Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

MINUTES OF narrabri SHIRE council
Ordinary Council Meeting
HELD AT THE Narrabri Shire Council Chambers, 46-48 Maitland Street, Narrabri
ON Tuesday, 27 August 2019 AT 1.00pm

PRESENT: Cr Catherine Redding (Mayor), Cr Robert Kneale (Deputy Mayor), Cr Maxine Booby, Cr Ron Campbell, Cr Lloyd Finlay, Cr Ann Loder, Cr Annie McMahon, Cr Cameron Staines

IN ATTENDANCE: Stewart Todd (General Manager), Lindsay Mason (Director Corporate Services), Darren Raeck (Director Infrastructure Delivery), Daniel Boyce (Director Development & Economic Growth), Delece Hartnett (Administration)

Proceedings of the meeting commenced at 1.00pm.

1 Opening Prayer by a Member of the Narrabri Minister’s Fraternal

Members and officers were upstanding for the opening prayer by Rev. Ralph Wood of Narrabri Anglican Church, in association with the Narrabri Ministers Fraternal.

2 Acknowledgement of Country

The Mayor acknowledged the Traditional Owners of the land on which the Council met, the Kamilaroi people, and paid her respects to Elders past and present.

3 Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences

As vide Minute No. 154/2019 from the July 2019 Ordinary Council Meeting, Cr Campey is on approved ‘Leave of Absence’ until 30 September 2019, which covers the August 2019 Ordinary Council Meeting.

4 Declaration of Pecuniary and Non- Pecuniary Interests

Nil.

5 Items to be Considered in the Confidential (Public Excluded) Meeting

Minute 171/2019

Moved: Cr Robert Kneale Seconded: Cr Annie McMahon

The following matters will be considered in the Closed (Public Excluded) Meeting:

12.1 Corporate Air - Fees and Charges

12.2 Mayoral Minute - General Manager Annual Performance Review - period ending June 2019

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

6 Public Forum and Presentations

Public Forum requests received to date:

· Nil.

Presentation requests received to date:

· Nil.

7 Confirmation of Minutes

Minute 172/2019

Moved: Cr Maxine Booby Seconded: Cr Ann Loder

That the minutes of Ordinary Meeting of the Narrabri Shire Council held on 23 July 2019 comprising Minute Nos 140/2019 to 170/2019 as circularised be confirmed and signed as a correct record by the Mayor.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

8 Mayoral Minute

8.1 Mayoral Minute - Narrabri Gas Project

Minute 173/2019

Moved: Cr Catherine Redding

That the General Manager provide an update report to Council on the Narrabri Gas Project, Council’s Submission(s) to the Narrabri Gas Project and the Proponent’s Response to Submissions.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

8.2 Mayoral Minute - Mayoral Appointments for July/August 2019

Minute 174/2019

Moved: Cr Catherine Redding

That Council note the Mayoral Appointments for the period July/August 2019.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

9 Our Society

9.1 Report of the Narrabri Shire Crime Prevention Advisory Committee and the draft Narrabri Shire Crime Prevention Plan 2019-2023

Minute 175/2019

Moved: Cr Ann Loder Seconded: Cr Annie McMahon

1. That Council adopt the minutes of the Narrabri Shire Crime Prevention Advisory Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 25 June 2019.

2. That Council endorse the change of name from the Narrabri Shire Crime Prevention Plan 2019 – 2023 to the Narrabri Shire Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan 2019 -2023.

3. That Council endorse the draft Narrabri Shire Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan 2019 – 2023 for public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days.

4. That Council place on exhibition the draft document for a period of at least 28 days, during the exhibition period call for and accept submissions from the public on the draft document.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

9.2 Public Safety Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) Camera Policy

Minute 176/2019

Moved: Cr Annie McMahon Seconded: Cr Maxine Booby

That Council endorse the draft Public Safety Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) Camera Policy for public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days, during the exhibition period call for and accept submissions from the public on the draft Policy.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

9.3 Delegates Report - Wee Waa Local Health Service Advisory Committee Meeting - 22 July 2019

Minute 177/2019

Moved: Cr Maxine Booby Seconded: Cr Ann Loder

That Council note the Delegates Report from Cr Booby from the Wee Waa Local Area Health Service Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday 22 July 2019.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

10 Our Environment

10.1 Leards Forest Precinct Environmental Trust Funding Applications - November 2018

Minute 178/2019

Moved: Cr Lloyd Finlay Seconded: Cr Robert Kneale

That Council, pursuant to the provisions of section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993, grant financial assistance from the Environmental Grant Program to Fairfax Public School for the amount of $22,500.63 and to Boggabri and District Historical Society/Men’s Shed the amount of $4,220.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

11 Our Economy

11.1 Federation Farm Share Farming Agreement

Minute 179/2019

Moved: Cr Lloyd Finlay Seconded: Cr Robert Kneale

That Council authorise the Mayor and General Manager to sign, under the common seal of Council, all necessary documentation pertaining to the Federation Farm Share Farming Agreement for the period from 1 January 2020 until 31 December 2024.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

12 Our Civic Leadership

12.1 Review of Community Grant Policy

Minute 180/2019

Moved: Cr Maxine Booby Seconded: Cr Lloyd Finlay

That Council endorse the draft/revised Community Grants Policy for public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days, during the exhibition period call for and accept submissions from the public on the draft Policy.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

12.2 Re-naming of Lagoon Bridge, Wee Waa

Motion

Moved: Cr Maxine Booby Seconded: Cr Lloyd Finlay

That Council defer the decision for one month on item 11.2 – ‘Re-naming of Lagoon Bridge, Wee Waa’, to allow further research on the one (1) formal submission that was received during the public submission period.

In Favour: Crs Maxine Booby and Lloyd Finlay

Against: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Ron Campbell, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

lost 2/6

Minute 181/2019

Moved: Cr Ron Campbell Seconded: Cr Ann Loder

That Council having regard to public submission and comments, Council rescind its renaming proposal and leave the name of the Lagoon Bridge Wee Waa unchanged.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder and Annie McMahon

Against: Crs Maxine Booby and Cameron Staines

carried 6/2

12.3 Report of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee

Minute 182/2019

Moved: Cr Cameron Staines Seconded: Cr Robert Kneale

That Council note the Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee meeting held on 17 July 2019.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

12.4 Annual Service Plan Report - June 2019

Minute 183/2019

Moved: Cr Lloyd Finlay Seconded: Cr Robert Kneale

That Council adopt the annual service plan report, as attached, detailing Council’s progress in meeting its actions, capital works program and key performance measures for the 2018/19 financial year.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

12.5 Delivery Program 6 Monthly Progress Report - June 2019

Minute 184/2019

Moved: Cr Ron Campbell Seconded: Cr Ann Loder

That Council adopt the Delivery Program 6 Monthly Progress Report, as attached, detailing Council’s progress in meeting its objectives, strategies and measures up to the June 2019 period.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

12.6 Swimming Pool Barrier Inspection Program

Minute 185/2019

Moved: Cr Robert Kneale Seconded: Cr Ron Campbell

That Council adopt the Swimming Pool Barrier Inspection Program.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

12.7 Australia Day Citizen Awards

Minute 186/2019

Moved: Cr Maxine Booby Seconded: Cr Lloyd Finlay

That Council adopt the proposed amendments to the current application guidelines for the Young Citizen of the Year being 25 years or younger on 26 January of the relevant year and Citizen of the Year being 26 years or over on 26 January of the relevant year.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Cr Ann Loder

carried 7/1

12.8 Investment Report - July 2019

Minute 187/2019

Moved: Cr Ann Loder Seconded: Cr Robert Kneale

That Council note the Investment Report for July 2019.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

12.9 Delegates Report - Country Mayors Association Meeting - 2 August 2019

Minute 188/2019

Moved: Cr Catherine Redding Seconded: Cr Annie McMahon

That Council note Mayor Reddings’ Delegate Report from the Country Mayors Association Ordinary Meeting held in Sydney on Friday 2 August 2019.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

12.10 LG Professionals NSW - Col Mills Memorial Award

Minute 189/2019

Moved: Cr Maxine Booby Seconded: Cr Ron Campbell

That Council congratulate Miss Samantha Ratley in being:

a. Awarded the LG Professionals NSW 2019 Col Mills Memorial Award; and

b. Awarded the LG Professionals Australia 2019 Raymond West Scholarship.

c. A Finalist in the LG Professionals Australia's National Emerging Leader of the Year Award.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

13 Confidential (Closed Council) Meeting

Minute 190/2019

Moved: Cr Robert Kneale Seconded: Cr Maxine Booby

That at 2.40pm Council move into Closed (Public Excluded) Meeting of Council and that the press and members of the public be asked to leave the room whilst Council considers the following items:

13.1 Corporate Air - Fees and Charges

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) - (d)(i) of the Local Government Act, and the Council is satisfied that discussion of this matter in an open meeting would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

13.2 Mayoral Minute - General Manager Annual Performance Review - period ending June 2019

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) - (a) of the Local Government Act, and the Council is satisfied that discussion of this matter in an open meeting would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it deals with personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors).

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

13.1 Corporate Air - Fees and Charges

Minute 191/2019

Moved: Cr Ron Campbell Seconded: Cr Annie McMahon

COUNCIL HAS TEMPORARILY WITHHELD POINTS (1) – (3) FOR THIS RESOLUTION under Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, for the following reasons:

(d) (ii) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council

(d) (iii) information that would, if disclosed, reveal a trade secret

4. That Council formally advise both Federal & State Members regarding Council’s upcoming motion being presented to the LGNSW Annual Conference being held in October 2019, and request their strong support for more appropriate airport slots for the Narrabri/Sydney RPT Service.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Cr Ann Loder

carried 7/1

13.2 Mayoral Minute - General Manager Annual Performance Review - period ending June 2019

Minute 192/2019

Moved: Cr Ron Campbell Seconded: Cr Cameron Staines

That Council adopt the following recommendations in accordance with the Review Panel:

1. That the record of performance assessment as recorded in the General Manager’s 2018/19 Performance Agreement Annual Review be submitted to Council to receive and note.

2. That it be noted in the opinion of the Performance Review Panel, the General Manager, Stewart Todd, is performing at a level that is a ‘Better Than Satisfactory’ standard in terms of the rating scale within the Agreement, and his performance was assessed as being ‘Better than Satisfactory’ (a term used in the General Manager’s Standard Contract).

3. Note the report of the General Manager Performance Review Panel.

4. Note the finding of the Panel on the General Manager’s Annual Performance Review for the period ending 30 June 2019, in particular, the Panel’s summary assessment:

a. The Panel has noted a ‘Better than Satisfactory’ standard. The Panel notes that the General Manager has ensured that continual improvements are being seen. The Panel further noted the hard work being done and the General Manager’s dedication for ensuring Narrabri Shire is at the forefront of service delivery, and our communities are given the opportunity to achieve their full potential.

5. Note that the Panel is developing a Performance Agreement for 2019/20. The Panel is recommending that the Performance Agreement for 2019/20 be based on the new format as presented at the Meeting.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

MINUTE 193/2019

Moved: Cr Cameron Staines Seconded: Cr Annie McMahon

That at 3.27pm Council move out of Closed (Public Excluded) Meeting and that the resolutions from the Closed (Public Excluded) Meeting be read out aloud.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

13 Meeting Closed

The Meeting closed at 3.28pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 September 2019.

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

CHAIRPERSON

MINUTES

Extraordinary Council Meeting

12 September 2019

MINUTES OF Narrabri Shire council
Extraordinary Council Meeting
HELD AT THE Narrabri Shire Council Chambers, 46-48 Maitland Street, Narrabri
ON Thursday, 12 September 2019 AT 6.00 pm

PRESENT: Cr Catherine Redding (Mayor), Cr Robert Kneale (Deputy Mayor), Cr Ron Campbell, Cr Lloyd Finlay, Cr Ann Loder, Cr Annie McMahon, Cr Cameron Staines.

IN ATTENDANCE: Stewart Todd (General Manager), Lindsay Mason (Director Corporate Services), Darren Raeck (Director Infrastructure Delivery), Delece Hartnett (Administration).

1 Opening Prayer by a Member of the Narrabri Minister’s Fraternal

Members and officers are asked to be upstanding for the opening prayer read by Mayor, Cr Cathy Redding.

2 Acknowledgement of Country

I’d like to begin by acknowledging the Traditional Owners of the land on which we meet today, the Kamilaroi people, and pay my respects to Elders past and present.

3 Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences

Minute 194/2019

Moved: Cr Ron Campbell Seconded: Cr Robert Kneale

That the apologies received from Cr Booby be accepted and the leave of absence granted to Cr Campey be noted.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 7/0

4 Declaration of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Nil.

5 Items to be Considered in the Confidential (Public Excluded) Meeting

Minute 195/2019

Moved: Cr Annie McMahon Seconded: Cr Lloyd Finlay

The following matters will be considered in the Closed (Public Excluded) Meeting:

7.1 Northern NSW Inland Port (N2IP)

7.2 Contract 2019-20/06 - Design and Construction of a Replacement Bridge at Tarriaro, Narrabri

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 7/0

6 Public Forum and Presentations

Public Forum requests received to date:

· Nil

Presentation requests received to date:

· Nil

Director Infrastructure Delivery bought the Council’s attention to the report titled “Contract 2019-20/06 - Design and Construction of a Replacement Bridge at Tarriaro, Narrabri” which was circulated with and included in the Extra-Ordinary Council Meeting Business Paper.

CHAirperson ruling

The Chairperson ruled that the matter; Contract 2019-20/06 - Design and Construction of a Replacement Bridge at Tarriaro, Narrabri, was of great urgency.

Minute 196/2019

Moved: Cr Catherine Redding Seconded: Cr Cameron Staines

That Council consider the report titled “Contract 2019-20/06 - Design and Construction of a Replacement Bridge at Tarriaro, Narrabri, at the Extra-Ordinary Council Meeting 12 September 2019

.In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 7/0

7 Confidential (Closed Council) Meeting

Minute 197/2019

Moved: Cr Ron Campbell Seconded: Cr Ann Loder

That at 6.06pm Council move into Closed (Public Excluded) Meeting of Council and that the press and members of the public be asked to leave the room whilst Council considers the following items:

7.1 Northern NSW Inland Port (N2IP)

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) - (c), (d)(i) and (d)(ii) of the Local Government Act, and the Council is satisfied that discussion of this matter in an open meeting would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business, commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it and information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council.

7.2 Contract 2019-20/06 - Design and Construction of a Replacement Bridge at Tarriaro, Narrabri

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) - (d)(i) and (d)(ii) of the Local Government Act, and the Council is satisfied that discussion of this matter in an open meeting would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it and information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 7/0

7.1 Northern NSW Inland Port (N2IP)

Minute 198/2019

Moved: Cr Ron Campbell Seconded: Cr Annie McMahon

COUNCIL HAS TEMPORARILY WITHHELD RESOLUTIONS 1 – 3 FOR THIS MATTER under Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, for the following reasons:

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

(d) commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:

(i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it,

(ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council

.In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 7/0

7.2 Contract 2019-20/06 - Design and Construction of a Replacement Bridge at Tarriaro, Narrabri

Minute 199/2019

Moved: Cr Robert Kneale Seconded: Cr Annie McMahon

1. That Council note that after assessing the tenders submitted (in accordance with the criteria specified in the tender documents) and having regard to all the circumstances, the Tender Panel recommends that Council accept the tender from Saunders Civilbuild Pty Ltd in the GST exclusive amount of $1,899,404.58 for Contract No. 2019-20/06 – Design & Construction of a Replacement Bridge at Tarriaro, Narrabri.

2. That Council accept the tender from Saunders Civilbuild Pty Ltd in the GST exclusive amount of $1,899,404.58 for Contract No. 2019-20/06 – Design & Construction of a Replacement Bridge at Tarriaro, Narrabri and authorise the General Manager to sign the contract documents.

3. That Council maintain the confidentiality of the documents and considerations in respect of Contract No. 2019-20/06 – Design & Construction of a Replacement Bridge at Tarriaro, Narrabri

.In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 7/0

Minute 200/2019

Moved: Cr Annie McMahon Seconded: Cr Ron Campbell

That at 6.58pm Council move out of Closed (Public Excluded) Meeting and that the resolutions from the Closed (Public Excluded) Meeting be read out aloud.

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Robert Kneale, Ron Campbell, Lloyd Finlay, Ann Loder, Annie McMahon and Cameron Staines

Against: Nil

carried 7/0

8 Meeting Closed

The Meeting closed at 6.59pm.

The minutes of this meeting are scheduled to be confirmed at the Ordinary Meeting of the Narrabri Shire Council held on 24 September 2019.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 24 September 2019

8.3 Bellata Recreation Precinct Plan

Responsible Officer: Darren Raeck, Director Infrastructure Delivery

Author: Evan Harris, Community Facilities Manager

Attachments: 1. Draft Bellata Recreation Precinct Plan (under separate cover) ⇨

Delivery Program Alignment

1. Society
Objective	1.3 Our communities will be provided with facilities and services to increase social connectivity and accessibility
Strategy	1.3.3 All towns and villages have access to at least one quality meeting place to facilitate social gathering

Executive Summary

Council has drafted a precinct plan for the Town ship of Bellata this precinct plan has three different options to be considered with one to be adopted by Council this will be achieve after consultation with the residents of Bellata. All three options include the development of a primitive camp ground located on Council managed land The Bellata Oval (Lot 29 DP753908) and the Bellata Golf club (Lot 45 DP753908 and Lot 48 DP753908) the proposed site is adjacent to the Bellata primary school. Details for each option are found in the attached report Narrabri Shire Council Bellata Recreation Precinct Plan 2019. (Attachment 1).

The three options are staged to allow detail planning and funding sources to be achieved over an extended time line as components of each option will require agreements including access to site, funding opportunities and ongoing maintenance. The three options are defined by their locations and differing proposed developments.

Option one has been designed to confine the precinct to the Bellata Golf club and Bellata Primary School area with minor works on the Bellata tennis courts.

Option two primary focus is the development of the Bellata tennis courts precinct with the installation of a multi-sport court on the existing tennis court site.

Option Three includes major works to the existing Council managed Bellata playground which includes exercise stations and a challenge course.

The Bellata precinct plan draft does include information on the potential of locating a splash pad within the township of Bellata. This splash pad has not been included in the proposed three options due to after initial investigation by Council on cost, environmental issues and maintenance this proposed development would need to be assessed further for feasibility which in turn may delay any of the proposed developments and must be considered independently.

Recommendation

1. That Council endorse the draft Bellata Recreation Precinct Plan 2019, comprising three (3) options, for public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days, during the exhibition period call for and accept submissions from the public on the draft Plan.

Background

Council was tasked with investigating a potential precinct plan for the township of Bellata. The attached draft Bellata Recreation Precinct Plan 2019 (“draft Plan”) was derived from the initial proposal of a primitive camp ground to be located between the Bellata Golf Club and the Bellata Primary School, after initial consultation, senior Council staff then proposed the development of a precinct plan for Bellata; this master plan was to address the following Bellata Caravan Park and Bellata Park rationalisation, and a proposed primitive camp ground. Council engaged the Ross Planning group draft a master plan.

Council reviewed the first version of the plan, which contained two (2) options, and requested the following amendments:

· The renewal and upgrade of the existing playground node at Bellata Park; instead of the rationalisation of playground equipment.

· The inclusion of a potential splash pad water park and estimated costings.

Current Situation

The draft Bellata Recreation Precinct Plan 2019, having been amended after consultation with the Councillors, is now proposed for consultation with the community, incorporating the third option of the renewal and upgrade of the existing Bella Park playground, instead of rationalisation of play equipment.

Financial Implications

Indicative costs summary for each of the options are as follows (further details are available in the attached draft Plan).

Council and Community contributions can originate from one or multiple sources - capital works and reserves, and or community grants sourced by Council or community groups.

Option	Council Contribution	Community Contribution	TOTAL
One	$324,000	$375,000	$699,000
Two	$260,000	$63,685	$323,685
Three	$211,500	$2,360	$213,860

Options One and Two have a number of upgrades included in their plans that are not on Council managed land. Council will need to consider if this infrastructure and ongoing maintenance can be funded into the future by the Asset owners.

Statutory and Policy Implications

Narrabri Local Environment Plan 2012

Primary production zone

Bellata oval and Bellata Golf Club is zoned Primary Production (RU1).

The objectives of the RU1 are to:

Encourage sustainable primary production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and systems appropriate for the area minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones allow for non-agricultural land uses that will not restrict the use of other land for agricultural purposes.

Local Government Act Section 68

The precinct plan includes provision for establishment of a primitive camping ground on the Bellata oval and part of the Bellata Golf Club, subject to application and Council approval. Under the Local Government Act 1993 Section 68, approval is required to engage in trade or business on community land managed by Council. Council is responsible for managing land in accordance with the core objectives detailed in the legislation. The core objectives for a park are to: encourage, promote and facilitate recreational, cultural, social and educational pastimes and activities. Provide for passive recreation activities or pastimes and for the casual playing of games. Improve the land in such a way as to promote and facilitate its use to achieve the other core objectives for its management.

Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005

Primitive camping grounds (PCGs) are one type of camping ground that are modest and understated. Further to the NSW Local Government Act, the object of the regulation is to provide opportunities for affordable alternatives in short-term and long-term accommodation by: continuing the standards for the design of manufactured home estates, caravan parks and camping grounds. Continuing the standards for the design and construction of manufactured homes and other moveable dwellings and for their sites. Continuing the standard to promote the health, safety and amenity of the occupiers of manufactured homes and other moveable dwellings. Under the regulation an approval to operate a PCG can either: designate camp sites where tents, caravans and campervans may be located where the maximum number of camp sites is not to exceed an average of two per hectare (over the total area of the PCG)

Not designate camp sites where the above applies with the concession that two or more tents occupied by not more than 12 persons camping together as a group are to be counted as only one tent1.

Narrabri Shire Council Open Space Sport and Recreation Plan 2017 Priority Actions

Town Wide Action BE1

Liaise with Department of Education regional officers and the local principal to ‘activate’ (outside school hours) the opportunities available at the school for local residents

Bellata Park Action BE2

Rationalise the northern section of the Park

Bellata Caravan Park Action BE3

Rationalise the former caravan park site

Consultation

Should Council resolve to place the draft Plan on public exhibition it is proposed to hold a community meeting in Bellata to enable the Council gather feedback on the darft Plan. The meeting will occur during the first half of the exhibition period as to enable the community time to lodge submissions.

External Consultation

· Ross Planning.

· Bellata Golf Club.

· Bellata Primary School.

Internal Consultation

· Councillors.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 24 September 2019

9.1 Draft Wee Waa Levee Risk Management Study and Plan

Responsible Officer: Daniel Boyce, Director Development and Economic Growth

Author: Cara Stoltenberg, Town Planner

Attachments: 1. Minutes Narrabri Floodplain Risk Management Commitee - 15 March 2019 ⇩

2. Minutes Narrabri Floodplain Risk Management Commitee - 30 July 2019 ⇩

3. Draft Wee Waa Levee Risk Management Study and Plan (under separate cover) ⇨

4. Draft Wee Waa Levee Risk Management Study and Plan - Figures (under separate cover) ⇨

5. GCA Engineering Solution Freeboard Analysis ⇩

6. Lyall and Associates Response to GCA (under separate cover) ⇨

7. GCA Engineering Solutions Interim Residential Development Policy ⇩

Delivery Program Alignment

2. Environment
Objective	2.2 We will protect our environment through sustainable planning and well-resourced emergency services
Strategy	2.2.1 Community emergency service providers are well resourced to adequately prepare and respond to natural disasters and emergencies

Executive Summary

Council’s appointed consultants Lyall and Associates have recently completed a draft Floodplain Risk Management Plan and Study for the Wee Waa Levee. The draft Wee Waa Levee Risk Management Study and Plan (“the draft Study and Plan”) was discussed at two (2) separate meetings of the Narrabri Shire Floodplain Risk Management Committee (“the Flood Committee”) held on 15 March 2019 and 30 July 2019, and is now recommended, by the Flood Committee, for public exhibition.

Following agreement by resolution of Council, the draft Study and Plan will be placed on public exhibition. After which time, Council will receive a further report and consider any submissions.

Recommendation

1. That Council adopt the Minutes of the Narrabri Shire Floodplain Risk Management Committee meeting held on 15 March 2019.

2. That Council adopt the Minutes of the Narrabri Shire Floodplain Risk Management Committee meeting held on 30 July 2019.

3. That Council endorse the draft Wee Waa Levee Risk Management Study and Plan for public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days, during the exhibition period call for and accept submissions from the public on the draft Plan.

Background

The NSW Government’s Flood Policy is directed at providing solutions to existing flooding problems in developed areas and ensuring that new developments are compatible with the flood hazard and do not create additional flooding problems in other areas. Under the Policy, the management of flood prone land remains the responsibility of local government. To facilitate this, the NSW Government has published the “Floodplain Development Manual: The Management of Flood Liable Land” April 2005 (“the Manual”), which includes best practice guidance on (amongst other things) the floodplain management process (Figure 1).

In relation to Wee Waa, Council completed the Data Collection and Flood Study stages in March 2015 and engaged Lyall and Associates to complete the Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan stages in August 2016. Lyall and Associates have recently provided Council with the draft Wee Waa Levee Risk Management Study and Plan (“the draft Study and Plan”)

1. Data Collection	Compiles and reviews all available information and data.
2. Flood Study	Determines the nature and extent of the flood problem for the full range of flood events.
3. Floodplain Risk Management Study	Evaluates management options for the floodplain with respect to both existing and future development.
4. Floodplain Risk Management Plan	Involves formal adoption by Council of a plan of management for the floodplain.
5. Implementation of the Plan	· Involves construction of flood mitigation works, where viable, to protect existing development. · Uses planning controls to ensure that future development is compatible with flood hazards.
6. Review of Plan	Review of plan to ensure it remains current and appropriate. A review is normally carried out after 10 years.

Figure 1. The Floodplain Management Process.

The draft Study and Plan was discussed at two (2) separate meetings of the Flood Committee held on 15 March 2019 and 30 July 2019, minutes of these meetings are attached to this report.

The draft Study and Plan found that the original height of the levee was based on the 1971 flood plus 1m and that the levee did not achieve a 1m freeboard in the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (“AEP”) flood event.

The draft Study and Plan went on to recommend that any further residential development within the town of Wee Waa should not be supported until such time as the levee is upgraded to achieve a 1m freeboard in the 1% AEP flood event.

At both meetings the Flood Committee expressed caution at supporting the above recommendation in the draft Study and Plan as it could have the potential to stifle future residential development in Wee Waa whilst the levee is being upgraded.

At the March 2019 meeting, the Flood Committee did not endorse the draft Study and Plan due to concerns regarding the potential negative impacts of the recommended planning controls.

The Flood Committee requested Council seek an independent peer review of the draft Study and Plan to:

1. Determine the most appropriate freeboard for the levee; and

2. Investigate alternative interim policy positions in relation to future development within the Wee Waa Levee prior to it being upgraded.

On 4 April 2019 GCA Engineering Solution’s provided an alternative approach to the required freeboard proposed for the levee, attached to this report. Lyall and Associates responded on 18 June 2019 (attached) explaining the methodology they had used. Consultation was undertaken with the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment who endorsed Lyall and Associates methodology as it adhered to approved guidelines and current standards of practice in floodplain risk management.

On 29 July 2019 GCA Engineering Solutions developed an interim policy position to guide the assessment of development applications received by Council while the levee upgrade is investigated (Attachment 7).

At the July meeting the Flood Committee recommended:

1. That Lyall and Associates’ freeboard option was the most appropriate given that it is based on the methodology used by the NSW Public Works and the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, and that it would allow for Council to continue to apply for funding through the NSW Government's floodplain management grants.

2. To support the alternative policy for residential development proposed by GCA Engineering Solutions.

3. That the draft Study and Plan be adopted for the purposes of public exhibition, with the exception of some of the ‘Measures’ (planning controls) recommended in the Draft Plan.

It is now proposed to publicly exhibit the draft Study and Plan.

Current Situation

Following a resolution of Council the draft Study and Plan can be placed on public exhibition. After which time, Council will receive a further report and consider any submissions received.

Financial Implications

The current total project cost is $121,770 (ex GST). Council was successful in receiving a Floodplain Management Grant from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment at a funding ratio of 6:1. The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment are contributing $104,374.28 (ex GST) to the project. Council’s financial contribution to this project is $17,395.72 (ex GST).

Statutory and Policy Implications

The Manual stipulates the requirements for the management of flood liable land across NSW. In accordance with the Manual, Council is currently undertaking the Floodplain Risk Management Plan and Study stage of the NSW Flood Planning Framework for the Wee Waa Levee.

The draft Study and Plan must be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

Consultation

Following a resolution of Council, the draft Study and Plan will be publicly exhibited for a period of twenty-eight (28) days.

External Consultation

· Lyall and Associates.

· Narrabri Shire Floodplain Risk Management Committee.

· NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

Internal Consultation

Nil.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 24 September 2019

10.1 Development Application 77/2019 - Proposed two lot subdivision of 1 Guest Street, Narrabri

Responsible Officer: Daniel Boyce, Director Development and Economic Growth

Author: Daniel Boyce, Director Development and Economic Growth

APPLICATION DETAILS

Applicant: Ross Gleeson of Gleeson Surveying

Owner: William James McInnes

Proposal: Two lot subdivision

Location: Lot 38 DP 1040539, 1 Guest Street, Narrabri

Attachments: 1. Development assessment report (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Draft conditions of consent ⇩

3. Proposed development plans ⇩

Recommendation

1. That Council determine the Development Application 77/2019 for the subdivision of Lot 38 DP 1040539 1 Guest Street, Narrabri into two (2) lots by granting consent to the application subject to conditions in Attachment 2.

EXECUTIVE Summary

Proposal

The proposed development is to subdivide Lot 38 DP 1040539 1 Guest Street, Narrabri into two (2) lots being proposed Lot 381 with an area of 896m² and proposed Lot 392 with an area of 897.2m².

Reason for consideration by Council

Two (2) submissions objecting to the proposed subdivision have been received in response to the notification of the development.

Permissibility

The subdivision is permissible pursuant to clause 2.6 and clause 4.1 of Narrabri Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“the LEP”). The minimum lot size (“MLS”) under the LEP is 550m², the proposed Lot 381 with an area of 896m² and proposed Lot 392 with an area of 897.2m² meet the minimum lot size.

Consultation

The DA was notified in accordance with the requirements from 10 April 2019 to 29 April 2019. Two (2) submissions were received.

Main issues

The main issues arising from the assessment are:

· Flood Hazard and Impact

· Submissions

Conclusion

The development has been assessed with regard to the relevant prescribed matters for consideration outlined in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (“EPA Act”) (Attachment 1).

The development is permissible with consent and will ultimately serve the objectives of the R1 zone. Weight must be given to the R1 zoning in the “resolution of a dispute as to the appropriate development” of the land.

The development is a suitable use of the land having regard to the flood conditions.

The development complies with the relevant planning instruments.

With the imposition of the recommended conditions the development will not have any unacceptable impacts on the surrounding area, environment and adjoining development.

It is recommended that Development Application 77/2019 be approved subject to the conditions provided in Attachment 2.

Background

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

Lot 38 DP 1040539 1 Guest Street, Narrabri (“the Land”) is zoned R1 General Residential pursuant to LEP. The Land is surrounded by residential development to the north, east and west and large lot residential development to the south and is flood affected.

Description of Proposal

The proposed development is to subdivide Lot 38 DP 1040539 1 Guest Street, Narrabri into two (2) lots being proposed Lot 381 with an area of 896m² and proposed Lot 392 with an area of 897.2m².

Social Impacts

Council must take into consideration in so far as is relevant to the proposed development the likely impacts of that development, including (amongst other things) the social impacts in the locality (Farrier & Stein, 2016).

The NSW Planning & Environment’s Social impact assessment guideline: for state Significant Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industry Development (NSW Government Planning & Environment, 2017) has been used as a guide to consider potential social impacts from the proposed development. It identifies that social impacts can involve changes to the matters outlined in the following table. Table 1 provides consideration of these matters in relation to the proposed development.

Table 1 Social Impact Consideration

Matter	Consideration
Way of Life	· The development is not expected to impact upon how people live (e.g. how they get around or access to adequate housing). · The development is not expected to impact upon how people play. · The development is not expected to impact how people interact with one another on a daily basis.
Community	The development is not likely to impact on the composition, cohesion, or character of the community, or how it functions or sense of place.
Access to and use of infrastructure, services and facilities	The development is not likely impact upon the access to and use of infrastructure, services and facilities provided by local, state, or federal governments, or by for‐profit or not‐for‐profit organisations or volunteer groups.
Culture	The development is not expected to adversely impact upon culture including shared beliefs, customs, values and stories, and connections to land, places, and buildings (including Aboriginal culture and connection to country).
Health and Wellbeing	The development is not expected to adversely impact on health and wellbeing, including both physical and mental health.
Surroundings	The development is not expected to adversely impact on the surroundings including access to and use of ecosystem services, public safety and security, access to and use of the natural and built environment, and its aesthetic value and/or amenity.
Personal and property rights	The development is not expected to have an unreasonable impact on personal or property rights.
Decision making systems	The development is not expected to impact on decision making systems.
Fears and aspirations	A number of concerns have been raised regarding the compatibility of the subdivision with the adjoining R5 zone which are addressed in Table 6. The subdivision and resultant residential development is unlikely to significantly affect adjoining properties. In any case the subsequent residential development will require assessment under the EPA Act at which time further consideration of any impacts can be given.

Economic impacts

Council must take into consideration the economic impacts of the development in the locality (Farrier & Stein, 2016).

No adverse economic impacts expected in the locality.

Public Interest

Council must take into consideration in so far as is relevant “the public interest”. When determining the public interest, a Council is not confined to statutory planning instruments. Community response to a proposed development can be regarded as an aspect of public interest.

Two (2) submissions objecting to the proposed subdivision have been received in response to the notification of the development. The submissions raise a number of planning matters that are addressed in this report.

The public interest is served through achieving the relevant objects of the EPA Act (Section 1.3). Table 2 assesses the proposed development against the objects of the EPA Act.

Table 2 Assessment against the Objects of the EPA Act

Object	Comment
(a) to promote the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment by the proper management, development and conservation of the State’s natural and other resources,	N/A.
(b) to facilitate ecologically sustainable development by integrating relevant economic, environmental and social considerations in decision-making about environmental planning and assessment,	The economic, environmental and social impacts have been assessed and are considered to be acceptable.
(c) to promote the orderly and economic use and development of land,	The land is vacant and zoned for the purpose for which the development is proposed and meets the minimum lots size prescribed by the LEP.
(d) to promote the delivery and maintenance of affordable housing,	The subdivision will provide an additional lot which can be developed for housing.
(e) to protect the environment, including the conservation of threatened and other species of native animals and plants, ecological communities and their habitats,	The development will not significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats.
(f) to promote the sustainable management of built and cultural heritage (including Aboriginal cultural heritage),	The site is not mapped as containing any items of European Heritage. An AHIMS search carried out did not identify any items or Aboriginal sites have been recorded in or near the site. However a condition has been imposed requiring works to cease and OEH to be contacted should any items suspected of being Aboriginal in origin discovered during works.
(g) to promote good design and amenity of the built environment,	No building work is proposed as part of this development, however, any future development on the lots will be required to comply with the applicable planning controls.
(h) to promote the proper construction and maintenance of buildings, including the protection of the health and safety of their occupants,	No building work is proposed as part of this development, however, any future development on the lots will be required to comply with the applicable planning and building controls.
(i) to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning and assessment between the different levels of government in the State,	This “local development” has undergone a merit based assessment by Council Staff and will be determined by the elected Council.
(j) to provide increased opportunity for community participation in environmental planning and assessment.	This “local development” has been notified to adjoining properties. It will be determined by the elected Council at a public meeting where the public will have a further opportunity to make submissions to Council.

Statutory Assessment

The subdivision is permissible pursuant to clause 2.6 and clause 4.1 of the LEP. The MLS under the LEP is 550m², the proposed Lot 381 with an area of 896m² and proposed Lot 392 with an area of 897.2m² meet the minimum lot size.

The Land is zoned R1 General Residential pursuant to the LEP.

The objectives of the R1 zone are:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community.

· To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.

· To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents

The development is considered to be consistent with the zone objectives.

Section 4.15 Assessment

The development has been assessed with regard to the relevant prescribed matters for consideration outlined in Section 4.15 of the EPA Act (Attachment 1).

Main Issues

The main issues arising from the assessment are:-

· Flood Hazard and Impact

· Submissions

Flood Hazard and Impact

According to the Australian Disaster Resilience Handbook 7 Managing the Floodplain: A Guide to Best Practice in Flood Risk Management in Australia (AIDR Handbook 2017):

Maintaining the flood function of the floodplain is a key objective of best practice in flood risk management in Australia, because it is essential to managing flood behaviour. The flood function of areas of the floodplain will vary with the magnitude in an event. In general flood function is examined in the defined flood event, so it can be maintained in this event (p. 30).

Figure 1 identifies the flood function of the Land in the 1% AEP flood (the defined flood event for planning purposes).

Figure 1 Flood function in the 1% AEP flood (Blue – Flood Storage, Orange – Floodway)

According to the AIDR Handbook 2017:

Flood storage areas are the parts of the floodplain that are important for temporary storage of floodwaters during a flood passage. The loss of flood storage can increase the severity of flood impacts by reducing natural flood attenuation (p. 86).

Australian Disaster Resilience Guideline 7-5 Flood Information to Support Land-use Planning (AIDR Guideline 2017):

Filling of flood storage areas reduces their ability to attenuate downstream flood flows and, as a result, flood flows and flood levels may increase.

No filling of the Land is proposed as part of this development. Filling associated with the erection of dwellings on the can be assessed as part of the subsequent development application.

In addition to assessing the impact of the development on flood function the proposed land use must be compatible with the flood hazard. According to the AIDR Guideline 2017:

Flood hazard classification provides a description of how hazardous the physical conditions produced by a flood can be, independent of the population at risk. It is typically based on benchmarking the depth and velocity of the floodwaters against thresholds to determine how hazardous this combination may be to people, cars, infrastructure and buildings, if they were exposed to the flooding.

It recommends grouping the floodplain into the following categories:

· H1—generally safe for people, vehicles and buildings

· H2—unsafe for small vehicles

· H3—unsafe for vehicles, children and older people

· H4—unsafe for all people and vehicles

· H5—unsafe for vehicles and people, and all buildings are vulnerable to structural damage

· H6—unsafe for vehicles and people, and all building types are vulnerable to structural failure.

The likely 1% AEP flood depths and velocities at the building site are 0.97 m and 0.40 m/sec respectively. The expected depth and velocity combination lies inside the H3 category, determined to be unsafe for vehicles, children and the elderly (Figure 2). The expected depth and velocity combination present a moderate hazard for adults (Figure 3). The expected depth and velocity combination present a low hazard to structures (Figure 4).

Figure 2 General Flood Hazards (Australian Disaster Resilience Guideline 7-3

Flood Hazard).

Figure 3 Thresholds for people stability in floods (Australian Disaster Resilience Guideline 7-3 Flood Hazard).

Figure 4 Thresholds for building stability in floods (Australian Disaster Resilience Guideline 7-3 Flood Hazard).

The proposed development is in accordance with Clause 6.2 of the LEP (Table 3).

Table 3 Assessment against Clause 6.2 of the Narrabri Local Environmental Plan 2012

(3) Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development:	Staff Comment
(a) is compatible with the flood hazard of the land, and	The likely 1% AEP flood depths and velocities at the building site are 0.97 m and 0.40 m/sec respectively. The expected depth and velocity combination lies inside the H3 category, determined to be unsafe for vehicles, children and the elderly (Figure 2). The expected depth and velocity combination present a moderate hazard for adults (Figure 3) and a low hazard to structures (Figure 4).
(b) is not likely to significantly adversely affect flood behaviour resulting in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and	The subdivision in and of itself will not impact flood behaviour. Physical works associated with the erection of a dwelling will be assessed as part of a future application, however, given the expected depth and velocities it is unlikely that there would be a significant impact on flood behaviour.
(c) incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life from flood, and	The risk to life will be managed by applying a minimum floor level of 500 mm above the 1% AEP flood. The Namoi River is a large river system with a long response time and accordingly, there are ample opportunities to evacuate the site prior to the arrival of the flood peak.
(d) is not likely to significantly adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses, and	The proposed development is set back from the river bank, outside waterfront land with low associated environmental impact.
(e) is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding	The proposal represents an appropriate use that is compatible with the site’s flood behaviour and is therefore consistent with the principle outlined in the floodplain development manual that encourages appropriate use (as opposed to sterilisation) of flood prone land. Subject to the recommended conditions of consent the flood hazard and impact on flood behaviour can be satisfactorily managed and the social and economic costs can be mitigated.

Submissions

The DA was notified in accordance with from 10 April 2019 to 29 April 2019 (Figure 5). Two (2) submissions were received.

The submissions have been summarised in Table 6, with responses provided by the applicant and reviewed by Council Staff for each key issue. The submissions have been taken into consideration in the assessment by Council Staff.

Figure 5 Notification plan

Land and Environment Court Planning Principles

Non-statutory regional planning policies

In Direct Factory Outlets Homebush v Strathfield Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 318, Senior Commissioner Roseth of the Land and Environment Court stated (at [25-26]):

The role of regional planning policies is to guide the development of a region, such as the Sydney metropolitan area. One of their functions is to inform and influence statutory plans for the local areas of a region. Regional planning policies provide a sense of purpose and direction to local plans; they are, as it were, the glue that binds local plans together. The fact that they are non-statutory is not an indication of their subservience to statutory plans. Planning policies usually do not lend themselves to statutory expression because they do not relate to specific parcels of land and do not contain numerical development standards. This fact, however, does not mean that they have no relevance to individual development applications, particularly those that have impacts extending beyond the local area (at [25]).

Where the provisions of an environmental planning instrument are clear, unequivocal and do not require value judgment (for example numerical development standards or zonings where the character of a use is not in dispute), they take precedence over non-statutory regional planning policies. However, where those provisions can be applied only on the basis of value judgments (for example, where the character of a use is in dispute, a development standard is to be varied, or where imprecise terms like “appropriate”, significant”, “detrimentally affect” or “ecological sustainability” need to be given meaning in the context of a development application, non-statutory regional planning policies provide the background against which those value judgments should be made (at [26]).

Due to the fact that the two submissions object to the subdivision in part on the basis of its alleged conflict with the character of the area Council in some respects is being asked to make a value judgment. In this regard consideration of the issues against non-statutory regional planning policies provides the background against which those value judgments should be made.

New England North West Regional Plan 2036

The New England North West Regional Plan 2036 (“Regional Plan”) will guide the NSW Government’s land use planning priorities and decisions to 2036. Priorities for each council are set out in Local Government Narratives, which will guide further investigations and implementation (NSW Government Planning & Environment, 2019).

A priority for Narrabri identified in the Regional Plan is to:

Provide housing diversity targets to support a variety of dwelling types and a choice in location, form and affordability. Deliver a variety of housing options in Narrabri and promote development that contributes to the unique character of Wee Waa, Pilliga, Bellata, Gwabegar, Baan Baa and Boggabri.

Community Strategic Plan Narrabri Shire 2027

The Community Strategic Plan Narrabri Shire 2027 (“Strategic Plan”) presents the community endorsed vision and strategic plan for Narrabri Shire and has been informed through extensive community engagement (Narrabri Shire Council, 2017).

A desired community outcomes in the Strategic Plan is:

Adequate housing options will be available to meet demands across the Shire.

Notwithstanding the subdivisions compliance with the numerical development standards and the extent to which this takes precedence over non-statutory regional planning policies. The Regional Plan and the Strategic Plan provide the background against which Council can form a value judgment on the veracity of the objections to the subdivision. It is clear that the subdivision is consistent with the Regional Plan and Strategic Plan in terms of delivering housing options for the community and on that basis Council can be satisfied that the development is in the public interest.

Zones (Development at zone interface)

In Stockland Development Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 472 Commissioner Bly stated (at [25]):

As a matter of principle, at a zone interface as exists here, any development proposal in one zone needs to recognise and take into account the form of existing development and/or development likely to occur in an adjoining different zone. In this case residents living in the 2(b) zone must accept that a higher density and larger scale residential development can happen in the adjoining 2(c) or 2(d) zones and whilst impacts must be within reason they can nevertheless occur. Such impacts may well be greater than might be the case if adjacent development were in and complied with the requirements of the same zone. Conversely any development of this site must take into account its relationship to the 2(b) zoned lands to the east, south-east, south and south-west and the likely future character of those lands must be taken into account. Also in considering the likely future character of development on the other side of the interface it may be that the development of sites such as this may not be able to achieve the full potential otherwise indicated by applicable development standards and the like (at [25]).

The Land is located at the interface of two zones (R1 General Residential zone and R5 Large Lot Residential zone) (Figure 6) and two MLS areas (550m² and 5,000m² respectively) (Figure 7).

Figure 6 Zone map

Figure 7 MLS map

The objectives of the R1 zone are:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community.

· To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.

· To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

The objectives of the R5 zone are:

· To provide residential housing in a rural setting while preserving, and minimising impacts on, environmentally sensitive locations and scenic quality.

· To ensure that large residential lots do not hinder the proper and orderly development of urban areas in the future.

· To ensure that development in the area does not unreasonably increase the demand for public services or public facilities.

· To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

The primary difference between the R1 and R5 residential zones is the type and density of development which is permissible under the LEP.

The MLS represents the density of development desired in a particular area. For example areas with larger minimum lot sizes will result in lower density development.

The zoning represents the type of development desired in a particular area. For example Multi dwelling housing is permissible in the R1 zone but not in the R5 zone.

This interface between two zones and two MLS areas will result in some tension between the desired low density character of the R5 zone and the higher density character of the R1 zone. The subdivision itself is considered to be compatible with the form of existing development and development likely to occur in the adjoining R5 zone insofar as it significantly exceeds the MLS and provides adequate building envelopes. The subsequent residential development of these lots will require assessment under the EP&A Act at which time further consideration can be given to its compatibility with existing development in the adjoining R5 zone.

Zones (Weight to be given to the zoning)

When a planning instrument provides that development for a particular purpose is permissible provided that development consent is first obtained, there is a presumption that some version of that development will be approved (albeit subject, perhaps, to stringent conditions) (Farrier & Stein, 2016).

In BGP Properties Pty Ltd v Lake Macquarie City Council [2004] NSWLEC 399, the Chief Judge of the Land and Environment Court stated:

In the ordinary course, where by its zoning land has been identified as generally suitable for a particular purpose, weight must be given to that zoning in the resolution of a dispute as to the appropriate development of any site. Although the fact that a particular use may be permissible is a neutral factor (see Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Baulkham Hills Shire Council (No 2) [1971] 28 LGRA 374 at 379), planning decisions must generally reflect an assumption that, in some form, development which is consistent with the zoning will be permitted (at [117]).

The subdivision is permissible pursuant to clause 2.6 and clause 4.1 of the LEP. The minimum lot size under the LEP is 550m², the proposed Lot 381 with an area of 896m² and proposed Lot 392 with an area of 897.2m² meet the minimum lot size. Weight must be given to permissibility of the subdivision in the “resolution of a dispute as to the appropriate development” of the land.

General impact

In Davies v Penrith City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1141, Senior Commissioner Moore of the Land and Environment Court stated (at [121]):

I have, therefore, undertaken the internal consultation process for consideration of the establishment of a new planning principle or the revision of an existing planning principle. As a result of that consultation, it is appropriate to refine the published planning principle to delete the words "necessary and/or" so that the revised planning principle will, in future, read:

Revised planning principle: criteria for assessing impact on neighbouring properties

The following questions are relevant to the assessment of impacts on neighbouring properties:

· How does the impact change the amenity of the affected property? How much sunlight, view or privacy is lost as well as how much is retained?

· How reasonable is the proposal causing the impact?

· How vulnerable to the impact is the property receiving the impact? Would it require the loss of reasonable development potential to avoid the impact?

· Does the impact arise out of poor design? Could the same amount of floor space and amenity be achieved for the proponent while reducing the impact on neighbours?

· Does the proposal comply with the planning controls? If not, how much of the impact is due to the non-complying elements of the proposal? (at [121]).

Table 4 Assessment against the “General impact” Planning Principle

Planning principle	Staff Comment
How does the impact change the amenity of the affected property? How much sunlight, view or privacy is lost as well as how much is retained?	The subdivision and resultant residential development is unlikely to significantly affect adjoining properties. In any case the subsequent residential development will require assessment under the EP&A Act at which time further consideration of any impacts can be given.
How reasonable is the proposal causing the impact?	The subdivision is a permissible form of development with acceptable impacts from a flood perspective. It is therefore considered reasonable.
How vulnerable to the impact is the property receiving the impact? Would it require the loss of reasonable development potential to avoid the impact?	The more sensitive region to the proposed development is the R5 zoned land to the south of the proposed subdivision. The subdivision itself will not have a significant impact on the R5 zoned land to the south insofar as it significantly exceeds the MLS and provides adequate building envelopes. The subsequent residential development will require assessment under the EP&A Act at which time further consideration of any impacts can be given.
Does the impact arise out of poor design? Could the same amount of floor space and amenity be achieved for the proponent while reducing the impact on neighbours?	The subdivision itself will not have a significant impact on the R5 zoned land to the south insofar as it significantly exceeds the MLS and provides adequate building envelopes. The subsequent residential development will require assessment under the EP&A Act at which time further consideration of any impacts can be given.
Does the proposal comply with the planning controls? If not, how much of the impact is due to the non-complying elements of the proposal?	The subdivision complies with the relevant planning controls and is in fact considerably above the minimum lot size of 550m².

Surrounding development

In Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191, Senior Commissioner Roseth of the Land and Environment Court stated (at [22 and 24]):

There are many dictionary definitions of compatible. The most apposite meaning in an urban design context is capable of existing together in harmony. Compatibility is thus different from sameness. It is generally accepted that buildings can exist together in harmony without having the same density, scale or appearance, though as the difference in these attributes increases, harmony is harder to achieve (at [22]).

Where compatibility between a building and its surroundings is desirable, its two major aspects are physical impact and visual impact. In order to test whether a proposal is compatible with its context, two questions should be asked.

· Are the proposal’s physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable? The physical impacts include constraints on the development potential of surrounding sites.

· Is the proposal’s appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street? (at [24]).

Table 5 Assessment against the “Surrounding development” Planning Principle

Planning principle	Staff Comment
Are the proposal’s physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable? The physical impacts include constraints on the development potential of surrounding sites.	The subdivision does not constrain the development potential of surrounding sites.
Is the proposal’s appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street?	The subdivision itself does not have an “appearance” as such. The subsequent residential development will require assessment under the EP&A Act at which time further consideration of any impacts, including the “appearance” can be given.

Subdivision

In Project Parrott v Kiama Council [2004] NSWLEC 77, Senior Commissioner Roseth of the Land and Environment Court stated (at [17]):

When should a subdivision application include information on the buildings to be built on the resulting allotment(s)? It is normal practice in Australia to subdivide land without constraints on the buildings that can later be built. While this practice is appropriate in most cases, it is not always so. I have adopted the planning principle that a subdivision application should provide constraints on future buildings when the proposed allotments are smaller than usual, or environmentally sensitive or where significant impacts on neighbours is likely and needs careful design to minimise them (at [17]).

Table 6 Assessment against the “Subdivision” Planning Principle

Planning principle	Staff Comment
The proposed allotments smaller than usual.	The minimum lot size under the LEP is for the R1 zone is 550m², the proposed Lot 381 with an area of 896m² and proposed Lot 392 with an area of 897.2m² meet the minimum lot size. Therefore it is not “smaller than usual”.
The proposed allotments environmentally sensitive.	The proposed allotments are flood constrained but no more so than much of Narrabri town and are not otherwise environmentally sensitive.
Where significant impacts on neighbours is likely and needs careful design to minimise them.	Significant impacts on neighbour are not likely. Adequate building envelope exists to meet local planning controls.

Public Participation

The two (2) submissions objecting to the proposed development raised the following issues. The applicant has provided a response to the issue which Council has reviewed (Table 6).

Table 6 Review of submissions

Issue	Response
Dividing of this block is not in keeping with the amenity of the estate which "Riverbend" was designed; being that land lots at Riverbend were larger to allow for distance and room between neighbours and keeping a country feel with ease of living.	Council’s planning framework consisting of the LEP and Development Control Plans (DCP) establishes the controls which development within an area must adhere to. These controls guide the development density of an area. There are lots to the south of the site that are larger (i.e. 5,000m²), however the site and the land to the north have a minimum lot size of 550m². The proposed development is consistent with the planning controls for the site. The subdivision is permissible pursuant to clause 2.6 and clause 4.1 of the LEP. The minimum lot size under the LEP is 550m², the proposed Lot 381 with an area of 896m² and proposed Lot 392 with an area of 897.2m² meet the minimum lot size. Weight must be given to permissibility of the subdivision in the “resolution of a dispute as to the appropriate development” of the land.
Almost all lots in this area are already built on under the understanding that lots would not be reduced and houses not be built close to other neighbours.	The proposed development is consistent with the planning controls for the site which permits lots of 500m² or greater in size. The proposed lots are larger (approximately 346m² or 62%) than the minimum required.
Houses in the estate on both street frontages for this area (Riverside Drive & Guest Street), are already set back from the roadside to a standard and consistent setback. Dividing this lot will mean that there will not be the required allowable room for dwellings to build; without being right on the boundary; if the dwellings are set back to the same required distance as other dwellings in the street to keep the attractiveness of the street appeal. This then means that these blocks will have dwellings built closer to the road, detracting from the designed look and amenity of the estate. should council resolve to approve the application for the subdivision of the land into two lots, as a means of ensuring a consistent streetscape and maintaining the existing building line in Riverside Drive (north side) and Guest Street (western side); I request that council consider imposing a condition on the developer in the form of a Section S8B/covenant requiring that building envelopes be imposed on each allotment to ensure the consistency of the building line, and hence the streetscape and amenity is maintained.	Any future development on the lots will be required to comply with the applicable planning controls, including setbacks. It is considered that sufficient area will exist on each proposed lot to accommodate a future dwelling that will comply with the planning controls, including setback requirements. The smaller lots will actually assist in achieving the objectives of the zone, by providing for a variety of housing types and densities. In Project Parrott v Kiama Council [2004] NSWLEC 77, Senior Commissioner Roseth of the Land and Environment Court stated (at [17]): When should a subdivision application include information on the buildings to be built on the resulting allotment(s)? It is normal practice in Australia to subdivide land without constraints on the buildings that can later be built. While this practice is appropriate in most cases, it is not always so. I have adopted the planning principle that a subdivision application should provide constraints on future buildings when the proposed allotments are smaller than usual, or environmentally sensitive or where significant impacts on neighbours is likely and needs careful design to minimise them (at [17]). The proposed lots are not “smaller than usual, or environmentally sensitive”. Significant impacts on neighbour are not likely and design that complies with the planning controls as opposed to “careful design” will ensure impacts are within acceptable limits.
The sewage system design for this estate is not designed for the division of lots and was only has an allowable tolerance for oversupply. This oversupply may have already been used due to the division of other blocks, in the later stages of the south of the estate, outbound of this development application. Have been made aware by the developer, that there were limited lots that were allowable to have multiple dwellings on them and this is not one of those lots.	Council’s Engineers have advised that the sewerage system is not at capacity and can accommodate the additional volume. In fact it will actually provide a benefit by assisting with the pressure in the line and moving the waste before it turns septic.
This development will directly affect the safety of all other landowners in the estate, on the grounds that the extra footprint of the extra dwelling for the second lot, will change the effectiveness of the current flood study and place further potential risk of flooding on existing landowners.	The subdivision in and of itself will not impact flood behaviour. Physical works associated with the erection of a dwelling will be assessed as part of a future application, however, given the expected depth and velocities it is unlikely that there would be a significant impact on flood behaviour.
As there will be limited room for a dwelling to be built on lot 382, my driveway will be impacted by any potential driveway on the riverside drive frontage of this block.	Any future driveway will require approval from Council (as the roads authority) to ensure its location is appropriate.

Referrals

Infrastructure Delivery (Internal)

The development was referred to Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Department (“Infrastructure”). Infrastructure comments are summarised in section 1.9 Internal Referrals of the Development Assessment Report (Attachment 1).

Development Contributions Applicable

Fixed development consent levy will apply to future dwellings and headworks charges will apply to subdivision.

Conclusion

Development Application 77/2019 has been assessed in accordance with Section 4.15 of the EPA Act and should be determined by way of approval subject to conditions (Attachment 2) for the following reasons:

Reasons for the decision

1. The development is permissible with consent.

2. The development is a suitable use of the land.

3. The development complies with the relevant planning instruments.

4. The development will provide additional housing options for the community.

5. With the imposition of the recommended conditions the development will not have any unacceptable impacts on the surrounding area, environment and adjoining development.

6. The development is in the public interest because:

a) It is consistent with the relevant objects of the EPA Act.

b) It is consistent with the New England North West Regional Plan 2036.

c) It is consistent with Community Strategic Plan Narrabri Shire 2027.

References

Farrier, D., & Stein, P. (2016). The environmental law handbook (6th ed.). Rozelle, N.S.W.: Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited.

Narrabri Shire Council. (2017). Community Strategic Plan Narrabri Shire 2027.

NSW Government Planning & Environment. (2019). New England North West Regional Plan 2036.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 24 September 2019

11.9 Creation of the Office of Deputy Mayor

Responsible Officer: Lindsay Mason, Director Corporate Services

Author: Delece Hartnett, Personal Assistant to GM & Mayor

Attachments: 1. Nomination Form for the Office of Deputy Mayor ⇩

Delivery Program Alignment

4. Leadership
Objective	4.4 Our strategic goals will be achieved through transparent and accountable planning and reporting
Strategy	4.4.2 Ensure effective and sound local governance practice

Executive Summary

Council is required to determine if it wishes to create the Office of Deputy Mayor in accordance with statutory requirements.

On the assumption that Council will wish to elect a Deputy Mayor, a nomination paper for Office of Deputy Mayor has been provided as an attachment to this report. Nomination papers may be delivered or sent to the General Manager either prior to or at the Council Meeting.

In alignment with Council’s previous voting method decision and Objective 4.4 of the Delivery Program 2017/2021; of being transparent and accountable, it is recommended to conduct the voting using the open voting method.

Recommendation

1. That Council create the Office of Deputy Mayor.

2. That Council set the term of the Office of Deputy Mayor to be twelve (12) months, concluding at the commencement of the September 2020 Ordinary Council Meeting or the declaration of vacancies in accordance with Ordinary Election 2020; whichever date is sooner.

3. That Council elect the Deputy Mayor by way of open voting, if more than one (1) nomination for Deputy Mayor is received.

Background

Council is required to determine if it wishes to create the Office of Deputy Mayor in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 (“the LG Act”) and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (“LGGR”).

Council can determine to create the Office of Deputy Mayor for a period coinciding with the Mayoral term or a shorter period. Council should openly consider the potential to extend the term of the Office of Deputy Mayor to align with that of the term of the Office of the Mayor.

Section 231 of the LG Act outlines the requirements for the creation and election of a Deputy Mayor.

The election process is set out in Schedule 7 of the LGGR.

Current Situation

On the assumption that Council will wish to elect a Deputy Mayor, a nomination paper for Office of Deputy Mayor has been provided as an attachment to this report.

Nomination papers may be delivered or sent to the General Manager either prior to or at the Council Meeting. The nomination is to be in writing and signed by 2 or more councillors (one of whom may be the nominee). The nomination is not valid unless the nominee has indicated consent to the nomination in writing.

Should there be more than one (1) Councillor nominated for the Office of Deputy Mayor, Council is to determine whether the election is to be by preferential ballot, by ordinary ballot or by open voting.

Election Methods

Preferential Ballot

This method utilises ballot-papers. Councillors are to mark their votes by placing the numbers “1”, “2” and so on against the candidate names so as to indicate the order of their preference for all the candidates.

If a candidate has an absolute majority of first preference votes, that candidate is elected.

If an absolute majority is not achieved, the candidate with the lowest number of first preference votes is excluded and the votes on the unexhausted ballot-papers counted to him or her are transferred to the candidates with second preferences on those ballot-papers.

If no candidate then has an absolute majority of votes, the process of excluding the candidate who has the lowest number of votes and counting each of his or her unexhausted ballot-papers to the candidates remaining in the election next in order of the voter’s preference is repeated until one (1) candidate has received an absolute majority of votes, whom is then elected.

If, on any count of votes, there are two (2) candidates in, or remaining in, the election and the numbers of votes cast for the two (2) candidates are equal, the candidate whose name is first chosen by lot is taken to have received an absolute majority of votes and is therefore taken to be elected.

If, on any count of votes, there are three (3) or more candidates in, or remaining in, the election and the numbers of votes cast for two (2) or more candidates are equal and those candidates are the ones with the lowest number of votes on the count of the votes, the candidate whose name is first chosen by lot is taken to have the lowest number of votes and is therefore excluded.

Ordinary Ballot

This method utilises ballot-papers. The Returning Officer decides the manner in which votes are to be marked on the ballot-papers.

If there are only two (2) candidates, the candidate with the higher number of votes is elected. If there are only two (2) candidates and they are tied, the one (1) elected is to be chosen by lot.

If there are three (3) or more candidates, a vote is taken; the candidate with the lowest number of votes is excluded. If three (3) or more candidates still remain further votes are taken with the candidate receiving the lowest number of votes being excluded until two (2) candidates remain.

A further vote is taken of the two (2) remaining candidates; the candidate with the higher number of votes is elected. If there are only two (2) candidates and they are tied, the one (1) elected is to be chosen by lot.

If at any stage during a count two (2) or more candidates are tied on the lowest number of votes, the one (1) excluded is to be chosen by lot.

Open Voting

This method utilises a show of hands. The election procedure is the same as for the ordinary ballot method.

Definitions

Absolute majority: In relation to votes, means a number that is more than one-half of the number of unexhausted formal ballot-papers.

Ballot: In the context of this type of election has the meaning of a secret ballot.

Chosen by lot: If two (2) candidates are tied (having equal numbers of votes) their names are written on similar slips of paper by the Returning Officer, the slips are folded by the Returning Officer so as to prevent the candidate names being seen, the slips are mixed and one (1) is drawn at random by the Returning Officer and the candidate whose name is on the drawn slip is chosen.

Before proceeding with the election Council is required to resolve which method of voting is to be used. While the option to have a preferential ballot is available it is not normally used in circumstances such as this. Both ordinary ballot and open voting are the more common methods.

Timing of Election

The election for Office of Deputy Mayor is to take place at the Council Meeting at which the Council determines the method of voting.

Financial Implications

Nil.

Statutory and Policy Implications

This report enables Council to create the Office of Deputy Mayor in line with the statutory requirements of the LG Act and LGGR.

If Council resolves this way; Council is additionally statutorily required to resolve:

1. The term of the Office of Deputy Mayor.

2. The method of voting for the Office of Deputy Mayor.

Consultation

External Consultation

Nil.

Internal Consultation

Nil.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 24 September 2019

11.10 Annual Appointment to Council Committees

Responsible Officer: Lindsay Mason, Director Corporate Services

Author: Delece Hartnett, Personal Assistant to GM & Mayor

Attachments: Nil

Delivery Program Alignment

Leadership
Objective	4.4 Our strategic goals will be achieved through transparent and accountable planning and reporting
Strategy	4.4.2 Ensure effective and sound local governance practice

Executive Summary

Council has continually reviewed its Committee structures to ensure efficient and effective governance frameworks exist that support Council decision making as part of this continual review cycle Council has utilised the practice of nominating delegates to Committees on an annual basis.

Council has 11 committees established.

Councillors are requested to seek membership to committees of their interest and nominate to be a member.

Recommendation

1. That Council appoint Councillor representation to its various Advisory and Special Purpose Committees.

2. That Council discontinue Councillor representation to Section 355 committees.

3. That Council dissolve the China Engagement Advisory Committee.

Background

In order for Councillor representation to be appointed to Council’s various committees for the ensuing twelve (12) months it is necessary for Council to review and formally appoint its Councillor representation.

Current Situation

Council has established the following variety of Committees; included below are the previous 12-month Councillor members.

It is recommended to discontinue Councillor membership to section 355 committees.

It is recommended to dissolve the China Engagement Advisory Committee. The Committee has never been fully established and never met.

Advisory Committees

Advisory Committee	2018/2019 Member(s)
Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee	Member: Clr Loder Member: Clr Staines
China Engagement Advisory Committee	Member: Clr Redding (as Mayor)
Crime Prevention Advisory Committee	Member: Clr Loder Member: Clr Kneale
Floodplain Management Advisory Committee	Member: Clr Kneale Member: Clr Booby
Narrabri Airport Advisory Committee	Member: Clr Staines Member: Clr McMahon
Saleyards Advisory Committee	Member: Clr Staines Member: Clr Booby
The Crossing Theatre Advisory Committee	Member: Clr Kneale Member: Clr Loder
Youth Centre Advisory Committee	Member: Clr Finlay Member: Clr Redding

Section 355 Committees

Section 355 Committee	2018/2019 Member(s)
Section 355 Gwabegar Hall Committee	Member: Cr Booby

Special Purpose Committees

Special Purpose Committee

2018/2019 Member(s)

Audit and Risk Committee

Member: Cr Staines

Local Traffic Committee

Member: Cr Kneale

Alternate: Cr Campey

Financial Implications

There is an established budget allocation for the travel and attendance to meetings for Council delegates.

Statutory and Policy Implications

A Councillor should move a motion on this report in the form of:

That Council appointment the following members and alternate members to the various Council Advisory and Special Purpose Committees:

*Advisory Committee*	*Details*	*2019/2020 Delegates*
Access and Inclusion Committee	As required	Member: Clr <insert surname> Member: Clr <insert surname>
Crime Prevention Advisory Committee	Quarterly	Member: Clr <insert surname> Member: Clr <insert surname>
Floodplain Management Advisory Committee	As required	Member: Clr <insert surname> Member: Clr <insert surname> Member: Clr <insert surname>
Narrabri Airport Advisory Committee	Minimum twice per year	Member: Clr <insert surname> Member: Clr <insert surname>
Saleyards Advisory Committee	Minimum twice per year	Member: Clr <insert surname> Member: Clr <insert surname>
The Crossing Theatre Advisory Committee	Minimum twice per year	Member: Clr <insert surname> Member: Clr <insert surname>
Youth Centre Advisory Committee	Minimum twice per year	Member: Clr <insert surname> Member: Clr <insert surname>

Special Purpose Committee

Details

2019/2020 Member(s)

Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee

Quarterly

Member: Clr <insert surname>

Local Traffic Committee

As required

Member: Clr <insert surname>

Alternate: Clr <insert surname>

Consultation

External Consultation

Nil.

Internal Consultation

Nil.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 24 September 2019

11.11 Annual Appointment of Council Delegates

Responsible Officer: Lindsay Mason, Director Corporate Services

Author: Delece Hartnett, Personal Assistant to GM & Mayor

Attachments: Nil

Delivery Program Alignment

4. Leadership
Objective	4.4 Our strategic goals will be achieved through transparent and accountable planning and reporting
Strategy	4.4.2 Ensure effective and sound local governance practice

Executive Summary

Council has established a practice of nominating delegates to external bodies and organisations on an annual basis.

In order for delegates to be able to represent Council on external bodies for the ensuing twelve (12) months it is necessary for Council to review and formally appoint its delegates.

Recommendation

That Council appointment delegates to the various external bodies or organisations requesting or requiring Council representation.

Background

Council has established a practice of nominating delegates to external bodies and organisations on an annual basis.

Current Situation

Council has been requested to be involved on the following external bodies and organisations; included are the previous 12-month Council delegates:

Name of Body/Organisation	2018/2019 Delegates
Australian Rural Road Group Inc.	Delegate: Clr Redding Alternate: Clr Kneale
Central Northern Libraries Committee	Delegate: Clr Redding Alternate: Clr Booby
Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP)	Delegate: Clr Kneale Delegate: Clr Staines Alternate: Clr Campey
Leards Forest Precinct Environmental Trust	Delegate: Clr Finlay Alternate: Clr Kneale
Lillian Hulbert Memorial Prize Committee	Delegate: Mayor
Myall Creek Memorial Committee	Delegate: Clr Redding Delegate: Clr Staines Alternate: Clr McMahon
Namoi Water	Delegate: Clr McMahon Alternate: Clr Loder
Narrabri Bush Fire Management Committee	Delegate: Clr Staines Alternate: Clr McMahon
Narrabri Hospital Advisory Committee	Delegate: Clr Loder Alternate: Clr Redding
Wee Waa Hospital Advisory Committee	Delegate: Clr Booby Alternate: Clr McMahon

Community Consultative Committees (CCC)

Name of Body/Organisation

2018/2019 Delegates

Boggabri Coal

Community Consultation Committee

Delegate: Clr Kneale

Alternate: Clr Finlay

Maules Creek Coal Mine

Community Consultative Committee

Delegate: Clr Kneale

Alternate: Clr Finlay

Narrabri Coal Mine

Community Consultative Committee

Delegate: Clr Staines

Alternate: Clr Campey

Narrabri Gas Project

Consultative Committee

Delegate: Clr Loder

Delegate: Clr Campbell

Alternate: Clr Kneale

Tarrawonga Coal Mine

Community Consultative Committee

Delegate: Clr Staines

Alternate: Clr McMahon

Vickery Coal Mine

Community Consultative Committee

Delegate: Clr Staines

Alternate: Clr Finlay

Western Slopes Pipeline

Community Consultative Committee

Delegate: Clr Kneale

Alternate: Clr Booby

The Australian Rural Road Group Inc. has been dissolved; there is no need for Council to appoint delegates to this group.

Financial Implications

There is an established budget allocation for the travel and attendance to meetings for Council delegates.

Statutory and Policy Implications

A Councillor should move a motion on this report in the form of:

That Council appointment the following delegates to the various external bodies or organisations requesting or requiring Council representation:

*Name of Body/Organisation*	*Details*	*2019/2020 Delegates*
Central Northern Libraries Committee	General meetings held throughout the year, agendas are sent in	Delegate: Clr <insert surname> Alternate: Clr <insert surname>
Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP)	As required.	Delegate: Clr <insert surname> Delegate: Clr <insert surname> Alternate: Clr <insert surname>
Lillian Hulbert Memorial Prize Committee	Held when the Prize is open.	Delegate: Mayor
Myall Creek Memorial Committee		Delegate: Clr <insert surname> Delegate: Clr <insert surname> Alternate: Clr <insert surname>
Namoi Water	Agenda and Minutes are sent in	Delegate: Clr <insert surname> Alternate: Clr <insert surname>
Namoi-Peel Customer Service Committee	Quarterly meetings, every second Wednesday of the month at 9am	Delegate: Clr <insert surname> Alternate: Clr <insert surname>
Narrabri Bush Fire Management Committee	Two a year, one before bush fire season and one after bush fire season	Delegate: Clr <insert surname> Alternate: Clr <insert surname>
Narrabri Hospital Advisory Committee	Held every month, second month at 2pm, Narrabri Hospital	Delegate: Clr <insert surname> Alternate: Clr <insert surname>
North West Regional Weed Committee	Quarterly meetings	Delegate: Clr <insert surname> Alternate: Clr <insert surname>
Wee Waa Hospital Advisory Committee	Held every second month, first Thursday of the month at 1pm, Wee Waa Hospital	Delegate: Clr <insert surname> Alternate: Clr <insert surname>

Community Consultative Committees (CCC)

Name of Body/Organisation

Details

2019/2020 Delegates

Boggabri Coal

Community Consultation Committee

Quarterly meetings, onsite, will send agenda and minutes in

Delegate: Clr <insert surname>

Alternate: Clr <insert surname>

Maules Creek Coal Mine

Community Consultative Committee

Quarterly meetings

Delegate: Clr <insert surname>

Alternate: Clr <insert surname>

Narrabri Coal Mine

Community Consultative Committee

Quarterly meetings, first Tuesday of the month, 4pm onsite.

Delegate: Clr <insert surname>

Alternate: Clr <insert surname>

Narrabri Gas Project

Consultative Committee

Monthly meetings; second Tuesday of the month

Delegate: Clr <insert surname>

Alternate: Clr <insert surname>

Tarrawonga Coal Mine

Community Consultative Committee

Quarterly meetings

Delegate: Clr <insert surname>

Alternate: Clr <insert surname>

Vickery Coal Mine

Community Consultative Committee

Quarterly meetings

Delegate: Clr <insert surname>

Alternate: Clr <insert surname>

Western Slopes Pipeline

Community Consultative Committee

Delegate: Clr <insert surname>

Alternate: Clr <insert surname>

Consultation

External Consultation

Nil.

Internal Consultation

Nil.

Project	Estimate ($)
Wee Waa - Dangar Park - construct shelters	45,000
Wee Waa - Dangar Park - install basketball half court & rebound wall	50,000
Wee Waa - Dangar Park - install new outdoor gym equipment	40,000
Wee Waa - Dangar Park - install pathway to link entry to facilities	15,000
Wee Waa - Dangar Park - install shade sail to playground	35,000
Wee Waa - Dangar Park - playground equipment	50,000
Total	235,000

Project	Estimate ($)
Narrabri Shared Cycle/Pedestrian Pathway Project	235,000
Total	235,000

Proposed cost of the development	Percentage of levy
$100,001 - $200,000	0.5%
Greater than $200,000	1.0%

4. Leadership
Objective	4.1 We will proactively engage and partner with the community and government to achieve our strategic goals
Strategy	4.1.3 Develop and build strong, productive partnerships with State and Federal Governments

1. Society
Objective	1.2 Our vibrant country lifestyle will be enhanced through embracing our recreational and cultural diversity
Strategy	1.2.4 Promote and support Reconciliation in partnership with the aboriginal community

2. Environment
Objective	2.1 We will maintain our open spaces, natural environment and heritage for future generations
Strategy	2.1.3 Passive recreational open spaces are well maintained and accessible for public use