AGENDA 
Hastings LGA Floodplain Sub-Committee 26/02/2014
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: ..................................
(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 
Hastings LGA Floodplain Sub-Committee 26/02/2014
Item: 06
Subject: Hastings River Floodplain Risk Management Plan
Presented
by: Development & Environment, Matt Rogers
|
RECOMMENDATION
That it be recommended to Council, to adopt the
Hastings River Floodplain Risk Management Plan.
|
Discussion
In September 2013, Council
resolved to place the Draft Hastings River Floodplain Management Plan on public
exhibition for six (6) weeks.
The Hastings River Floodplain
Management Plan (HFRMP) was prepared in accordance with the NSW Government’s
Flood Prone Land Policy and guidelines outlined in the NSW Government’s ‘Floodplain
Development Manual’ (2005). The HFRMP outlines a range of flood
management options which were developed in consultation with representatives
from Council, the then Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (now
the NSW Office and Environment & Heritage) and Council’s Floodplain
Sub-Committee. The options were devised with a view to reducing the existing
flood damages that the community could be exposed to and with a view to
providing a mechanism for ensuring that the risk faced by future development
was minimised.
The potential floodplain
management options assessed comprise a combination of ‘flood damage reduction
measures’ (structural measures) and ‘planning measures’ (non-structural
measures).
The following structural
measures are recommended for implementation as part of the HFRMP.
Option S1 – North Shore
Levee (Scenario A) – West of Ferry Terminal. This option is expected to reduce
the Average Annual Damage of flooding by $336,400. The capital cost of the
works is estimated to be $1.2M.
OR
Option S2 – North Shore
Levee (Scenario B) – West of Donnelly‟s
Creek. This option is expected to reduce the Average Annual Damage of flooding
by $360,000. It is estimated that this option would cost about $1.6M.
(Note: Due to the inconclusive
response from residents, implementation of Options S1 or S2 depend on community
acceptance or a future change in flood policy)
Option S3 – Construct Settlement
Point Flood Protection Levee. This option is expected to reduce the Average
Annual Damage of flooding by $294,300.
Refer to Figure 2.7 of the HFRMP
for the locations of the above options.
While listed as planning
measures, PL1 includes the upgrade (raising) of various roads to improve flood
evacuation and increase evacuation times. These upgrades are to be prioritised
based on opportunities that may arise as a function of Council’s capital works program for
road infrastructure.
The roads recommended for
upgrade and the estimated cost are shown in Table 6 of the HRFMP and is
reproduced below.
|
FLOOD
MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY
|
POTENTIAL
WORKS
|
EXISTING ROAD
LEVEL
(mAHD)
|
PROPOSED
LEVEL (mAHD) AND ARI
|
LENGTH (m)
|
WIDTH (m)
|
COST ESTIMATE
(APPROX.)
|
|
Settlement
Point Road
|
Raise
section of Settlement Point Road
|
1.0
|
2.1
(5 Year)
|
1,200
|
6
|
$1.46M
|
|
Boundary
Road
|
Raise
section of Hastings River Drive
|
2.2
|
2.5
(20 Year)
|
750
|
10
|
$0.78M
|
|
Fernbank
Creek
|
Raise
section of Hastings River Drive
|
1.8
|
2.1
(5 Year)
|
2,500
|
12
|
$3.8M
|
|
Fernbank
Creek
|
Raise
section of Fernbank Creek Road
|
2.2
|
2.85
(20 Year)
|
800
|
6
|
$0.76M
|
|
North
Shore
|
Raise
sections of North Shore Drive / Shoreline Drive
|
1.2
|
2.1
(5 Year)
|
1,200
|
6
|
$1.3M
|
|
Riverside
|
Raise
section of Shoreline Drive
|
1.4
|
2.4
(20 Year)
|
200
|
8
|
$0.3M
|
The Hastings River Floodplain
Risk Management Plan includes an Implementation Schedule that outlines the
proposed delivery of all the recommended management options and indicative
cost.
Consultation/Submissions
Extensive consultation has occurred throughout the
development of the Hastings River Floodplain Risk Management Plan. The
consultation phases are outlined below.
A community information brochure was distributed to the
public in May 2002 seeking flood information (e.g. flood marks photos etc). The
Hastings Flood Study (2006) was publicly exhibited in May 2005. A public
‘Information Session’ was also held for the community to discuss aspects of the
flood study prior to its adoption.
Public consultation was again undertaken in March 2009 as
part of the development of the Hastings River Floodplain Risk Management
Study (2012) to gauge the community’s views on the various flood management
measures proposed. A total of 2,584 brochures were distributed to residents in
the catchment. Details can be found in section 6.2 of the Hastings River
Floodplain Risk Management Study. The Hastings River Floodplain Risk
Management Study was also exhibited for six (6) weeks in December 2011. A
public ‘Information Session’ was also held for the community to discuss aspects
of the Study prior to its adoption.
The draft Hastings River Floodplain Risk Management Plan
was placed on public exhibition from 23 September 2013 to 8 November 2013. Given
the Plan is a simple and concise document containing an outline of work done to
date an ‘Information Session’ was not undertaken. Details of the exhibition
were advertised in local print media.
Following the exhibition of the draft Hastings River
Floodplain Risk Management Plan, a total of 26
written submissions were received. The
following is a breakdown of the submissions received:
The following Summary Table outlines the main issues raised
in the written submissions.
Summary Table - main issues raised
|
Issue and
Response
|
|
1
|
Objects to raising Shoreline
Drive (North Shore) due to restricted property access (cars, boats, caravans
etc), drainage, pedestrian and bike access.
|
|
The
Flood Modification measures presented by the Hastings River Floodplain
Risk Management Plan are conceptual at this stage. Following adoption by
Council and funding becoming available the detailed design process will begin
which will develop the particular requirements of the proposed measure.
Pedestrian usage, drainage, and private driveway access, specific levee
locations etc will all be taken into account during this stage.
|
|
2
|
Objects to raising Settlement
Point Road due to restricted property access (cars, boats, caravans etc),
drainage, pedestrian and bike access.
|
|
The
Flood Modification measures presented by the Hastings River Floodplain
Risk Management Plan are conceptual at this stage. Following adoption by
Council and funding becoming available the detailed design process will begin
which will develop the particular requirements of the proposed measure.
Pedestrian usage, drainage, and private driveway access, specific levee
locations etc will all be taken into account during this stage.
|
|
3
|
Residents coped with the recent
2013 flood. Does not believe the problem is as bad as made out.
|
|
Flooding
which occurred in the lower Hastings Valley of early 2013 was a minor to
moderate event (in the order of a 5% AEP [20 year] event). For planning
purposes Council utilises the 1% AEP (100 year) food event. Evacuation times
are predicted to be shorter and inundation levels are predicted to be higher
for a 1% AEP event.
|
|
Issue and
Response
|
|
4
|
Insufficient consultation with
residents.
|
|
Extensive consultation has occurred throughout the
development of the Hastings River Floodplain Risk Management Plan.
Consultation
phases included:
* A community information
brochure distributed to the public in May 2002 seeking flood information
(e.g. flood marks photos etc).
* The Hastings Flood Study
(2006) was publicly exhibited in May 2005. A public ‘Information Session’
was also held for the community to discuss aspects of the flood study prior
to its adoption.
* Public consultation was
again undertaken in March 2009 as part of the development of the Hastings
River Floodplain Risk Management Study (2012) to gauge the community’s
views on the various flood management measures proposed. A total of 2,584
brochures were distributed to residents in the catchment. Details can be
found in section 6.2 of the Hastings River Floodplain Risk Management
Study. The Hastings River Floodplain Risk Management Study was
also exhibited for six (6) weeks in December 2011. A public ‘Information
Session’ was also held for the community to discuss aspects of the Study
prior to its adoption.
|
|
5
|
Some confusion with road raising
options (PL1) and Settlement Point ring levee option (S3).
|
|
The Hasting
River Floodplain Risk Management Plan contains two (2) separate
management options for Settlement Point.
Option S3
considers a ring levee and is what is termed a ‘structural’ management option.
This option has considered a 100 year flood level (ie. approximately 1.5m
above natural surface including 500mm freeboard). This is the desirable level
that would allow development controls to be adjusted. However, ultimately a
lower level may be adopted in any future investigation and feasibility study.
Option PL1
considers a range of flood evacuation improvements (ie. road raising). The
minimum level considered is the 5 year event and is predicted to improve the
current evacuation situation. Road raising options generally are integrated
into current or future plans to reconstruct roads. That is, if council was to
reconstruct a road - higher levels should be considered as part of the works.
Both these
options are presented in the report as separate ‘stand alone’ options,
however it is logical that if any one option proceeds other options that may
affect it needed to be considered. Therefore, integrating a levee into the
road would be looked at but it may not be feasible.
|
|
6
|
Does not support the flood
classification for Oakes Crescent and Fernbank Creek.
|
|
Parts of the
Oakes Crescent and Fernbank Creek locality have been identified within the Hastings
River Flood Study (2006) as being impacted by a Floodway. This Floodway
was subsequently refined and confirmed during the Hastings River
Floodplain Risk Management Study process using industry accepted
methodologies that were endorsed by the Floodplain Management Subcommittee
and Council.
|
A summary of all submissions and responses is attached.
The final Hastings River Floodplain Management
Plan is attached.
Planning & Policy Implications
This project is consistent with
the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy and NSW Government’s
‘Floodplain Development Manual’ (2005).
The Actions work will support new
policy and a planning framework for managing flood affected areas.
Financial & Economic Implications
Actions will be eligible for
funding through the NSW Floodplain Management grant program.
|
Attachments
1View. Hastings River Floodplain Risk Management
Plan - Exhibition Submission Issues Summary
2View. Hastings River Floodplain Risk Management
Plan - Final
|
