Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 17 December 2019

PUBLIC FORUM (held outside formal Council Meeting)

The Council may hold a public forum prior to each Ordinary Meeting of the Council for the purpose of hearing oral submissions from members of the public on items of business to be considered at the meeting (listed on the Agenda).

Public forums may also be held prior to Extraordinary Council Meetings and meetings of committees of the Council.

Public forums are to be chaired by the mayor or their nominee.

Request to Speak in the Public Forum

To speak at a public forum, a person must first make an application to the Council in the approved form. Applications to speak at the public forum must be received by 5pm on the working day before the date on which the public forum is to be held and must identify the item of business on the agenda of the Council meeting the person wishes to speak on, and whether they wish to speak ‘for’ or ‘against’ the item.

Approved speakers at the public forum are to register with the Council any written, visual or audio material to be presented in support of their address to the Council, and to identify any equipment needs at 5pm on the working day before the Public Forum.

The General Manager or their delegate may refuse to allow such material to be presented.

A person may apply to speak on no more than 2 items of business on the agenda of the Council Meeting.

Legal representatives acting on behalf of others are not to be permitted to speak at a public forum unless they identify their status as a legal representative when applying to speak at the public forum.

The General Manager or their delegate may refuse an application to speak at a public forum.

No more than three (3) speakers are to be permitted to speak ‘for’ or ‘against’ each item of business on the agenda for the Council Meeting.

If more than the permitted number of speakers apply to speak ‘for’ or ‘against’ any item of business, the general manager or their delegate may, in consultation with the mayor or the mayor’s nominated chairperson, increase the number of speakers permitted to speak on an item of business, where they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so to allow the council to hear a fuller range of views on the relevant item of business.

Each speaker will be allowed three (3) minutes to address the Council. This time is to be strictly enforced by the Chairperson.

The Chairperson of the meeting can grant one extension of up to a maximum of two (2) minutes, should further information, be considered to be important to the Council. This is solely at the discretion of the Chair.

Speakers at public forums must not digress from their nominated item on the agenda. If a speaker digresses to irrelevant matters, the Chairperson is to direct the speaker not to do so. If a speaker fails to observe a direction from the chairperson, the speaker will not be further heard.

A councillor (including the chairperson) may, through the chairperson, ask questions of a speaker following their address at a Public Forum. Questions put to a speaker must be direct, succinct and without argument. Debate will not be permitted by the speaker, Councillors or staff.

Speakers are under no obligation to answer a question. Answers by the speaker, to each question are to be limited to three (3) minutes.

Speakers at public forums cannot ask questions of the Council, Councillors or Council staff.

The general manager or their nominee may, with the concurrence of the chairperson, address the council for up 5 minutes in response to an address to the council at a public forum after the address and any subsequent questions and answers have been finalised.

Where an address made at a public forum raises matters that require further consideration by council staff, the general manager may recommend that the council defer consideration of the matter pending the preparation of a further report on the matters.

The “Request to Speak in Public Forum”, at an Ordinary Council Meeting, can be obtained, from Council’s Administration Office, or by downloading it from Council’s website at:

http://www.narrabri.nsw.gov.au/speaking-at-public-forum-1232.html

Use of mobile phones and

unauthorised recording of meetings

Councillors, council staff and members of the public must ensure that mobile phones are turned to silent during meetings of the council and committees of the council.

(Clause 15.20 Code of Meeting Practice)

A person must not live stream or use an audio recorder, video camera, mobile phone or any other device to make a recording of the proceedings of a meeting of the council or a committee of the council without the prior authorisation of the Council.

(Clause 15.21 Code of Meeting Practice)

AUDIO RECORDING NOTICE

Council advises that this Meeting will be recorded for the purpose of webcasting, and made available on the Internet. As such, all those present should refrain from making any defamatory statements. It is requested that Councillors within the duration of the Meeting, limit discussions to only the business on the agenda and what is permissible under our Code of Meeting Practice.

(Clause 5.2 Code of Meeting Practice)

Mayor

Cr Cathy Redding

Deputy Mayor

Cr Cameron Staines

Cr Maxine Booby

Cr Ron Campbell

Cr Ron Campey

Cr Lloyd Finlay

Cr Robert Kneale

Cr Ann Loder

Cr Annie McMahon

General Manager

Mr Stewart Todd

Director

Infrastructure

Delivery

Mr Darren Raeck

Director

Corporate and Community Services

Mr Lindsay Mason

Executive Manager Planning and

Environment

Mr Daniel Boyce

Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 17 December 2019

MINUTES OF narrabri SHIRE council
Ordinary Council Meeting
HELD AT THE Narrabri Shire Council Chambers, 46-48 Maitland Street, Narrabri
ON Tuesday, 26 November 2019 AT 1.04pm

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

IN ATTENDANCE: Stewart Todd (General Manager), Darren Raeck (Director Infrastructure Delivery), Lindsay Mason (Director Corporate and Community Services), Daniel Boyce (Executive Manager Planning & Environment), Delece Hartnett (Minute Clerk)

Proceedings of the meeting commenced at 1.04pm.

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

Members and officers were upstanding for the opening prayer that was read by the Mayor, Cr Cathy Redding.

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, present and emerging.

3 Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences

Nil.

4 Declaration of Pecuniary and Non- Pecuniary Interests

Councillors are reminded of their obligation to declare their interest in any matters listed before them.

In considering your interest, you are reminded to include pecuniary, non-pecuniary and conflicts of interest as well as any other interest you perceive or may be perceived of you.

Councillors may declare an interest at the commencement of the meeting, or alternatively at any time during the meeting should any issue progress or arise that would warrant a declaration.

Councillors must state their reasons in declaring any type of interest.

COUNCILLOR

ITEM NUMBER

PECUNIARY/

NON-PECUNIARY

REASON

Cr Ron Campbell

12.1; - Narrabri Gas Project

12.19 – Vickery Voluntary Planning Agreement

Pecuniary, Non-Significant

Fieldwork contractor.

Cr Lloyd Finlay

12.19 – Vickery Voluntary Planning Agreement

Pecuniary, Non-significant

Resident/Landholder at Maules Creek.

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

Minute 252/2019

Moved: Cr Annie McMahon Seconded: Cr Ann Loder

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

· 13.1 Northern NSW Inland Port (N2IP)

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

6 Presentations

Nil.

7 Confirmation of Minutes

Minute 253/2019

Moved: Cr Cameron Staines Seconded: Cr Ann Loder

That the minutes of Ordinary Meeting of the Narrabri Shire Council held on 21 October 2019 comprising Minute Nos 233/2019 to 248/2019 as circularised be confirmed and signed as a correct record by the Mayor.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

Minute 254/2019

Moved: Cr Cameron Staines Seconded: Cr Ann Loder

That the minutes of Extraordinary Council Meeting of the Narrabri Shire Council held on 14 November 2019 comprising Minute Nos 249/2019 to 251/2019 as circularised be confirmed and signed as a correct record by the Mayor.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

8 Mayoral Minute

8.1 Mayoral Minute - Mayoral Appointments for October/November 2019

Minute 255/2019

Moved: Cr Catherine Redding

That Council note the Mayoral Appointments for the period October/November 2019.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

9 Our Society

9.1 Minutes of the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Meeting held on 2 October 2019

Minute 256/2019

Moved: Cr Ann Loder Seconded: Cr Cameron Staines

That Council note the Minutes of the Narrabri Shire Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 2 October 2019.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

9.2 Narrabri Shire Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan 2019/2023

Minute 257/2019

Moved: Cr Ann Loder Seconded: Cr Maxine Booby

1. That Council note the minutes of the Narrabri Shire Crime Prevention Advisory Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 15 October 2019.

2. That Council adopt the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan 2019 – 2023.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

10 Our Environment

Nil reports.

11 Our Economy

Nil reports.

At 1.14pm, Cr Ron Campbell left the meeting.

12 Our Civic Leadership

12.1 Narrabri Gas Project

Recommendation

That Council adopt the attached draft submission on the Narrabri Gas Project and submit the document to the New South Wales Government.

MOTION

Moved: Cr Cameron Staines Seconded: Cr Annie McMahon

1. That Council adopt the attached draft submission on the Narrabri Gas Project and submit the document to the New South Wales Government.

2. That Council commend Santos on their commitment to addressing Council’s concerns on their EIS submission.

3. That Council support the Narrabri Gas Project.

MOVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Minute 258/2019

Moved: Cr Ann Loder Seconded: Cr Maxine Booby

That Council move into Committee of the Whole at 1.18pm.

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

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Minute 259/2019

Moved: Cr Catherine Redding Seconded: Cr Cameron Staines

That Council move out of Committee of the Whole at 1.45pm.

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

Against: Nil

carried 8/0

Minute 260/2019

Moved: Cr Cameron Staines Seconded: Cr Annie McMahon

1. That Council adopt the attached draft submission on the Narrabri Gas Project and submit the document to the New South Wales Government.

2. That Council commend Santos on their commitment to addressing Council’s concerns on their EIS submission.

3. That Council support the Narrabri Gas Project.

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

Against: Crs Ron Campey, Robert Kneale and Ann Loder

carried 5/3

At 1.53 pm, Cr Ron Campbell returned to the meeting.

12.2 Delegates Report - Country Mayors Association Meeting - 1 November 2019

Minute 261/2019

Moved: Cr Catherine Redding Seconded: Cr Maxine Booby

That Council note Mayor Reddings’ Delegates Report from the Country Mayors Association Ordinary Meeting and Annual General Meeting held in Sydney on Friday 1 November 2019.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

12.3 Delegates Report - Narromine to Narrabri (N2N) Inland Rail Community Consultative Committee - 25 September 2019

Minute 262/2019

Moved: Cr Ron Campbell Seconded: Cr Cameron Staines

That Council note Cr Campbell’s Delegates Report from the Narromine to Narrabri (N2N) Inland Rail Community Consultative Committee held on 25 September 2019.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

12.4 Delegates Report - Vickery Coal Mine Community Consultative Committee Meeting - 28 October 2019

Minute 263/2019

Moved: Cr Cameron Staines Seconded: Cr Lloyd Finlay

That Council note Cr Staines’ Delegates Report from the Vickery Coal Mine Community Consultative Committee meeting held on Monday 28 October 2019.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

12.5 Delegates Report - Tarrawonga Community Consultative Committee Meeting - 30 October 2019

Minute 264/2019

Moved: Cr Cameron Staines Seconded: Cr Lloyd Finlay

That Council note Deputy Mayor, Cr Staines Delegates Report from the Tarrawonga Community Consultative Committee Meeting held on Wednesday 30 October 2019.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

12.6 Delegates Report - Maules Creek Coal Community Consultative Committee Meeting - 30 October 2019

Minute 265/2019

Moved: Cr Robert Kneale Seconded: Cr Annie McMahon

That Council note Cr Kneale’s Delegates Report from the Maules Creek Coal Community Consultative Committee Meeting held on Wednesday 30 October 2019.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

12.7 Delegates Report - Boggabri Coal Community Consultative Committee Meeting - 31 October 2019

Minute 266/2019

Moved: Cr Robert Kneale Seconded: Cr Annie McMahon

That Council note Cr Kneale’s Delegates Report from the Boggabri Coal Community Consultative Committee held on 31 October 2019.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

12.8 Delegates Report - Combined Boggabri/Tarrawonga/Maules Creek Community Consultative Committee Meeting - 31 October 2019

Minute 267/2019

Moved: Cr Robert Kneale Seconded: Cr Lloyd Finlay

That Council note Cr Kneale’s Delegates Report from the combined Boggabri-Tarrawonga-Maules Creek Community Consultative Committee Meeting held on Thursday 31 October 2019.

Carried

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

Minute 268/2019

Moved: Cr Cameron Staines Seconded: Cr Ann Loder

That Council bring forward agenda item 12.19 – Vickery Voluntary Planning Agreement, for discussion at 1.12pm.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

At 2:13 pm, Cr Lloyd Finlay left the meeting.

At 2:13 pm, Cr Ron Campbell left the meeting.

12.19 Vickery Voluntary Planning Agreement

Motion

Moved: Cr Maxine Booby Seconded: Cr Annie McMahon

1. That Council reject the current Vickery Mine Extension VPA offer, for the following reasons:

a. It does not meet the Council endorsed objectives for a planning agreement concerning the Vickery Mine Extension project.

b. It is not fair and reasonable considering the impacts of the mine on the local community.

c. Accepting the VPA offer is not in the Public Interest.

2. That Council write to the NSW Government and advise them of the status of the VPA negotiations and request independent arbitration.

3. That Council write to the Independent Planning Commission and request that they defer the determination of the Project until the independent arbitration has been concluded.

Amendment

Minute 269/2019

Moved: Cr Ron Campey Seconded: Cr Annie McMahon

1. That Council reject the current Vickery Mine Extension VPA offer, for the following reasons:

a. It does not meet the Council endorsed objectives for a planning agreement concerning the Vickery Mine Extension project.

b. It is not fair and reasonable considering the impacts of the mine on the local community.

c. Accepting the VPA offer is not in the Public Interest.

2. That Council write to the NSW Government and advise them of the status of the VPA negotiations and request independent arbitration.

3. That Council write to the Independent Planning Commission and request that they defer the determination of the Project until the independent arbitration has been concluded.

4. That Council make contact with the relevant Local Member and NSW State Ministers and form a delegation to be represented at State Parliament on Council’s current position on the Vickery Mine Extension VPA offer.

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

Against: Nil

carried 7/0

At 2:26 pm, Cr Lloyd Finlay returned to the meeting.

At 2:26 pm, Cr Ron Campbell returned to the meeting.

12.9 Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee

Minute 270/2019

Moved: Cr Annie McMahon Seconded: Cr Lloyd Finlay

That Council note the Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee meeting held on 16 October 2019.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

12.10 Code of Conduct Statistics

Minute 271/2019

Moved: Cr Lloyd Finlay Seconded: Cr Maxine Booby

1. That Council note the Code of Conduct Complaint Statistics for the period 1 September 2018 to 31 August 2019.

2. That Council forward the Code of Conduct Complaint Statistics to the Office of Local Government.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

12.11 Investment Report - October 2019

Minute 272/2019

Moved: Cr Ann Loder Seconded: Cr Annie McMahon

That Council note the Investment Report for October 2019.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

12.12 Narrabri West Heavy Vehicle Traffic Audit

Minute 273/2019

Moved: Cr Robert Kneale Seconded: Cr Lloyd Finlay

1. That Council note the results of the twelve (12) month traffic audit undertaken to determine any heavy vehicle issues around the Narrabri West area (specifically Mooloobar Street, Baranbar Street and Goobar Street) and take no further action.

2. That Council note the unanimous recommendation from the Local Traffic Facilities Committee: “That the Local Traffic Facilities Committee note the results of the twelve (12) month traffic audit undertaken to determine any heavy vehicle issues around the Narrabri West area (specifically Mooloobar Street, Baranbar Street and Goobar Street) and support the determination that no further action is required.”

In Favour: Crs Catherine Redding, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Ron Campey, Lloyd Finlay, Robert Kneale and Ann Loder

Against: Crs Cameron Staines and Annie McMahon

carried 7/2

12.13 Fraud and Corruption Policy

Minute 274/2019

Moved: Cr Maxine Booby Seconded: Cr Lloyd Finlay

1. That Council endorse the draft Fraud and Corruption Policy.

2. That Council advertise the draft Fraud and Corruption Policy for a period of 28 days and call for public submissions.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

12.14 Community Grants Policy

Minute 275/2019

Moved: Cr Ron Campey Seconded: Cr Maxine Booby

That Council adopt the revised Community Grants Fund Policy, as attached.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

12.15 2018/2019 Financial Statements Update

Minute 276/2019

Moved: Cr Lloyd Finlay Seconded: Cr Maxine Booby

That Council note the report on the progress of the 2018/2019 Financial Statements.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

12.16 2018/2019 Annual Report

Minute 277/2019

Moved: Cr Cameron Staines Seconded: Cr Lloyd Finlay

1. That Council adopt the 2018/2019 Annual Report, as attached.

2. That Council note the status of the audited annual financial statements.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

12.17 Operational and Service Plan Quarterly Report - September 2019

Minute 278/2019

Moved: Cr Maxine Booby Seconded: Cr Ann Loder

That Council adopt the September 2019 Quarterly Operational and Service Plan Report, as attached, detailing Council’s progress in meeting its actions, capital works and key performance measures.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

At 3:03 pm, Cr Cameron Staines left the meeting.

At 3:08 pm, Cr Cameron Staines returned to the meeting.

At 3:12 pm, Cr Cameron Staines left the meeting.

At 3:14 pm, Cr Cameron Staines returned to the meeting.

12.18 Quarterly Budget Review Statement - September 2019

Minute 279/2019

Moved: Cr Ron Campey Seconded: Cr Maxine Booby

That Council adopt the Quarterly Budget Review Statement for the period ended 30 September 2019 as the revised Budget estimates for the year ended 30 June 2020 and the Operational Plan and Capital Works Plan be amended accordingly.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

13 Confidential (Closed Council) Meeting

Motion

Moved: Cr Annie McMahon Seconded: Cr Maxine Booby

That at 3.15pm 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 Northern NSW Inland Port (N2IP)

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) - (c) 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.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Minute 280/2019

Moved: Cr Ann Loder Seconded: Cr Cameron Staines

A motion was moved that Council suspend standing orders at 3.15pm.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

Resumption of Standing Orders

Minute 281/2019

Moved: Cr Robert Kneale Seconded: Cr Annie McMahon

A motion was moved that Council resume standing orders at 3.43pm.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

13.1 Northern NSW Inland Port (N2IP)

Minute 282/2019

Moved: Cr Robert Kneale Seconded: Cr Lloyd Finlay

1. That Council authorise the Mayor (or delegate) to enter into, on Council’s behalf, a non‑binding Memorandum of Understanding with Perdaman Industries.

2. That Council authorise the Mayor and General Manager to make any necessary amendments to finalise the non-binding Memorandum of Understanding; if changes are deemed necessary prior to entering into the Memorandum of Understanding.

3. That Council maintain the confidentiality of the non-binding Memorandum of Understanding.

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

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

Minute 283/2019

Moved: Cr Ann Loder Seconded: Cr Ron Campey

That at 3.59pm 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, Cameron Staines, Maxine Booby, Ron Campbell, Ron Campey, Lloyd Finlay, Robert Kneale, Ann Loder and Annie McMahon

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

14 Meeting Closed

The Meeting closed at 4.00pm.

The minutes of this meeting are scheduled to be confirmed at the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on 17 December 2019.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 17 December 2019

9.2 Report on the Annual General and Ordinary Meetings of Central Northern Regional Library (CNRL) held in Tamworth- 13 November 2019

Responsible Officer: Lindsay Mason, Director Corporate and Community Services

Author: Jenny Campbell, Director Corporate Services

Attachments: 1. Attachment 1 - CNRL AGM Minutes Nov 2018 ⇩

2. Attachment 2 - Chairman's Report 2018-19 ⇩

3. Attachment 3 - CNRL Annual Report 2018-19 ⇩

4. Attachment 4 - CNRL Annual Financial Statement 2018-19 ⇩

5. Attachment 5 - Agenda- CNRL Ordinary Meeting - Nov 2019 ⇩

6. Attachment 6 - CNRL Ordinary Meeting Minutes September 2019 ⇩

7. Attachment 7 - CNRL Quarterly Report - September 2019 ⇩

8. Attachment 8 - CNRL - Budget to Actual 2018_2019 ⇩

9. Attachment 9 - CNRL Reserve 2018_2019.pdf ⇩

10. Attachment 10- CNRL Draft Budget 2020-21 ⇩

Delivery Program Alignment

1 Society
Objective	1.1 Community health, safety and support services will adequately meet changing community needs
Strategy	1.1.1 Support and encourage health and wellbeing programs and services to improve resident lifestyles

Executive Summary

This report summarises Annual General and Ordinary Meetings of the Central Northern Regional Library (CNRL) Committee, held in Tamworth 13 November 2019.

Recommendation

1. That Council notes the report on the Annual General and Ordinary Meetings of the Central Northern Regional Library (CNRL) Committee, held in Tamworth 13 November 2019.

2. That Council accept the CNRL draft budget for 2020-2021.

Background

CNRL hold an Annual General Meeting in November each year to elect the office bearers and to present:

· The Chairman’s report

· The Annual report

· The report on the financial performance for the 2018-2019 year

Two ordinary meetings are held each year, one in November and one in February if there are disputes with the draft budget. If no disputes are lodged then an alternate date of May is set. The purpose of the ordinary meeting is to present:

· The Library Services Manager’s Report

· Quarterly Reports on Library activities up to the relevant meeting

· Other items of relevance to CNRL operations

· The draft budget for the 2019-2020 year

Current Situation

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING HIGHLIGHTS

There was no business arising from the previous Annual General Meeting. Minutes of the previous meeting can be found in Attachment 1.

Chairman’s Report (Attachment 2) – The Chair reiterated his thoughts on the importance of libraries and thanked Councillors, staff and helpers for their efforts.

Elections – Both Chair, Cr Bill Heazlett and Deputy Chair, Cr Cathy Redding were returned in their respective positions.

Annual Report 2018-2019 (Attachment 3)

Highlights for CNRL:

Digital Loans:

Digital Loans vs physical loans: 2018-2019 saw a continued trend of slight decrease in physical loans and increase in e-loans. Combined physical/e-loans decreased from the previous year.

A number of questions were raised as to why loans were generally down across the region. The following suggestions were put forward:

· People in Australia are borrowing less books.

· There were restructures in some libraries, which caused disruptions.

· The installation of the new RFID system was the focus during the year so there were less promotions in the libraries.

· During its implementation, there were loans missed under the RFID system as people became familiar with its operation.

· The drought has affected library usage as people come to town less to save fuel.

· E-resources impact loans, and in turn visitor numbers, especially in those branches which heavily promote the benefits. The NSW State average for e-loans across different libraries is 10,000 loans. The average for CNRL is 30,000.

A question was asked why the stock levels were down across the region. The meeting was informed this was because the implementation of RFID required every item to be tagged with an electronic tag. Older items were removed from the shelves to make the job of physically handling each item more achievable.

Seed Library:

CWA Country of Study 2019: Papua New Guinea. CNRL staff prepared a webpage with information links to support the CWA Country of Study 2019.

One Book One Region: The book chosen was “Scrublands” by Chris Hammer. One hundred (100) books appeared in the Library catalogue, 53 books were given to Councillors and 247 books were left in community places throughout the region to be picked up by the general public. The catalogued copies were loaned out 622 times and the e-audio copy was downloaded 63 times.

Programs:

Summary of Narrabri Shire Statistics

Boggabri	Narrabri	Wee Waa

1,643	25,904	11,292


540	8,149	1,897


3,845	32,653	6,270


3,705	16,031	6,862


421	1,911	628


1,172	10,402	2,435


221	4,925	1,916


29	1008	622

Annual Financial Statement – Details can be viewed in Attachment 4.

General Business – No matters of business were raised for the Annual General Meeting.

ORDINARY MEETING HIGHLIGHTS

More detailed information can be found in Attachment 5 – Agenda CNRL Ordinary Meeting November 2019.

There were no matters arising from the previous ordinary meeting (Minutes of Previous Ordinary Meeting - Attachment 6).

Library Services Manager’s Report

More detail can be viewed in Attachement 5 – Agnda CNRL Ordinary Meeting November 2019.

· There have been changes in the Copyright Act which will be beneficial to the presentation of programs and services in libraries.

· CNRL has subscribed to an online training course that teaches library staff how to reduce the conflict with homeless, mentally ill and addicted patrons.

· Proposed livestream of the Sydney Writers Festival 2020.

The Quarter Report for September was presented – Attachment 7.

Report on the UTS Indigenous Services and Collections in Libraries Masterclass

Topics covered in the masterclass included:

· Indigenous Engagement: Diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People

· Indigenous Engagement: Principles and Protocols

· Building Indigenous Services

· Building Library Collections

· Referral Services for Indigenous Australian information needs

Excerpts from this masterclass will be presented at the CNRL Training Day on 5 December 2019.

Financial information

2018-2019 Budget vs Actuals - Attachment 8

2018-2019 Movements in Reserves – Attachment 9

2020-2021 Draft CNRL Budget – Attachment 10

Operational Expenditure

· Allowance has been made for usual salary and employment overhead increases

· A 2.5% increase has been applied for rental of the library office space

· Promotions funding has remained at $6,500 and is earmarked for the One Book One Region program

· Periodicals are under constant review. There continues to be demand for newspapers and magazines in print format. Clients are transitioning to electronic format for newspapers and magazines very slowly

· The Music, Film and Storybox budget remains unchanged

Library Materials

· The total library resources (physical items) vote is at $269,212. The resources vote is broken up into:

o Library Materials - Local Priority; and

o Library Materials - Council Contributions.

Local Priority Funding has increased to $108,256 and the Library Materials - Council Contribution has been reduced to $160,956. These changes reflect the changes in the State Funding Model.

E-book and e-audio content remain constant in this budget.

Computer Services

· The Spydus Managed Services five year contract will be up for renewal in 2020. Costs are unknown but estimated at $90,000 including the Reports module and Spydus Manager module which are currently charged as additional to the contract.

· The Solus app fee will be an ongoing expense

Capital Items

· CNRL’s computer capital items replacement schedule is aligned to match TRC’s IT infrastructure development schedule. CNRL benefits from cost savings made by bulk purchasing that would not be available if purchasing as an individual entity.

· Access to reserve funding will be required when a full replacement of CNRL computers takes place. This is likely to occur in 2019-20 (current) financial year.

CNRL Funding:

Council contributions remain at $12.95 per capita. State subsidy for 2020-21 is at $2.55 per capita.

General Business

Update on Regional Improvements:

· Bingara’s new library is nearing completion and it is possible that CNRL’s next meeting could include the opening

· Quirindi’s expansion and refurbishment of the library precinct concepts are now ready for tender

Financial Implications

If Council accepts the CNRL draft budget for 2020-2021, Council contribution to CNRL will be $171,341. The grand total of Council contribution, subsidy and local priority funding used by CNRL to provide library services to Narrabri Shire is $223,237. If Council wishes to query the draft budget, submissions must be made in writing 15 January 2020.

Statutory and Policy Implications

Nil.

Consultation

External Consultation

CNRL Committee

Regional Library Service’s Manager, Kay Delahunt

Internal Consultation

Cr Cathy Redding

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 17 December 2019

10.3 Assessment of the Community Benefits associated with the proposed Vickery Coal Mine Extension Project

Responsible Officer: Daniel Boyce, Executive Manager Planning and Environment

Author: Daniel Boyce, Executive Manager Planning and Environment

Attachments: Nil

Delivery Program Alignment

2 Environment
Objective	2.1 We will maintain our open spaces, natural environment and heritage for future generations
Strategy	2.1.2 Planning controls appropriately identify and conserve open spaces and natural environmental areas

Executive Summary

Council resolved the following at its extraordinary meeting of 17 October 2019 (part Minute 232/2019):

7. If Council is unsuccessful in negotiating a VPA for the Vickery Mine by COB Friday 8 November 2019, Council receive a further report on the assessment of the community benefit of the Vickery project for Boggabri and Narrabri Shire Council, in the absence of a VPA.

Council rejected the most recent Voluntary Planning Agreement offer for the Vickery Project (MINUTE 269/2019) at the November Ordinary Council Meeting.

The Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 requires the “environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments” and “the social and economic impact in the locality” to be taken into consideration during the determination of the Vickery Project.

It is incumbent on the Proponent to minimise negative social impacts and capitalise on potential positive impacts in order to demonstrate that the Vickery Project achieves the relevant objects of the EPA Act (Section 1.3), in particular:

(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,

(b) to facilitate ecologically sustainable development by integrating relevant economic, environmental and social considerations in decision-making about environmental planning and assessment,

The proponent has used job creation as the primary social and economic driver for the approval of this project. However, the figures used to calculate these figures appear flawed and the purported economic benefits to the community of Boggabri seem unlikely to materialise.

The proponent can work collaboratively with local councils in the region to mitigate the impacts of this Project on communities such as Boggabri and develop strategies to maximise growth opportunities, through better social and community infrastructure.

Having regard for the above discussion the Proponent has not demonstrated that the Vickery Project will promote the social and economic welfare of Boggabri and the wider Narrabri Shire nor that it has sufficiently addressed the relevant economic, environmental and social considerations in its proposal.

Recommendation

1. That Council note the report.

2. That Council determine whether to make a further submission to the NSW Government and Independent Planning Commission.

Background

Council resolved the following at its extraordinary meeting of 17 October 2019 (part Minute 232/2019):

Council rejected the most recent Voluntary Planning Agreement (“VPA”) offer for the Vickery Project (Minute 269/2019) at the November Ordinary Council Meeting.

Current Situation

The NSW Government is required by the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (“EPA Act”) to take into consideration “environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments” and “the social and economic impact in the locality” in determining the Vickery Project.

The objects of this Act are as follows:

(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,

(b) to facilitate ecologically sustainable development by integrating relevant economic, environmental and social considerations in decision-making about environmental planning and assessment,

(c) to promote the orderly and economic use and development of land,

(d) to promote the delivery and maintenance of affordable housing,

(e) to protect the environment, including the conservation of threatened and other species of native animals and plants, ecological communities and their habitats,

(f) to promote the sustainable management of built and cultural heritage (including Aboriginal cultural heritage),

(g) to promote good design and amenity of the built environment,

(h) to promote the proper construction and maintenance of buildings, including the protection of the health and safety of their occupants,

(i) to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning and assessment between the different levels of government in the State,

(j) to provide increased opportunity for community participation in environmental planning and assessment.

For the purposes of this report object (a) and (b) are considered relevant objects in determining whether the Vickery Extension Project provides a sufficient community benefit.

the social and economic welfare of the community

The Response to Submissions (“RTS”), indicated on page 5 that:

“the Project would result in employment, council contributions, state royalties and expenditure in the region.”

This statement may not be entirely accurate given that the VPA (or “council contributions”) offered to date is not fair and reasonable nor commensurate with the scale and potential social impacts of this project on the Boggabri community.

A recent decision in the case of Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7 (“the GRL case”), which was made on 8 February 2019 by Chief Justice Preston, contains a number of statements with respect to social and economic considerations which may be relevant to the Vickery Extension Project. Subject to legal advice and expert evidence, there remains a need to scrutinise some of the figures and assumptions surrounding many of the estimates and projections that were compiled by earlier Vickery Extension Project documents drafted prior to the GRL case.

Employment

The workforce figures indicate that the Approved Project would include “up to 60 full-time equivalent construction workforce” and “up to 250 full-time equivalent on-site operational personnel” (page 7, RTS: EIS docs).

To the best of Council’s knowledge, the proponent has not provided any actual workforce data for their other mines in the region. Whilst Council concedes that accurate projections are often difficult to measure as they can vary from project to project, it appears that the Approved Project includes 0.44 FTE construction employees per Mt of total coal resource and 55 FTE employees for each Mtpa throughout the lifecycle of the original 30-year project (derived from Table ES-1, Executive Summary: EIS docs).

Using similar calculations, the Extension Project requires 2.79 FTE construction employees per Mt of total coal resource and 45 FTE employees for each Mtpa throughout the lifecycle of the proposed 25-year project (derived from Table ES-1, Executive Summary: EIS docs). Based on the above figures, and without contrary evidence, it is open to assume that a different methodology was applied to the calculation of employment projections across both projects.

In addition, it is unclear what the expected annual production of the Extension Project actually is, given that the proponent has prefaced their figures using the word “approximately” in the context of several production metrics. Therefore, it is not clear as to whether the mine will actually produce 10 Mtpa, over an operating period which is shorter than the Approved Mine.

In the absence of more precise figures, as provided during the assessment of the Approved Project, one can only calculate using assumptions as to what the annual production rate will actually be. Based on a total resource figure of 179 Mt ROM over 25 years, this is likely to equate to 7.16 Mtpa, which may lead to much fewer jobs generated as a result of the Extension Project than previously stated by EIS documentation.

This will be even lower based on the total resource of the project reducing to 168 Mt as per RTS (page 8). In any case, it is difficult to have confidence in the figures that the proponent has presented with respect to projected employment figures.

The proponent stated on p169 of the RTS that their,

“experience with workforce requirements for existing mining operations (e.g. Maules Creek Coal Mine) have been used as the basis for the employment estimations provided in the Project EIS…Further detail regarding the Project workforce would be provided to Councils and other relevant stakeholders during the resourcing stage of the Project, to allow for community infrastructure planning.”

To date, the proponent has not revealed precise workforce data relating to this project and they have not been able to provide a reasonable explanation as to why workforce projections have increased so dramatically. It was noted by an expert at para 276 of the GRL case that some of the stated economic benefits of a different mining project had been “substantially overstated.” In the absence of verifiable employment data or updated projections based on transparent and reasonable assumptions, the employment figures may not be reliable. Therefore, the assumptions which underpin many other economic and revenue calculations relating to this project may also be flawed.

This will have an impact on the ability of the Narrabri and Boggabri communities to adequately plan for their future infrastructure requirements, which further strengthens the case for a fair and reasonable VPA. On page 169 of the RTS, the proponent has reiterated their commitment to use, “non-local personnel” during the construction phase of the project, due to the need for a more skilled workforce. While this approach may be convenient for the proponent from an operational and project delivery perspective, the fact that a significant proportion of the workforce will not be sourced locally further undermines the projected local economic benefits accruing from the Vickery Extension Project. There are also concerns that the proponent’s claim to employ “70% of the operational workforce…from within the region” (p170 RTS) will not actually benefit the Narrabri and Boggabri communities, given that many workers may choose to live in other locations such as Tamworth.

The proponent appears to concede this point by stating categorically that it “does not support a Development Consent condition which dictates where the workforce will reside…within the region” (p 170, RTS). Furthermore, the proponent’s target to employ “10% of the operational workforce being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander descent” (p170 RTS) does not represent the proportion of the local population that identify as having an Indigenous background (2016 ABS Census Statistics, Quick Stats).

The claim by the proponent that it “has no current plans for the Project to include an automated fleet” (p170 RTS), is also an area of concern given that Whitehaven has categorically denied any future plans to transition towards automation. At para 279 of the GRL case, some of the experts “queried whether the positive social benefits of local employment will be realised, having regard to increased automation and digitisation of the mining industry that have labour displacing effects (Lawrence Report, pp.32-33).”

A 2015 McKinsey report on the Metals and Mining Sector noted how productivity improvements can be achieved through digitisation (https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/metals-and-mining/our-insights/how-digital-innovation-can-improve-mining-productivity) and a further report noted how “innovations have lived up to that potential.” This analysis from a worldwide consulting firm indicates that mining companies will be investing in more technology and digitisation into the future, as opposed to moving away from it. Given the 25-year life cycle of this project, it is questionable that the proponent would commit to a manually driven fleet over such a long period of time. Given technological advances in mining, both in Australia and around the world, an automated fleet is likely to be an option for the proponent over the coming years and will most certainly reduce total employment projections over the long-term. As such the proponent needs to acknowledge this reality and give consideration to their employment projections accordingly.

Public Sentiment

The proponent has pointed out that the majority of objections as a result of this project originated from Special Interest Groups and that a majority of public submissions support the project (RTS pages 10 and 166). The proponent’s own figures demonstrate that the most important consideration, based on the content of submissions, relates to Social and Economic considerations (RTS page 11). In addition, more than 75% of these public submissions came from outside the local communities of Gunnedah, Narrabri and Boggabri (RTS page 10). It also appears that many submissions came from individuals or contractors that also had an existing relationship with the proponent or worked in the mining industry but based outside the local region, including resource intensive areas such as the Hunter Valley.

Recent community meetings demonstrate that the proponent lacks support across some key constituencies within the Narrabri Shire Local Government Area (“LGA”), particularly in the township of Boggabri, which is likely to bear the major social costs of this project. The GRL case noted in its analysis (para 401 and 410) of social impact that distributional inequity was a factor with respect to that particular project.

Without any reasonable contributions towards community infrastructure, economic and social development in the LGA, it is unlikely the proponent will gain the necessary trust among communities such as Boggabri, which prima facie appear to be resistant to many aspects of the Extension Project.

Change in Residents

The EIS has stated that the development would result in the following employment generation:

During Construction

· approximately 500 full time equivalent personnel

· majority of the construction workforce would be non-local hire

· 90% of the construction workforce is to be housed in the Boggabri Accommodation Camp.

During Operation

· approximately 450 full time equivalent personnel

· assumed 70% local hire (315 people)

· assumed 21% of the workforce would reside in Boggabri (94.5 people)

· assumed 13% of the workforce would reside in Narrabri (58.5 people)

Narrabri LGA is identified as an “importer” of mining workers in the Social Impact Assessment (“SIA”) provided with the EIS.

Conversely the SIA notes that during operation the project may:

· potentially increase the number of family households and interactions between families;

The documentation does not appear to provide any justification for the assumptions made regarding the expected workforce place of residence. In this regard, evidence should be provided to justify the assumptions made.

Furthermore, the RTS states (p.170):

“Whitehaven does not support a Development Consent condition which dictates where the workforce will reside, as it is ultimately dependent on individual preference where Project personnel and their families choose to reside within the region.”

Figure 1 illustrates that a significant number of people working in the mining industry within the Narrabri region, were living outside the LGA as of the 2016 Census. Figure 2 provides a comparison with the Gunnedah local government area and illustrates an almost opposite trend. This may suggest that towns in the Narrabri LGA are not receiving the claimed employment benefits from mining development.

In light of the above discussion, it is difficult to have confidence in the workforce population projected to reside in Boggabri and Narrabri. The proponent may need to revise their estimates with respect to the direct economic benefits and indirect social costs relating to the Vickery Extension Project, with more of a focus on the impacts on residents within the Narrabri LGA, and more specifically the township of Boggabri.

Figure 1 Narrabri Employment by Industry 2016

Figure 2 Gunnedah Employment by Industry 2016

If the workforce population projected to reside in Boggabri and Narrabri is to be accepted, it would seem unlikely that 94.5 people would be sourced from Boggabri having an existing population of approximately 850. Therefore, it would seem likely that these 94.5 people would be relocating to Boggabri and likewise for Narrabri. The EIS states:

“Whitehaven’s existing personnel include long term local residents, new local residents who have moved to the area as a result of employment and personnel who rent local houses, including Whitehaven-owned houses, and return to their home bases on weekends. Short term contractors are accommodated in the Civeo Villages in Boggabri and Narrabri.

Whitehaven is committed to employing a local workforce, and most of the Project’s operational personnel are expected to be drawn from the Narrabri and Gunnedah LGAs, or to move to the local area on a permanent basis, with some buying and some renting dwellings. If rental housing stocks are inadequate for demand when operations commence, non-local personnel would be accommodated in the Civeo Accommodation Village until such time as housing is available.”

It is not clear how the additional required accommodation would be provided in Boggabri and to a lesser extent in Narrabri. Further justification and information is required in order to validate the assumptions made in this regard.

The increase in demand for accommodation would likely increase housing prices and may adversely impact locals who are not earning mining wages both in terms of rental availability, cost and purchases of property. This may also have an impact on disadvantaged segments of the community, including those from lower-socioeconomic and indigenous backgrounds (see para 404 of GRL case).

The proponent concedes that “significant changes to gender balance in smaller communities are likely to occur…during the construction period” (p170, RTS). In the absence of additional social and community infrastructure to cope with the influx of construction workers, it is likely that the community of Boggabri will bear the social costs of the Vickery Extension Project, with minimal corresponding long-term economic benefit accruing to local residents. The proponent has had numerous opportunities to either address or respond to these concerns through the VPA process, but to date, has not yet developed an adequate response to these issues. There is a need for the proponent to clearly demonstrate its commitment to the long-term sustainability of smaller communities such as Boggabri.

The proponent states that “approximately 20% of the Project’s operational workforce would reside in Boggabri” (page 171 RTS), whilst at the same time conceding that they are not able to state this figure with any real confidence. Furthermore, they claim that an additional “28 new households moving to Boggabri” (page 171, RTS), without any reasonable foundation as to how they calculated this figure.

On the whole it is difficult to have confidence in the workforce population projected to reside in Boggabri and Narrabri or the degree to which the proponent will make a fair and reasonable contribution to the social and community infrastructure required if the “28 new households moving to Boggabri” (page 171, RTS) do materialise.

Drought

On page 171 of the RTS, the proponent has estimated that the

“loss in agricultural gross margins due to…allocated water licenses for the Project was estimated to be approximately $0.5 million annually.”

Based on recent media reports and comments by local farmers, this figure does not appear to be reasonable. There have been claims that corporate interests are paying much higher prices for water, which has arguably distorted local water markets and priced farmers out of temporary and permanent allocations. A recent ABC/7.30 report investigation https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-05/maules-creek-coal-mine-under-investigation-again-over-water-use/11658718, indicates that farmers

“typically pay $110-$130 per megalitre but have recently been outbid by mining companies paying up to $950 per megalitre for temporary water. For permanent water supplies, farmers say mining companies have paid almost twice the usual rate of $2,850-$2,950 per megalitre.”

Purchasing power dynamics in the water market, coupled with the ongoing drought, may mean that some farmers in the region will have to consider their long-term future in farming. The impact of drought has had a crippling effect on an agricultural industry that has been dealing concurrently with changing water policy and regulatory environments. The proponent acknowledges that, “Agriculture-related employment in rural Australia has reduced by almost 19% over the last 12 years” (page 175 RTS). The flow-on effect to the communities of Narrabri, Boggabri and Wee Waa has also been significant.

While the proponent may argue that economic impacts related to ongoing dry conditions may provide further rationale and impetus for the approval of the Vickery Extension Project, the drought is also one of the reasons why Council and the NSW Government must carefully consider the impact this project has on farming interests in the local region. The GRL case noted that in the analysis of social impacts that intangible considerations such as “way of life…social cohesion” (para 270) were part of the Department of Planning and Environment’s Social Impact Assessment Guide 2017. In addition, “sense of place…cultural and historical connections, and feelings of belonging and attachment to place” (para 312) were noted by some experts in the GRL case as important factors when considering the social impacts of that particular project.

Public submissions and media reports have noted that agricultural land required for this project has the potential to displace productive and fertile soils, which is essential to maintain the rate base and historic financial contributions made by the farming community. Even the proponent themselves concede that this proposal will “marginally reduce agricultural production” (p174, RTS).

Furthermore, there are intergenerational concerns with respect to these historic farming interests given that they have made significant economic contributions over the years to Narrabri LGA and surrounds. Farmers have proven themselves over decades to be reliable and long-term investment partners in smaller communities, even in drought. They often support sporting clubs, schools and community organisations as both participants and financial contributors. This is in contrast to the Vickery Extension Project where the economic and social benefits may have been arguably overstated and based on questionable assumptions.

There is likely to be significant inequity associated with any proposal by the proponent that does not compensate the local communities affected by the Extension Project as it may deprive farming interests of their ability to pass on their interests to subsequent generations who are also likely to contribute to the future economic growth of the Narrabri LGA, despite the impacts of technological disruption on agriculture. These intergenerational equity issues are a major concern for a local community that is likely to share in the economic prosperity of local farming interests, when the drought eventually breaks. Farmers contribute to the overall sense of place and social cohesion in smaller communities such as Boggabri. This can be contrasted to the Vickery Extension Project where the economic and social benefits may have been arguably overstated and based on unqualified assumptions. There are also intergenerational equity concerns surrounding the depletion of precious water resources as a result of this project, which are likely to have an impact on any remaining farmers that are not displaced as a result of this project.

Public Interest

On page 197 of the RTS, the proponent claims that information contained within the EIS provides sufficient foundation for the NSW Government to, “comfortably reach a conclusion that the benefits of the Project outweigh its impacts.” Based on the information and analysis contained within this document, and without any substantial contribution to the social and community infrastructure of the LGA, Council may not have the same confidence as the proponent with respect to Public Interest considerations related to this project.

At paragraph 565 of the GRL case, it was noted that “a positive NPV does not necessarily mean that the project is in the public interest.” To the best of Council’s understanding based upon the information made available, the proponent has not demonstrated adequate consideration of intergenerational or distributional equity issues relating to agricultural interests in the region and their perceived reluctance to minimise externalities related to this project, through the VPA process, tends to confirm this view. There are concerns from many in the region that the proponent is not meeting its current obligations with respect to water compliance.

Economic

With respect to commentary around transport routes and the project rail spur, there is a statement on p15 of the Response to Submissions (RTS), that the “Economic Assessment conservatively did not consider the associated socio-economic benefits.” This statement may need to be revised given that many of the assumptions in the economic assessment have been based on calculations and baseline figures that require further scrutiny.

The proponent states on p199 of the RTS that,

“the Project would benefit current and future generations through employment…stimulus to local and regional economies and provide NSW export earnings and royalties, thus contributing to future generations through social welfare, amenity and infrastructure.”

In the time since the EIS was drafted, prices for thermal coal and rates for foreign exchange and inflation have changed. The Australian Bureau of Resource Economics (ABARE) noted in recent exports report that since 2014/15 that there had been a -4.7% decline in the exchange rate, with a forecast rate of 0.68 AUD/USD in 2019/2020 (https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/research-topics/agricultural-commodities/sep-2019#download-report).

In addition, a recent report by the Reserve Bank of Australia noted that that both thermal and metallurgical coal prices have declined from 2012 to 2016 and have not returned to peak prices seen prior to the global financial crisis (https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2019/sep/the-changing-global-market-for-australian-coal.html). The same report highlights global economic uncertainty as a key influence affecting the coal market and increased supply in other countries. Therefore, many of the figures underpinning royalty, company tax and economic growth forecasts are not likely to reflect current rates and as such are considered to need review. In the GRL case, it was noted by one of the economic expert that lower coal prices may lead to “less royalties and corporate income tax” (para 573) and that tax minimisation practices by many coal mining companies would lead to a tax rate of “2.7% to 6.8% on total income, far below the 30% rate assumed” (para 583). As such, the figures used to justify economic benefits with respect to the Vickery Extension should be reviewed and based on justifiable/demonstrable rates to ensure the economic benefits are realistic.

Further, the RTS states on page 16 that

“the Project would result in an additional $500 million in net benefits to NSW (compared to the Approved Mine) and result in approximately 200 additional employment opportunities during operations and 450 additional employment opportunities during construction.”

As previously discussed, the methodology used to calculate the employment projections between the Approved Project and the Extension Project is not consistent. To the best of Council’s knowledge, there is no reasonable justification provided for why there is such a marked difference between the two projects.

Considering these potential discrepancies, the proponent should provide more evidence surrounding their forecasts of these figures or review their economic forecasts for royalties, company taxation, economic and employment growth.

ecologically sustainable development

Change in Land Use

The land within the Narrabri Shire LGA affected by the Vickery Extension Project comprises of the following uses as:

· cropping land;

· grazing on modified pastures;

· grazing on native vegetation; and

· extractive industry not in use;

· other minimal use commodities (i.e. previously mined area)

For the period of the project (25 years) the land use will be converted to mining land use.

The project proposes that the land affected by the mine would be rehabilitated to Woodland/Forest Area. This would see a permanent loss of cropping and most likely grazing land. Furthermore, any offset sites established within the LGA will also see a loss of previous land uses.

The EIS states:

The overall rehabilitation goal for the Project mining area is to enhance the cover and connectivity of native woodland, while retaining some areas of agricultural land capable of supporting cattle grazing (Whitehaven Coal, 2018)(Whitehaven Coal, 2018)(Whitehaven Coal, 2018)p.5-10.

Table 1 shows the change in vegetation type post development on the development site. This does not include any other offset sites used for providing biodiversity offsets.

Table 1: Comparison of Vegetation
Vegetation Type	Pre Development	Post Development	Change
Grassland	1,284 ha	342 ha*	-942 ha (73% â)
Native woodland/forest	464 ha	2,385 ha	1,922 ha (414% á)
Notes: * listed as agricultural land suitable for grazing, not specifically listed as grassland.

Whilst the rehabilitation will see improvements to biodiversity, further consideration needs to be given to the displacement of agricultural land uses. These land uses contribute to the local communities by supporting local residents and families involved in the community. The loss of these land uses will see the loss of people and jobs in the local area as a result of this land use displacement.

The aims of the Narrabri Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP) are:

(a) to encourage the orderly management, development and conservation of resources by protecting, enhancing and conserving—

(i) land of significance for agricultural production, and

(ii) timber, minerals, soil, water and other natural resources, and

(iii) areas of high scenic or recreational value, and

(iv) native plants and animals including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats, and

(v) places and buildings of heritage significance,

(b) to provide a choice of living opportunities and types of settlements,

(d) to ensure that development is sensitive to both the economic and social needs of the community, including the provision of community facilities and land for public purposes.

Whilst the aims of the LEP encourage the development of lands for mineral resources, it is required to also be orderly and protect land of significance for agricultural production and to ensure that development is sensitive to both the economic and social needs of the community.

There has been insufficient assessment on the displacement of the agricultural land uses and its impacts on the local community both during the operation of the mine and the post mining impacts of the rehabilitation displacement of agriculture, both on and off site.

Land Ownership

With the introduction of the development, land use ownership changes from locals to the mining company. The change occurs both on the actual footprint of the mine as well as sites acquired by the mining company to mitigate off-site amenity impacts and for biodiversity offset requirements.

Land ownership changes will result in locals moving out of the area which in turn will impact on the local community. The mining population that may be present in the local community during mine construction, operation and rehabilitation will provide some interaction with the local community; however, it is expected to be different to the displaced occupants.

Insufficient information has been provided and insufficient consideration given to the impact on the community in terms of the displacement of land owners as a result of Whitehaven’s purchase of land in the locality as a result of the project. Consideration should extend to escape spending (FIFO/DIDO), loss of local businesses, reduction in demand for local products/services, reductions in school enrolments, loss of volunteers, including emergency services.

Water Supply and Groundwater

The RTS document included the following statements with respect to water supply and groundwater:

· “the Project rail spur will be completely elevated on piers west of the Namoi River…effect of this is a reduction in the extent of potential flood impacts compared to these presented in the EIS.” (page 13)

· “the extent of the open cut is now proposed to be at least approximately 1.5km from the Namoi River” (page 20)

· “the project would present a low risk to the Namoi River.” (page 23)

· The proponent will “commit to holding sufficient water licenses to account for any post-mining take” (page 33). “the Project surface water management and monitoring program will be developed to validate and verify the EIS predictions.” (page 47)

· “the flow across the floodplain is not significantly altered by the Project rail spur for both events and would not result in a consequential effect to neighbouring properties or the environment” (page 60)

· the proponent “commits to holding sufficient water licences to meet operational water demands for the Project” (page 73)

· “no privately-owned bores in the vicinity of the Project, as identified by the bore census conducted in 2012, are predicted to have greater than 2m drawdown as a result of this Project” (page 20). On the same page it also refers to “extraction from the Project borefield at a rate of 600 megalitres (ML) per annum” as a conservative estimate. “the Project is expected to result in negligible impacts to users of the groundwater in the Namoi River alluvium” (page 27).

· The proponent notes that “groundwater monitoring results would be compared to model predictions, with the model revised and calibrated every 5 years as required” (page 28).

A recent ABC/730 report investigation on the Maules Creek Mine (operated by Whitehaven), which is publicly available at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-05/maules-creek-coal-mine-under-investigation-again-over-water-use/11658718) has created some concerns as to whether the Proponent can deliver on the claims made above in the RTS and EIS documents.

The ABC report claims that “the company has already been found by the NSW regulator to have allegedly taken surface water unlawfully.” As to whether or not these claims are valid will ultimately be settled between the proponent and the regulator or determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. However, the report did include correspondence from the regulator as follows:

“There are reasonable grounds to allege that the Mine has unlawfully taken surface water by relying on an inapplicable water licensing exemption…Investigation has determined the mine has intercepted major streams in a number of ways…As a result, the mine does not have sufficient entitlements on its surface water access licence on the unregulated system to cover the water previously claimed as exempt…The mine is also taking water in excess of its harvestable rights entitlements…The activities at the mine appear to deviate from existing planning approvals, which also raises potential compliance issues for DPIE – Planning.”

The fact that this report included copies of documentation from the regulator, which are now publicly available with such concerning claims from the regulator about the proponent’s record on water compliance, creates reasonable doubt as to whether the commitments made in the Vickery Extension EIS can actually be delivered.

Furthermore, given potential uncertainty in the water modelling, an
‘operate and monitor, revise and recalibrate’ modus operandi may prove completely unsatisfactory if the real impacts are markedly different to the model predictions.

The proponent “commits to holding sufficient water licences to meet operational water demands for the Project” (page 73). Given the above discussion on the impact of farmers being priced out of the market this approach may also prove completely unsatisfactory if it is achieved to the detriment of farmers.

Bushfire Risk

The project will result in a change to the bushfire risk of the area. Based on the proposed rehabilitation plan, the vegetation in the project area will change from grassland/cropping vegetation to woodland/forest. Woodland/Forest vegetation provides for a vastly different bushfire behaviour compared to grassland type vegetation. A review of the State Vegetation Map shows remnant vegetation in the vicinity of the site comprises North-west Slopes Dry Sclerophyll Woodlands.

The following provides a comparison of bushfire behaviour outputs for typical woodland vegetation versus a grassland vegetation, based on an effective and site slope of 5 degrees.

Vegetation Classification	Surface Fuel (t/ha)	Overall Fuel Load (t/ha)	Rate of Spread (km/h)	Flame Length (m)	Separation Distance to achieve 29kW/m² (BAL-29)
North West Slopes Dry Sclerophyll Forest	14	24.27	1.89	15.24	16.4m
Grassland	6	6	20.19	9.43m	10.4m

Grassland fires typically burn hotter, faster and have shorter residence times than woodland/forest fires (Planning for Bushfire Protection p.86). However, woodland/forest fires generally have greater flame lengths and emit greater radiant heat. Consideration has not been given to the change in bushfire risk resulting from the development and the resultant impacts.

Recent events across NSW have prompted greater consideration of Bushfire Risk Management throughout all parts of the state. The proponent may wish to consider contributing greater financial resources, through the VPA process, towards bushfire assets and infrastructure in the region, to ensure that the impacts of any future fires do not impact on local communities or their existing interests.

Conclusion

Throughout this process, it has become apparent that the proponent has used job creation as the primary social and economic driver for the approval of this project. However, the figures used to calculate these figures appear flawed and the purported economic benefits to the community of Boggabri seem unlikely to materialise.

Financial Implications

Nil.

Statutory and Policy Implications

Council’s Extractive Industries Policy states that Council will:

“Assume a leadership role in negotiating outcomes that provide benefit to our community.”

Consultation

External Consultation

Around thirty (30) members of the Boggabri community attended three community engagement sessions on 11 September 2019.

Internal Consultation

· Mayor.

· Councillors.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 17 December 2019

12.5 2020 Council Elections Update

Responsible Officer: Lindsay Mason, Director Corporate and Community Services

Author: Zoe Saunders, Community Relations Manager

Attachments: 1. Service Estimate Covering Letter ⇩

2. LGE 2020 Cost Estimate ⇩

3. Letter to Minister for Local Government ⇩

4. Table F: Council Net Bills Subsidised ⇩

5. Table E: Council Bills Cost Recovery No Subsidy ⇩

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 resolved at the September Ordinary Council Meeting to engage the services of the NSW Electoral Commission (“NSWEC”) to conduct the 2020 Council elections. At the time of the resolution deadline requested by NSWEC, the estimated total cost from the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (“IPART”) was used to provide a guide to the cost of running elections in 2020. The Office of Local Government delayed the deadline for making a decision until 1 October 2019 which meant all Councils conducting elections in 2020 had to have their resolutions passed without being provided a service estimate from the NSWEC.

Recommendation

1. That Council note the cost of the 2020 Local Government Election is $156,130 (inc. GST).

2. That the cost of the election be funded from the restricted asset held for elections being $127,000, with the remainder funded from operating expenses in 2020/21 financial year.

3. That Council continue to lobby the NSW Government over the increased cost burden to Narrabri Shire Council.

Background

Council elections are held every four (4) years and are next due in September 2020. Since 2008, council elections have been undertaken on a full cost recovery basis. The NSWEC pays the direct costs of the election and then invoices councils once the elections are completed plus an Election Management Fee to cover the NSWEC’s corporate overheads.

The NSW Government asked IPART to undertake a review of local government election costs for the 2020 elections. IPART was asked to recommend a costing methodology that minimises the financial burden on councils and ensures local government elections are conducted efficiently and cost effectively. The final report was issued on 18 September 2018 with associated costing methodologies that included comparison of individual Council bills including proposed government subsidy and excluding proposed government subsidy based off costings obtained from previous elections. Comparison of net bills under IPART’s proposal – including proposed government subsidy (nominal) indicated Narrabri’s 2016-2017 Electoral Commission bill was $82,000, the 2020 cost-reflective bill was estimated to be $115,000 and following the review, the revised estimated 2020 net bill, including the NSW government subsidy would equate to $89,000. The difference in the net bill versus the full cost recovery bill indicated an estimated reduction of $26,000, which represents a 23% decrease. (The costing estimates contained in the IPART report are attached to this report).

The IPART report was made available on 18 September 2019, the IPART report was reviewed and the estimates included in the September report presented to Council on 24 September 2019 with the model resolution that was required to be accepted prior to 1 October 2019.

Official service estimates from the NSWEC to conduct the 2020 Council elections were not received by Council prior to the September Ordinary Council Meeting where a resolution had to be made. Most other councils in NSW who resolved to engage the services of the NSWEC were also required to resolve to enter into an agreement prior to a cost estimate being provided by the NSWEC. Cost estimates were received by Council on 26 September 2019 (2 days after the September Ordinary Council Meeting). The cost estimate and covering letter received from the NSWEC are attached to this report. The estimated cost provided by NSWEC was $156,130, not the estimated $115,000 provided by the IPART review. Coupled with this is the NSWEC estimated price, which has had the subsidy applied to give this net figure. This means that without the subsidy provided by the NSW Government, the estimated price would have been $182,130 to run the election.

Upon receiving the cost estimates, Council contacted the NSWEC to enquire about the estimates provided due to the variance between the 2016 cost and the IPART costing methodology applicable to Narrabri Shire Council. NSWEC maintains the figures contained in the IPART report had no correlation to the cost estimates prepared by the NSWEC that were based on several costs that have increased including but not limited to; staffing, workers compensation insurance premiums, venue hire, printing, call centre costs.

Council wrote to the Minister of Local Government on 23 October 2019 regarding the significant variance in cost estimates from the IPART report. It is understood many councils have also contacted the Minister of Local Government regarding this issue.

Council received from the NSWEC the 2020 Election Service Agreement for the conduct of Council’s 2020 local government election on 7 November 2019. The agreement is to be entered on or before 1 January 2020.

Current Situation

Council have expressed their concerns with the increase in election costs with the Minister for Local Government and have questioned the cost estimate directly with the NSWEC. Council were required to resolve to enter into an arrangement with the NSWEC prior to 1 October 2019 which was done on 24 September 2019 without the ability to access cost estimates. The cost estimate received by Council to conduct the 2020 local government election is $156,130 including GST which Council are able to fund from the restricted asset account for Elections. Council are required by the resolution made in September, to enter into this agreement prior to, or on, 1 January 2020.

Financial Implications

The cost for the NSWEC to conduct the 2020 election (including the government subsidy) is $156,130 including GST. Council currently holds $127,000 in restricted assets for the running of elections. The remaining funds will be provided from operational funding.

Statutory and Policy Implications

Elections are conducted pursuant to section 296(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1993. It is mandatory to have an election in September 2020.

Consultation

External Consultation

· NSW Electoral Commission.

· NSW Minister for Local Government.

· IPART.

Internal Consultation

· Financial Services Manager.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 17 December 2019

12.9 Notice of Rescission - Narrabri Gas Project

Attachments: Nil

I, Councillor Ann Loder, give notice that at the next Ordinary Meeting of Council be held on 17 December 2019, I intend to move the following rescission motion; with Councillor Ron Campey and Councillor Robert Kneale being signatories:

Motion

That:

i) Resolution no. 260/2019 titled ‘Item 12.1 – Narrabri Gas Project’ that was passed on Tuesday 26 November 2019 of the Ordinary Council Meeting be rescinded, that reads:

1. That Council adopt the attached draft submission on the Narrabri Gas Project and submit the document to the New South Wales Government.

2. That Council commend Santos on their commitment to addressing Council’s concerns on their EIS submission.

3. That Council support the Narrabri Gas Project.

ii) And that this resolution be replaced with the following:

(a) That Council adopt the attached draft submission on the Narrabri Gas Project and submit the document to the New South Wales Government.

executive management remarks

The matter the subject of this rescission motion has been referred for legal review, this review has been received by Council.

This legal review concluded that the decision made on this matter was a valid decision of Council.

Further, this review concluded that some of the information supplied as rationale (below) to this rescission motion is not legally correct.

Rationale

The grounds on which I base this Rescission Motion:

Governance

The motion put forward by Cr Staines cannot be considered an amendment to the motion, it was an addition of motions. According to Section 10.11 of the Narrabri Shire Council's Code of Meeting Practice;

“An amendment to a motion must relate to the matter being dealt with in the original motion before the council and must not be a direct negative of the original motion. An amendment to a motion which does not relate to the matter being dealt with in the original motion, or which is a direct negative of the original motion, must be ruled out of order by the Chairperson.”

It can be argued that Points 2 and 3 put forward by Councillor Staines do not relate to the matter being dealt with in the original motion. The original motion dealt wholly and solely with the report presented to Council by Mr Boyce. The report focused on the issues Narrabri Shire Council raised in its submission to the Proponent's EIS and whether the Proponent had addressed the issues concerned. It then follows that under Section 10.11 of Narrabri Shire Council's Code of Meeting Practice that the motion put forward cannot be considered an amendment to the motion that was already in existence.

Following from this, the motion put forward by Councillor Staines is now governed by Section 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 of the Narrabri Shire Council's Code of Meeting Practice, which states:

9 CONSIDERATION OF BUSINESS A T COUNCIL MEETINGS

Business that can be dealt with at a council meeting

9.1 The council must not consider business at a meeting of the council:

(a) unless a councillor has given notice of the business, as required by clause 3.10 and

(b) unless notice of the business has been sent to the councillors in accordance with clause 3.7 in the case of an ordinary meeting or clause 3.9 in the case of an extraordinary meeting called in an emergency.

9.2 Clause 9.1 does not apply to consideration of business at a meeting, if the business:

(a) is already before, or directly relates to, a matter that is already before the council, or

(b) is the election of a chairperson to preside at the meeting, or

(d) is a motion for the adoption of recommendations of a committee, including, but not limited to, a committee of council.

9.3 Despite clause 9.1, business may be considered at a meeting of the council even though due notice of the business has not been given to the councillors if:

(a) a motion is passed to have the business considered at the meeting, and

(b) the business to be considered is ruled by the chairperson to be of great urgency on the grounds that it requires a decision by the council before the next scheduled ordinary meeting of council.

As it stands, the motion put forward does not comply with any of the points noted above from Section 9 of Narrabri Shire Council's Code of Meeting Practice. Notice of the business was not forwarded to all Councillors as required by Section 9.1 (a) and 9.1 (b) of the Narrabri Shire Council's Code of Meeting Practice.

The motion put forward does not comply with Section 9.2 of the Narrabri Shire Council's Code of Meeting Practice either. As established earlier in this report it does not directly relate to the matter already before Council, neither is it an election of a Chairperson, nor was it presented as a Mayoral Minute, nor was it a recommendation of a committee.

The motion put forward also does not comply with Section 9.3 of the Narrabri Shire Council's Code of Meeting Practice. No motion was put forward to consider this business at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 26 November 2019 and the business was not, and could not, be considered of great urgency that would allow it to be considered.

It therefore follows that the motion presented does not comply with Section 9 of the Narrabri Shire Council's Code of Meeting Practice and is therefore invalid and satisfies the requirements for a successful rescission motion.

Community Participation

One of Narrabri Shire Councils Vision's as noted in every Narrabri Shire Council Business Paper under Our Strategic Direction states:

Theme 1: Our Society

Strategic Direction 1: Safe, Inclusive and Connected Community

A safe, supportive community where everyone feels welcomed, valued and connected.

As it stands, the process which occurred for Cr Staines motion to pass through Council, is in direct conflict with Narrabri Shire Council's Strategic Direction. The fact that this motion was introduced from the floor with no notice to Councillors or the public:

1. excluded Councillors from being able to present cohesive and thorough arguments for or against the motion, which includes the presentation of documentation to support their argument, and

2. excluded the Community from having direct input into the debate by either making a presentation of their thoughts and ideas to the Councillors prior to the Council Meeting or contacting them prior to the meeting to state their support or opposition for the motion.

In no way did the process by which this motion was introduced to Council satisfy Narrabri Shire Council's Strategic Direction of Inclusiveness.

Engagement with Stakeholders

The final point of the Narrabri Shire Council's Extractive industries Policy states:

Engage with and respond to stakeholders, through open consultation processes.

Narrabri Shire Council can be very proud of the way it has dealt with the very controversial and difficult issues in relation to the Extractive Industries in our Community. Council staff have gone above and beyond, especially in this current term of Council to take a bi-partisan view in relation to Coal Seam Gas and Coal Mining and has made extraordinary efforts to gather information from the community no matter whether they are in favour of mining or not.

The statement above, which is taken directly out of the Narrabri Shire Council's Extractive Industries Policy, mandates that Narrabri Shire Council engage and respond with stakeholders, unfortunately the process with which Cr Staines motion passed through Council flies in the face of this very important component of Narrabri Shire Council's Extractive Industries Policy.

There is a lot of emotion around the debate concerning Coal Seam Gas Mining in the Narrabri Shire Council area, however, the arguments put forward above have been backed up by Narrabri Shire Council's own Policies and Procedures. This rescission motion is not based on emotion nor on the personal views of those putting it forward, it is based wholly on the failure of the proper and stringent processes required for successful governance of the Narrabri Shire. l, therefore, submit this rescission motion for consideration at the Ordinary Council Meeting scheduled for December 17, 2019.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 17 December 2019

12.10 Proposed Bunnings Narrabri

Responsible Officer: Daniel Boyce, Executive Manager Planning and Environment

Author: Daniel Boyce, Executive Manager Planning and Environment

Attachments: Nil

Delivery Program Alignment

4 Leadership
Objective	4.1 We will proactively engage and partner with the community and government to achieve our strategic goals
Strategy	4.1.2 Ensure the community is informed and involved in Council activities through implementing quality consultation

Executive Summary

The proposal comprising bulk earthworks, construction and use of a hardware and building supplies development including garden centre and associated signage and roadworks (“Bunnings Narrabri”) was lodged with Council on 20 December 2018.

During advertising of Bunnings Narrabri forty-two (42) submissions were received. Fourteen (14) were in support and twenty-seven (27) were against, with one (1) requesting further information.

On 23 January 2018 RMS advised Council of its objection to Bunnings Narrabri pursuant to section 70 of the Roads Act 1993 due to the proposed Newell Highway access.

Council requested further information from the applicant on 21 January and 18 April 2019 with a response received on 26 May 2019.

Amongst other things the response included amended plans proposing an alternative Newell Highway access via the existing access on the adjoining Lot 31 DP 1184780.

On 9 July 2019 RMS advised Council that it granted its concurrence to Bunnings Narrabri pursuant to section 70 of the Roads Act 1993 subject conditions.

Land owners’ consent was not provided for Lot 31 DP 1184780 at the time of the lodgement of the amended plans, however, the owner's consent can be supplied at any time before the determination of the application.

It is understood that the applicant has been working with the owners of Lot 31 DP 1184780 since May 2019 with a view to securing their consent. To date the owner's consent has not materialised.

Owner’s consent is an essential precondition to the granting of development consent. Any consent granted in its absence will be declared invalid.

Recommendation

That Council note the update on the proposed Bunnings Narrabri.

Background

The development application (“DA”) was initially advertised in the Courier newspaper, Council’s website and notified to adjoining property owners from 17 January 2019 to 28 February 2019. During this time, forty (40) submissions were received.

A preliminary assessment of Bunnings Narrabri was completed, and additional information requested from the applicant on 21 January 2019.

The DA was referred to Roads and Maritime Services (“RMS”) pursuant to section 70 of the Roads Act 1993, section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and Clause 104 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

On 23 January 2018 RMS advised Council of its objection to Bunnings Narrabri pursuant to section 70 of the Roads Act 1993 due to the proposed Newell Highway access.

Figure 1 Original proposed Newell Highway access for Bunnings Narrabri

Following a detailed assessment, further information was requested from the applicant on 18 April 2019.

On 26 May 2019 Council received a response from the applicant, including amended plans (Figure 3) proposing an alternative highway access arrangement via the existing access on the adjoining Lot 31 DP 1184780.

Figure 2 Amended proposed Newell Highway access for Bunnings Narrabri

Land owners’ consent was not provided for Lot 31 DP 1184780 at the time of the lodgement of the DA, however, the owner's consent can be supplied at any time before the determination of the application.

The amended DA was advertised in the Courier newspaper, Council’s website and notified to adjoining property owners from 30 May 2019 to 14 June 2019. An additional two (2) submissions were received.

One (1) of the submissions received indicated that the amended DA was difficult to understand with the SEE not being amended. Consequently, the applicant was requested to amend the SEE and the advertising period extended for an additional 14 days to end on 2 July 2019.

Of the forty-two (42) submissions (Table 1) on Bunnings Narrabri fourteen (14) were in support and twenty-seven (27) were against, with one (1) requesting further information.

Table 1 Summary of submissions

Category	Issue
Economic	Economic Impact Assessment required to determine whether the local market can support the proposed development.
	Economic impact assessment to determine impacts (short and long term) of the development on the wider community of the Narrabri Shire, including local employment market and community as a whole.
	Assessment to demonstrate a positive value proposition for the shire.
	Evidence is to be provided that the projected employment numbers are realistic based on long term Bunnings operational criteria (including employment metrics).
	Gross overestimation of job creation
	Require details on employment hours on average generated not the number of jobs.
	Will employ more casual staff than full time employees.
	Overestimation of the people that it will attract to town.
	The development will adversely impact on the existing small businesses in the towns within the LGA, particularly given the impacts the drought has had to date and on-line shopping.
	Will result in significant downturn for existing local businesses.
	Will result in significant loss of jobs for existing local business.
	Evidence is available to demonstrate that the introduction of a Bunnings store in country towns result in a down turn of approximately 50% for other hardware store owners.
	All the small hardware stores in Tamworth have closed since the introduction of Bunnings, and Tamworth is much larger than Narrabri.
	The size of the market is not large enough to support Bunnings and the existing developments in town.
	Will cause many local businesses to close.
	Prices will be increased by Bunnings once the competition has been removed from town.
	Local businesses cannot afford to absorb/cannot withstand losses like Bunnings.
	Will take trade from the smaller towns in the region and redirect to Narrabri. Will extend to more than just Bunnings catered for products. Consequentially will see the demise of shops in the smaller towns.
	Will result in a loss of sponsorship for local groups as supporting business will not be able to afford to continue to sponsor or go out of business. Bunnings won’t take over this sponsorship.
	Profits won’t be reinvested in the community like from local businesses
	The development will contravene section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 as it will have the effect of lessening the competition in the market.
	Pricing pressures means local businesses can’t complete (particularly with the beating it by 10% offer).
	Will not provide for healthy competition for local competitors because they know they can’t complete, particularly with the beating it by 10% offer.
	Not bringing new business to town, just competition.
	Local tradespeople or business will not be used for construction or during trading.
	Economic flow on effects from job and business losses (population decline, property market, school enrolments, other social services, people not being able to afford to drive to work in town with reduced employment hours).
Social	Will result in more empty shops in town, which creates an unhealthy environment for town centres.
	Will have a detrimental impact on the townships of Narrabri and Wee Waa
	What happens when Bunnings doesn’t find Narrabri profitable enough and leaves town after all the local hardware etc. businesses have closed. The area will be left with no hardware or similar services.
	Many local businesses provide a wider range of goods than Bunnings will. These additional goods will be lost to the town if the local businesses are forced to close.
	Loss of sponsorship of/donations to local groups, events, etc from local businesses as they close as Bunnings won’t take over.
	Social flow on effects from job and business losses (population decline, property market, school enrolments, other social services)
	No local return from the development
	Will reduce the diversity and character of businesses in the Narrabri and Wee Waa areas due to the loss of local businesses.
	Sufficient hardware and garden stores in Wee Waa and Narrabri.
	Current economic climate will make it difficult for people to find jobs should they lose their job as a result of pressures from the development.
	Will lose the personalised service/wealth of knowledge provided by local businesses.
	Approval of Bunnings will be at the expense of so many existing businesses.
Land Use	Will result in land use conflict with adjacent developments (Arrow Commodities and Auscott Limited), being heavy vehicles, dust and noise.
Insufficient information	Additional information is required to determine the impact of the following on adjoining developments: · local flooding from Narrabri Creek, Mulgate, Horse Arms/Doctors Creeks overflows · local run off and drainage in times of heavy rainfall events.
	The supply of electricity along the common boundary
	Boundary fencing requirements
	The overall plan incorrectly designates the premises next door as ‘Hay Sheds’, when it is in fact a cotton and commodities warehousing business including road and rail logistics.
Flawed Advertising	The amended architectural plans contradict the SEE that was advertised. Not all attachments included on website
Safety	Use of the proposed intersection with the highway is unsafe. Conflict between grain trucks and customer vehicles and delivery vehicles.
Support	More job opportunities brought to the shire. Great asset to the town. People who come from further west will come to Narrabri instead of just straight through to Tamworth for their shopping. Thus, more people coming to the main street and shopping in the local businesses as well. If businesses and population numbers grow, so too will services such as specialist medical, government departments, educational opportunities and expansions of community facilities, transport, etc. If Bunnings came to Narrabri, this may encourage other industries to come to our shire as well. People do not like to pay inflated prices, hence why people are buying online. The people will shop where the prices are right and reasonable. The interest of Bunnings coming to our community shows that we are a shire worth investing in. The hardware stores and other local businesses have no right to deny expansion of industry because it is in competition, that is how monopolies are formed. Bronte Quirk created a survey on Facebook. 1600 residents were ‘yes’ votes. 149 residents were ‘no’ votes.

On 9 July 2019 RMS advised Council that it granted its concurrence to Bunnings Narrabri pursuant to section 70 of the Roads Act 1993 subject conditions.

Current Situation

It is understood that the applicant has been working with the owners of Lot 31 DP 1184780 since May 2019 with a view to securing their consent. To date the owner's consent has not materialised.

If should be noted that owner’s consent is an essential precondition to any granting of development consent. If any consent is granted in its absence, that consent would be declared invalid.

Financial Implications

Nil.

Statutory and Policy Implications

Nil.

Consultation

During advertising of Bunnings Narrabri forty-two (42) submissions (Table 1) were received. Fourteen (14) were in support and twenty-seven (27) were against, with one (1) requesting further information.

4. Leadership
Objective	4.2 Decision making will ensure Council remains financially sustainable
Strategy	4.2.3 Modernise Council's service delivery, governance and management

2 Environment
Objective	2.4 The impacts of extractive industries on the environment will be minimised
Strategy	2.4.4 Potential environmental and community impacts are minimised through thorough assessment and independent monitoring