being in place) a 20% reduction is considered reasonable for the purpose of the CZMP.

4

Residents should not have to pay.

 

The overwhelming thrust of the submissions is that residents should not have to contribute to the funding or the maintenance of the works. However, a portion of benefit can be directly attributable to the residents through the property protection and the expected increased property values.

The preferred funding option for the revetment wall construction is Scenario 1: funding from State & Federal Governments. In considering the submissions, Council needs to balance support for no resident funding with the benefits that residents will receive and the need to maintain options for funding the works if government funding is not forthcoming.

 

A table outlining all the issues and responses of the detailed written submissions together with copies of those submissions are attached.

 

Funding Options

 

The draft CZMP includes the following funding options:

 

·    Scenario 1: funding from State and Commonwealth Governments, i.e. no Council or landowner funding. This is Council’s preferred option.

·    Scenario 2: equal funding contribution from Council, State and Commonwealth Governments. Under this scenario, representation would need to be made to the Commonwealth Government to negotiate arrangements similar to the NSW Floodplain Management Program, where funding assistance on a 1:1:1 basis (Commonwealth: State: Local Government) generally applies. No landowner funding is proposed under this scenario.

·    Scenario 3: equal funding contribution from Council, State and Commonwealth Governments as for Scenario 2 but with the Council contribution funded equally through rates and benefitting property owners contributions.

·    Scenario 4: equal funding contribution from Council and the State Government under the NSW Coastal Management Program. No landowner funding is proposed under this scenario.

·    Scenario 5: equal funding contribution from Council and the State Government under the NSW Coastal Management Program as for Scenario 4 but with the Council contribution funded equally through rates and benefitting property owners contributions.

 

The options are provided as potential options to the funding of the works and included resident funding options in accordance with Council’s resolution of 25 July 2012. Under the Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone Management Plans the actions in a CZMP require “proposed funding arrangements for all actions, including any private sector funding”. Council could choose not to attribute any cost to landowners at this stage.  However, to do so may limit Council’s ability to fund the works in a timely manner if only partial funding becomes available.

 

There is reference in the submissions to the fact that if Council implements flood works that are grant funded residents that are assisted by the works are not charged. Currently the main difference between coast and estuary grants to flood grants are that flood grants are received on an equal funding basis with the Federal, State and Local Government. There is no policy on resident funding for flood works but it remains open to Council to require a resident component future funding of high cost flood works.

 

Presently, Council charges a special levy in only two locations, the Broadwater and Sanctuary Springs estates, where a higher level of service is required for maintaining specific infrastructure and therefore requiring residents to contribute additional revenue for that purpose.

 

Planning & Policy Implications

 

This project is consistent with the NSW Coastal Management Policy 1997, the NSW Coastline Management Manual and the Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone Management Plans. This work will form new policy and a planning framework for managing coastal hazards at Lake Cathie.

 

Financial & Economic Implications

 

The Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone Management Plans require that a CZMP must contain proposed funding arrangements for all actions, including any private sector funding.

 

Under the Local Government Act 1993, “Coastal Protection Works” (including revetments and beach nourishment) may be constructed (subject to approvals) by, or on behalf of, landowners or by landowners jointly with a council or public authority.

 

The Local Government Act 1993 also provides for “Coastal Protection Services” to

maintain and repair coastal protection works, and to manage the impacts of such works (e.g. through beach nourishment). Clause 496B provides for the making and levying of annual charges for coastal protection services for properties that benefit from coastal protection works. Under the Coastal Protection Service Charge Guideline (DECCW 2010c), maintenance costs can be apportioned.

 

More certainty on cost estimates associated with construction and maintenance of the revetment wall will be known following the detailed investigation and design process currently being undertaken.

 

The preferred funding scenario is the NSW and Federal Governments fund the revetment wall. However, if this funding split is not realised then Council will need to further review funding options.

 

It is expected that other CZMP actions (e.g. reserve improvements etc) would be funded by Council and the NSW State Government on a 1:1 basis via the Coastal or Estuary Management Program.

 

 

Attachments

 

1View. Lake Cathie CZMP 2013 Exhibition Submission Issues Summary

2View. Lake Cathie CZMP 2013 Exhibition Submissions

 


ATTACHMENT

Hastings LGA Coast & Estuaries Sub-Committee

01/11/2013


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Hastings LGA Coast & Estuaries Sub-Committee

01/11/2013