coffs harbour city council ordinary meeting … · community engagement strategy that has included...

COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

COFF AND CASTLE STREETS, COFFS HARBOUR

22 APRIL 2010

Contents ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 1

GM10/5 INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING - COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL RESOURCING STRATEGY

1

GM10/6 DRAFT 2010/2014 DELIVERY PROGRAM AND DRAFT 2010/2011 OPERATIONAL PLAN

9

CITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORTS 22

CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

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

CS10/10 TENDER: RISING MAIN 61 - PART RENEWAL - CONTRACT NO. 09/10-426-TO

22

A portion of this report is confidential for the reason of Section 10A (2):

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

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

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

(iii) reveal a trade secret.

and in accordance with Section 10A (1) the meeting may be closed to the public.

mahmaureen

Sticky Note

Minutes for this meeting will be confirmed at the Council Meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, Council Administration Building, on 13 May 2010 commencing at 5.00pm

CORPORATE BUSINESS DEPARTMENT REPORTS 27

CB10/18 COFFS HARBOUR REGIONAL AIRPORT CAR PARKING 27

CB10/19 MONTHLY BUDGET REVIEWS FOR DECEMBER 2009, JANUARY & FEBRUARY 2010

30

CB10/20 COUNCIL PREMISES AT 23 GORDON STREET COFFS HARBOUR - LEASE PROPOSAL

33

CB10/21 PROCUREMENT POLICY 37

CB10/22 INVESTMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY 43

CB10/23 BANK BALANCES AND INVESTMENTS FOR FEBRUARY AND MARCH 2010

66

LAND USE HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT 88

L10/2 “OUR LIVING COAST” REGIONAL SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE 88

L10/3 DRAFT PRIORITY HABITATS AND CORRIDORS STRATEGY 2010 – 2030

92

ORDINARY MEETING 22 APRIL 2010 - 1 -

COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING

22 APRIL 2010 Mayor and Councillors GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT

GM10/5 INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING - COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL RESOURCING STRATEGY

Purpose: To present the proposed Resourcing Strategy required to support Council's implementation of the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework from 1 July 2010. This report recommends the strategy – comprising a Long Term Financial Plan, an Asset Management Strategy and a Workforce Management Strategy – be adopted. Description of Item: As a result of new Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) reforms to the Local Government Act, Council is now required to prepare and implement a Resourcing Strategy to help achieve the objectives established by the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan. The Resourcing Strategy must have three components: a Long Term Financial Plan (with a minimum timeframe of ten years), an Asset Management Strategy (with a minimum timeframe of ten years),and a Workforce Management Strategy (with a minimum timeframe of four years) The IPR legislation recognizes that the community’s aspirations for the city (as expressed in the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan) cannot be achieved without sufficient resources – time, money, assets and people. The Resourcing Strategy informs and supports Council’s Delivery Program and Operational Plan which detail the activities to be undertaken in implementing the 2030 strategies for which Council is responsible.


GM10/5 Integrated Planning and Reporting - Coffs Harbour City Council Resourcing Strategy (Cont'd) Over the last decade, Council has made considerable advances in the development of long-term financial planning and asset management structures. Similarly, it has reflected industry best practice in Human Resources and Workforce Management. Since the release of the draft Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework legislation in May 2009, Council has focused on formalizing its resourcing structures in line with the new requirements. This process has been completed. A printed copy of the Resourcing Strategy is available in the Councillor’s room; once adopted, it will be published on Council’s website: www.coffsharbour.nsw.gov.au. Council has been gazetted among the ‘Group 1 Councils’ to implement the IPR Framework from 1 July 2010. Accordingly, Council’s Resourcing Strategy is now put forward for adoption. It is worth noting that long-term resource planning serves to highlight the resourcing challenges faced by Council as it attempts to respond to the demands of a growing population and an ageing and inadequate infrastructure inventory. The NSW Government has made it clear that the development of an effective, long-term Resourcing Strategy is critical for any council seeking approval for a Special Rate Variation. Sustainability Assessment: Environment

The Resourcing Strategy informs and supports Council’s Delivery Program and Operational Plan which include a comprehensive range of activities aimed at addressing environmental issues.

Social

The Resourcing Strategy is integrated with the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan, optimizing community input into long-term planning for the city. The implementation of long-range strategies contributes to the ordered and smooth delivery of Council programs aimed at enhancing the social development of Coffs Harbour.

Economic

Broader Economic Implications

The Resourcing Strategy sets out the long-term financial challenges faced by Council, particularly in addressing the city’s considerable asset management issues. Council’s Long-Term Financial Plan includes funding strategies that incorporate rate variation proposals and these may have a financial impact on the community. It must be remembered, however, that the Resourcing Strategy supports Council’s Delivery Program and Operational Plan which feature a range of measures to assist and contribute to the economic development of Coffs Harbour.


GM10/5 Integrated Planning and Reporting - Coffs Harbour City Council Resourcing Strategy (Cont'd) 2009/2012 Management Plan Implications

Council’s current budget allows for the development of the Resourcing Strategy. This expenditure is monitored through Council’s monthly and quarterly budget reviews. It should be noted that the Sustainability Assessment section of Council reports will refer to Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications from 1 July 2010.

Civic Leadership

The implementation of the new Integrated Planning and Reporting framework will assist councils to adopt a more strategic approach to the delivery of programs and services that address the long-term aspirations of the community. It will also improve the organizational accountability of councils. The development and adoption of the Resourcing Strategy helps to demonstrate Coffs Harbour City Council’s commitment to civic leadership in achieving those objectives.

Consultation: The Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan was developed through a lengthy and comprehensive community engagement process. The long-range issues identified during that process have helped to inform the development of Council’s Resourcing Strategy. Councillors have had the opportunity to participate in a number of workshops to review Council’s strategic priorities and resourcing options to allow the organization to move forward in line with the Themes, Objectives and Strategies identified in the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan. The information and directions arising from the workshops have contributed to the finalisation of the Resourcing Strategy. The Long Term Financial Plan incorporates projections based on a proposal to seek a 7% Special Variation to General Income in 2010/2011. This proposal has been the focus of a separate community engagement strategy that has included a media, website and advertising campaign, a mail-out to absentee ratepayers, and stakeholder and community forums. An initial public exhibition period was staged and promoted from 12 March until 19 April 2010, with an emphasis placed on encouraging people to make submissions on the proposal. A summary of submissions is being prepared to assist the Department of Local Government to assess Council’s application. A separate report to Council recommends the adoption of the Draft 2010/2014 Delivery Program and Draft 2010/2011 Operational Plan for public exhibition, further extending the community engagement process associated with the implementation of the IPR framework. Related Policy and / or Precedents: This is to be Council's first Resourcing Strategy prepared under the Local Government Amendment (Planning and Reporting) Act 2009.


GM10/5 Integrated Planning and Reporting - Coffs Harbour City Council Resourcing Strategy (Cont'd) Statutory Requirements: Section 403 of the Local Government Act 1993 details the following requirements in relation to a council’s Resourcing Strategy: 1. A council must have a long-term strategy (called its resourcing strategy) for the provision of

the resources required to implement the strategies established by the community strategic plan that the council is responsible for.

2. The resourcing strategy is to include long-term financial planning, workforce management

planning and asset management planning. Issues: Further to the reports of 9 July 2009, 12 November 2009 and 11 February 2010, Council has kept pace with the evolution and introduction of the new Integrated Planning and Reporting framework for NSW councils. The framework represents a significant local government reform package with the intention of improving councils’ long term community, financial and asset planning. The changes are expected to assist councils to: integrate and streamline statutory planning and reporting; strengthen strategic focus; align with national sustainability frameworks; and ensure accountability and responsiveness to local communities. Council has nominated to be in the first group of councils to adopt IPR, electing an implementation date of 1 July 2010. The framework (see diagram below) requires the development and implementation of the following components: a Community Strategic Plan – developed and maintained with the assistance of a community

engagement strategy, and covering a timeframe of at least 10 years; a long term Resourcing Strategy (Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce

Management Strategy); a four-year Delivery Program (generally aligned to the term of each council); a one-year Operational Plan; an Annual Report; and an ongoing monitoring and review process.


GM10/5 Integrated Planning and Reporting - Coffs Harbour City Council Resourcing Strategy (Cont'd)

After a comprehensive program of community engagement activities, the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan was adopted by Council as the city’s Community Strategic Plan on 17 December 2009. Council’s responsibilities and options in resourcing the 2030 strategies represent an ongoing challenge. Council’s Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy are detailed in this report. They will be the subject of continual review. The Draft 2010/2014 Delivery Program and Draft 2010/2011 Operational Plan are the subjects of a separate report to Council. The monitoring, review and annual reporting requirements of the IPR legislation are the focus of ongoing work by Council. The NSW Government has provided guidelines to assist councils in developing their Resourcing Strategies. The Guidelines, as well as the full legislation and a Manual, can be accessed via an Integrated Planning and Reporting link on the Department of Local Government website (www.dlg.nsw.gov.au). The following “Essential Elements” are identified in the guidelines (pages 11 to 15):


GM10/5 Integrated Planning and Reporting - Coffs Harbour City Council Resourcing Strategy (Cont'd) Long Term Financial Planning

2.1 Each council must prepare a Long Term Financial Plan. 2.2 The Long Term Financial Plan must be used to inform decision making during the

finalisation of the Community Strategic Plan and the development of the Delivery Program.

2.3 The Long Term Financial Plan must be for a minimum of 10 years. 2.4 The Long Term Financial Plan must be updated at least annually as part of the

development of the Operational Plan. 2.5 The Long Term Financial Plan must be reviewed in detail as part of the four yearly

review of the Community Strategic Plan. 2.6 The Long Term Financial Plan must include:

Projected income and expenditure, balance sheet and cash flow statement Planning assumptions used to develop the Plan Sensitivity analysis - highlights factors/assumptions most likely to affect the Plan Financial modelling for different scenarios e.g. planned/optimistic/ conservative Methods of monitoring financial performance.

Workforce Management Planning

2.7 A Workforce Management Strategy must be developed to address the human resourcing requirements of a council’s Delivery Program.

2.8 The Workforce Management Strategy must be for a minimum timeframe of 4 years.

Asset Management Planning

2.9 Each council must account for and plan for all of the existing assets under its ownership, and any new asset solutions proposed in its Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program.

2.10 Each council must prepare an Asset Management Strategy and Asset Management Plan/s to support the Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program.

2.11 The Asset Management Strategy and Plan/s must be for a minimum timeframe of 10 years.

2.12 The Asset Management Strategy must include a council endorsed Asset Management Policy.

2.13 The Asset Management Strategy must identify assets that are critical to the council’s operations and outline risk management strategies for these assets.

2.14 The Asset Management Strategy must include specific actions required to improve council’s asset management capability and projected resource requirements and timeframes.

2.15 The Asset Management Plan/s must encompass all the assets under a council’s control.

2.16 The Asset Management Plan/s must identify asset service standards. 2.17 The Asset Management Plan/s must contain long term projections of asset

maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement costs. 2.18 Councils must report on the condition of their assets in their annual financial

statements in line with the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.


GM10/5 Integrated Planning and Reporting - Coffs Harbour City Council Resourcing Strategy (Cont'd) Long Term Financial Plan

The existing Long Term Financial Plan is currently being updated and transferred to a new system provided by LG Solutions. This system will better address the new Integrated Planning and Reporting requirements. The Financial Plan will incorporate project information from the Rolling Capital Works Program. The Program includes new projects as well as capitalized renewal and rehabilitation works. The projects and works sources have informed the development of the Draft Delivery Program and Draft Operational Plan as Council’s response to the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan. The link between the Asset Management Strategy and the Long Term Financial Plan will relate to Asset Management Plans providing details of the levels of maintenance, renewal and rehabilitation expenditures required by priority. This will tie to the Rolling Capital Works Program which will list projects and works in priority order and show those which would be constructed to meet Asset Plan requirements and which are included in the Delivery Program and Operational Plan. Workforce Planning will be an important part of ensuring that projects and works are achieved by the most effective and efficient means possible. Two Long Term Financial Plans are being prepared – one with the proposed rate variation for flood mitigation works and one without. Other scenarios will be able to be developed in relation to additional projects and works as required. As Council has limited financial resources, there is little opportunity within the ten-year life of the current Long Term Financial Plan to provide additional expenditure for projects and works without rate variations. The possibility of applying for a rate variation over several years – commencing 2011/2012 – has been flagged as a means of providing funds to meet both infrastructure requirements and community expectations.

Workforce Management Strategy

The Workforce Management Strategy formalizes a set of objectives and practices (which are already in place) to assist Council to attract and retain a sustainable workforce to support its Delivery Program in pursuing the objectives of the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan. The demographics of the Australian workforce are such that attention needs to be given to these objectives and practices if Council is to ensure a supply of professional and well-trained staff into the future.

Asset Management Strategy Council adopted an Asset Management Policy in February 2010. A draft Asset Management Strategy has been prepared. The document identifies 16 areas of Asset Management practice and reviews each of these areas in regard to Council's current and desired capability. Actions have been identified and prioritised which will aid Council in moving towards improved Asset Management practices.


GM10/5 Integrated Planning and Reporting - Coffs Harbour City Council Resourcing Strategy (Cont'd)

To supplement the Asset Management Strategy, Asset Management Plans will be prepared for Council's major classes of Infrastructure assets. It is anticipated that these plans will be completed by June 2010.

Options Council is required by law to prepare a Resourcing Strategy. As well as being a legislative requirement, however, the Resourcing Strategy represents sound business practice and will contribute to the ongoing development of Council as an organization that takes a strategic approach to meeting its community aspirations. Implementation Date / Priority: Once adopted, the Resourcing Strategy will be implemented from 1 July 2010. Recommendation: That Council adopts the Resourcing Strategy.


GM10/6 DRAFT 2010/2014 DELIVERY PROGRAM AND DRAFT 2010/2011 OPERATIONAL PLAN

Purpose: To present Council's Draft 2010/2014 Delivery Program and Draft 2010/2011 Operational Plan. This report recommends the draft documents be adopted for public exhibition. Description of Item: As a result of new Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) reforms to the Local Government Act, Council is now required to prepare and implement a Delivery Program (to cover a four-year period) and an Operational Plan for each financial year. From 1 July 2010, these documents will perform the function currently served by the Management Plan. They outline the principal activities and budgets that Council proposes to pursue in fulfilling its responsibilities in regard to implementing the strategies and achieving the objectives set out in the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan. Council has spent much of 2009/2010 in reviewing its strategic directions, operational activities and resources, and planning and reporting structures. The Draft 2010/2014 Delivery Program and Draft 2010/2011 Operational Plan are integrated with Council’s new Resourcing Strategy (see separate report to Council: GM10/5 Integrated Planning and Reporting – Coffs Harbour City Council Resourcing Strategy) and represent Council’s initial response to the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan. The Draft Operational Plan incorporates Council’s Draft Fees and Charges and Draft Works Schedules for 2010/2011. It is intended that the Delivery Program and Operational Plan will be accessed primarily via Council’s website, although hard copies will be available at Council’s usual display points. Councillors may view a hard copy of the draft documents in the Councillors’ Room. This report recommends that Council adopt the Draft 2010/2014 Delivery Program and Draft 2010/2011 Operational Plan to enable them to be placed on public exhibition. Sustainability Assessment: The Delivery Program and Operational Plan models stem from statewide planning reforms that are based on Sustainability and Quadruple Bottom Line (QBL) principles. That is, there is a requirement that each component identify and address social, environmental, economic and civic leadership issues. Environment

The release of the drafts for public exhibition will have no environmental impacts apart from printing and energy costs. Consistent with Council policy, these costs will be kept to a minimum. Environmental issues relating to Council and the city are identified and addressed in a number of strategies encompassed by the Draft Delivery Program and Draft Operational Plan.


GM10/6 - Draft 2010/2014 Delivery Program and Draft 2010/2011 Operational Plan (Cont'd) Social

The public exhibition process will assist community engagement in the finalisation of the Delivery Program and Operational Plan. Consistent with the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan, the draft documents include a range of strategies to enhance the social development of Coffs Harbour.

Economic


There are no broad economic impacts associated with the public exhibition process. The Draft Delivery Program and Draft Operational Plan include a number of strategies to assist and contribute to the economic development of Coffs Harbour.

2009/2012 Management Plan Implications

Council’s current budget allows for the development of the Delivery Program and the Operational Plan. This expenditure is monitored through Council’s monthly and quarterly budget reviews. It should be noted that the Sustainability Assessment section of Council reports will refer to Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications from 1 July 2010.

Civic Leadership

The implementation of the new Integrated Planning and Reporting framework will assist councils to better align their operations with the long-term aspirations of the community and at the same time improve their organizational accountability. Coffs Harbour City Council’s ready implementation of the IPR reforms (from 1 July 2010) demonstrates a commitment to civic leadership in achieving those objectives. However, civic leadership and community engagement go hand in hand; the exhibition of the draft documents facilitates public involvement in the IPR process.

Consultation: The State Government has made community engagement a central part of the new Integrated Planning and Reporting framework. The Delivery Program and Operational Plan must represent Council’s response to the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan which has been developed through a lengthy and comprehensive community engagement process. The public exhibition of the Draft Delivery Program and Draft Operational Plan extends that engagement. Councillors have had the opportunity to participate in a number of workshops to review Council’s strategic priorities and resourcing options to allow the organization to move forward in line with the Themes, Objectives and Strategies identified in the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan. The information and directions arising from the workshops have contributed to the finalisation of projects and budgets by senior staff and managers.


GM10/6 - Draft 2010/2014 Delivery Program and Draft 2010/2011 Operational Plan (Cont'd) A key feature of the Draft 2010/2014 Delivery Program and Draft 2010/2011 Operational Plan is the proposal to seek a 7% Special Variation to General Income in 2010/2011 (see Issues section of this report). This proposal has been the focus of a separate community engagement strategy that has included a media, website and advertising campaign, a mail-out to absentee ratepayers, and stakeholder and community forums. An initial public exhibition period was staged and promoted from 12 March until 19 April 2010, with an emphasis placed on encouraging people to make submissions on the proposal. A summary of submissions is being prepared to assist the Department of Local Government to assess Council’s application. This report recommends the Draft 2010/2014 Delivery Program and Draft 2010/2011 Operational Plan be adopted and placed on public exhibition for a 28-day period from Tuesday, 27 April until close of business on Tuesday, 25 May 2010. Public consultation during this period will include: meetings with management committees of council facilities; consultations with key community groups; public information and website displays, media releases and newspaper advertising. Feedback from the Special Variation Community Engagement Strategy will also be included in this process. Community submissions to the draft plans, a summary of recommended responses to submissions, and a Final Draft Delivery Program and Draft Operational Plan will be presented for consideration at the Council meeting on Thursday, 24 June 2010. The adopted 2010/2014 Delivery Program and 2010/2011 Operational Plan will be posted on Council’s website by 30 June 2010. Where hard copies are required, the documents will be printed and distributed in July 2010. Related Policy and / or Precedents: This is to be Council's first Delivery Program and Operational Plan prepared under the Local Government Amendment (Planning and Reporting) Act 2009. Statutory Requirements: Section 404 of the Local Government Act 1993 details the following requirements in relation to a council’s Delivery program: 1. A council must have a program (its delivery program) detailing the principal activities to be

undertaken by the council to implement the strategies established by the community strategic plan within the resources available under the resourcing strategy.

2. The delivery program must include a method of assessment to determine the effectiveness

of each principal activity detailed in the delivery program in implementing the strategies and achieving the strategic objectives at which the principal activity is directed.

3. The council must establish a new delivery program after each ordinary election of councillors

to cover the principal activities of the council for the 4-year period commencing on 1 July following the election.

4. A draft delivery program must be placed on public exhibition for a period of at least 28 days

and submissions received by the council must be considered by the council before the delivery program is adopted by the council.


GM10/6 - Draft 2010/2014 Delivery Program and Draft 2010/2011 Operational Plan (Cont'd) 5. The general manager must ensure that regular progress reports are provided to the council

reporting as to its progress with respect to the principal activities detailed in its delivery program. Progress reports must be provided at least every 6 months.

Section 405 of the Act details the following requirements in relation to a council’s Operational Plan: 1. A council must have a plan (its operational plan) that is adopted before the beginning of each

year and details the activities to be engaged in by the council during the year as part of the delivery program covering that year.

2. An operational plan must include a statement of the council’s revenue policy for the year

covered by the operational plan. The statement of revenue policy must include the statements and particulars required by the regulations.

3. A council must prepare a draft operational plan and give public notice of the draft indicating

that submissions may be made to the council at any time during the period (not less than 28 days) that the draft is to be on public exhibition. The council must publicly exhibit the draft operational plan in accordance with the notice.

4. During the period of public exhibition, the council must have for inspection at its office (and at

such other places as it may determine) a map that shows those parts of its area to which each category and sub-category of the ordinary rate and each special rate included in the draft operational plan applies.

5. In deciding on the final operational plan to be adopted, a council must consider any

submissions that have been made concerning the draft plan. 6. The council must post a copy of its operational plan on the council’s website within 28 days

after the plan is adopted. Additional requirements for the Operational Plan are set out in Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 – Clause 201 (relating to the content of Council’s annual statement of revenue policy) and Clause 203 (relating to reporting requirements for budget review statements and estimates revisions). Issues: The development of a Delivery Program and Operational Plan is a requirement under the newly introduced Integrated Planning and Reporting framework. This context has been addressed in a separate report to Council (Integrated Planning and Reporting – Coffs Harbour City Council Resourcing Strategy). Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines

The NSW Government has provided guidelines to assist councils in developing their Delivery Programs and Operational Plans. The Guidelines, as well as the full legislation and a Manual, can be accessed via an Integrated Planning and Reporting link on the Department of Local Government website (www.dlg.nsw.gov.au). The following “Essential Elements” are identified in the guidelines (pages 18 and 21):


GM10/6 - Draft 2010/2014 Delivery Program and Draft 2010/2011 Operational Plan (Cont'd)

“What is the basic structure of the Delivery Program? 3.2 The Delivery Program must directly address the objectives and strategies of the

Community Strategic Plan and identify principal activities that council will undertake in response to the objectives and strategies.

3.3 The Delivery Program must inform, and be informed by, the Resourcing Strategy. 3.4 The Delivery Program must address the full range of council operations. 3.5 The Delivery Program must allocate high level responsibilities for each action or set of

actions. 3.6 Financial estimates for the four year period must be included in the Delivery Program. What input should the community have in the development of the Delivery Program? 3.7 Council must consider priorities and expected levels of service expressed by the

community during the engagement process for the Community Strategic Plan when preparing its Delivery Program.

3.8 The draft Delivery Program must be exhibited for public comment for a minimum of 28 days and public submissions must be accepted and considered before the final program is adopted.

What is the basic structure of the Operational Plan? 3.13 The Operational Plan must be prepared as a sub-plan of the Delivery Program. It must

directly address the actions outlined in the Delivery Program and identify projects, programs or activities that Council will undertake within the financial year towards addressing these actions.

3.14 The Operational Plan must allocate responsibilities for each project, program or activity.

3.15 It must identify suitable measures to determine the effectiveness of the projects, programs and activities undertaken.

3.16 The Operational Plan must include a detailed budget for the activities to be undertaken in that year.”

An extensive review of Council operations and performance measures has been undertaken – in tandem with the development of long term resourcing strategies - to ensure Council is positioned to address its responsibilities under the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan.

Plan Structures

Council’s Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan have been structured to match the Themes, Objectives and Strategies of the 2030 Plan. Each of Council’s budget programs and operational activities is aligned (on a ‘best fit’ basis) with a 2030 Strategy. Some programs and activities play a role in implementing more than one strategy and are aligned accordingly. In a number of instances, however, programs and activities relate to the general running of Council as an organization (eg, Finance, Information Systems, Governance and Legal Services) rather than to a specific 2030 goal. To accommodate these programs and activities, an additional Theme – Our Council – has been established within the Delivery Program, with an additional objective and strategies that are consistent with Council’s organizational processes.



Illustrated simply, the Draft Delivery Program sets out the following: Much of the work Council undertakes is of a ‘Service’ nature; that is, activities that are carried out on a regular basis and have no ‘end-date’ (for example, street cleaning, Customer Service, the hire of Community Facilities, etc). The rest of Council’s workload is made up of projects with specific start and end-dates (including the development of plans and strategies and the implementation of new processes); in many cases, projects have individual budgets (for example, the proposed flood mitigation works associated with the rate variation application). Each Thematic section in the Draft Delivery Program includes an overview of projects scheduled to be undertaken during the four-year term of the document.

The Draft Operational Plan is structured as follows: Performance measures have been assigned to each Council activity in the Draft Operational Plan. These will allow performance measurement at activity and budget program levels and will contribute to the assessment of performance at strategic and organizational hierarchy levels. The development of long-term sustainability indicators is an ongoing project for Coffs Harbour 2030; preliminary measures in the Delivery Program (for assessing outcomes relating to 2030 Objectives) will be reviewed as sustainability indicators are finalized.

Theme

Outcome

Objective (and Objective Measure)

Strategy (and Council’s identified role as Provider/Facilitator/Advocate)

Council Budget Program (and Responsible Officer)

Program Activity/ies

Performance Measure/s

Strategy/ies (addressed by Program Activities)

Council Budget Program (and Responsible Officer)

Detailed Budget 2010/2011



Each program is supported by a detailed budget identifying allocations for 2010/2011 and the subsequent three years. For reference, the adopted budget figures for the previous year (2009/2010) are also provided.

2010/2014 Financial Estimates

The Financial Estimates for the four years have been prepared in considerable detail, ie the same detail as the 2010/11 Budget. A review of the estimates for each fund reveals as follows: General Fund

The draft four year's Estimates each return deficit results as set out below:

Year Financial Estimate

2010/11 $530,802 2011/12 $821,530 2012/13 $1,419,622 2013/14 $865,336

Operational incomes and expenditures are tightly budgeted and have been subject to constant scrutiny in recent years. There is little revenue funded capital expenditures, apart from asset renewal and rehabilitation programs which are not at sufficient levels to meet requirements and reduce backlogs. There are significant capital works planned which are funded from rate variations, trading operations, grants, loans, S94 contributions, reserves etc. In summary, Council's estimates are not meeting appropriate expenditure levels in relation to operations, asset renewals and capital works. Future rate variations seem the only long term answer for Council. Water and Sewerage Funds Both the Water and Sewerage Funds have undertaken massive programs of capital works in recent years. These works have been essential to maintain the viability of our city. The programs of works have been primarily funded from loan borrowings with resulting large annual loan repayments. This has resulted in rates and annual charges increasing at a reasonable rate over the years to significant levels. In order to maintain reasonable rating levels, cash reserves are being used to fund significant deficits in each fund over the four years. The draft Estimates provide for the deficits to decrease over the years. They are set out below: Year Water Sewerage 2010/11 $5,257,469 $4,124,5582011/12 $4,898,755 $4,299,0842012/13 $4,642,915 $3,660,6342013/14 $4,440,292 $2,907,290



In the longer term, Council's financial modeling provides for deficits to be eliminated whilst maintaining financial viability, as fixed term loans are repaid, rates and charges increase and developer contributions are received.

Special Rate Variation

Council has identified a major program of drainage and flood mitigation works (having an estimated cost of $18M) that must be undertaken in an attempt to minimise the effects of any future flooding events on the community in addition to a range of regular flood mitigation and drainage projects. Council has previously resolved to take out a loan for $6M to provide one third of the required funding for these vital works. This loan is to be funded from Council’s existing Storm Water Levy which will leave little to no funds available to meet ongoing flood mitigation and storm water works. It is unlikely - in the short term, at least - that the NSW or Australian Governments will agree to Council’s appeals to provide additional funding for the proposed works. Accordingly, Council must now find a way to fund the balance of the works program. A review of Council’s current financial position indicates the only way forward is to seek the community’s support for Council’s application to the State Government for a Special Rate Variation. The application for a Special Rate Variation has been made in accordance with Section 508(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, requesting the Minister of Local Government to approve a 4.4% percentage increase on top of the announced 2.6% rate pegging limit for 2010/2011 (for a fixed period of 10 years). The additional rate income generated from a proposed 4.4% rate rise would partly fund another loan borrowing of $6M to be spent on further flood mitigation and drainage works. The proposed term of this loan will be 10 years commencing in 2010/2011. The remaining funds from the proposed rate rise and the Storm Water Levy would contribute towards Council’s ‘Drainage Improvement Works Program’. This program of works identifies flood mitigation and drainage improvement works over the next ten years which would have been normally funded completely from Council’s Storm Water Levy income. Impact on Residential Ratepayers

If the ‘rate rise’ is approved, a typical residential ratepayer will expect a total rate increase (including annual and usage charges) of approximately $111.01 per annum (or $2.13 per week), which is a 4.4% increase from 2009/2010.

The impact upon the typical residential ratepayer's rate notice and annual water usage accounts is as follows:



Increase Rates & Charges

2009/2010 ($)

2010/2011 ($) Amount

($) %

Residential Ordinary Rate 796.67 852.89 56.22 *7.1 Environmental Levy 32.76 35.05 2.29 7.0 Sewerage Access Charge 676.00 698.00 22.00 3.3 Water Access Charge 124.00 127.00 3.00 2.4 Water Usage (250 Kl pa) 535.00 547.50 12.50 2.3 Domestic Waste Service 330.00 345.00 15.00 4.5 Stormwater Management 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.0 Totals 2,519.43 2,630.44 111.01 4.4

* Percentage includes catch-up of rate income lost in 2009/10 due to reduced land valuations on objection. The following comments should be considered in conjunction with the above information:

1. The average residential ratepayer's land valuation is $179,500 and this valuation has been used in the determination of both the residential ordinary rate and environmental levy in the above table.

2. Water usage charges have been averaged at 250 kilolitres per annum.

3. Water, Sewerage, Stormwater Management and Domestic Waste Service charges are not subject to rate pegging restrictions.

Impact on Pensioners

If the ‘rate rise’ is approved, a typical residential property receiving a pensioner concession can expect a total rate increase (including annual and usage charges) of approximately $109.86 per annum (or $2.11 per week), which is a 5.5% increase from 2009/2010.

In this instance, the impact upon the typical pensioner’s rate notice and annual water usage accounts is as follows:



Increase Rates & Charges

2009/2010 ($)

2010/2011 ($) Amount

($) %

Residential Ordinary Rate 546.67 602.89 56.22 10.3

Environmental Levy 16.38 17.52 1.14 7.0

Sewerage Access Charge 588.50 610.50 22.00 3.7

Water Access Charge 62.00 63.50 1.50 2.4

Water Usage (250 Kl pa) 509.50 523.50 14.00 2.7

Domestic Waste Service 242.50 257.50 15.00 6.2

Stormwater Management 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.0

Totals 1,990.55 2,100.41 109.86 5.5

The following comments should be considered in conjunction with the above information: 1. A land valuation of $179,500 has been used in the determination of both the

residential ordinary rate and environmental levy in the above table.

2. Water usage charges have been averaged at 250 kilolitres per annum.

3. Water, sewerage, stormwater management and domestic waste service charges are not subject to rate pegging restrictions.

4. The total amount of pensioner rebate granted on the average residential property for 2010/2011 is $530.03.

Pensioner Rebates

Council will write off about $2.8 million of pensioner rates and charges in 2010/2011. Of this, Council voluntarily forgoes approximately $540,000. Council is required to forgo the remaining $2.26 million under State Government legislation. The amount Council is reimbursed by the State is $1.24 million, leaving an overall cost to Council of approximately $1.56 million.

Impact on Non-Residential Ratepayers (Farmland, Business or City Centre Business) Non-Residential Ordinary Rates If the ‘rate rise’ is approved, the average non-residential ratepayer can expect an increase to the ordinary rate component of their rate account as shown in the table below:



Increase

Ordinary Rate Component ONLY 2009/2010

($) 2010/2011

($) Amount ($)

%

Farmland Ordinary Rate 1,396.12 1,495.03 98.91 *7.1

Business Ordinary Rate 2,970.18 3,178.59 208.41 *7.0

City Centre Business Ordinary Rate 6,364.27 6,810.91 446.64 *7.0

* Percentage includes catch-up of rate income lost in 2009/10 due to reduced land valuations on objection.

Annual and Usage Charges for Non-Residential Properties It should be noted that the percentage increase on the total amount of rates and charges payable for some non-residential properties may vary above the proposed 7% rate increase. This may be due to the following factors: 1. Changes in the water and sewerage charge structure for 2010/2011 (with

discounts in regard to water and sewer access charges ceasing). 2. A 50% increase in compliant trade waste usage charges from $0.80 to $1.20 per

kilolitre in accordance with Council’s Trade Waste Pricing Policy. 3. A 50% increase in trade waste non-compliant penalty charges from $0.80 to

$1.20 per kilolitre for category 1 and 1A trade waste generators in accordance with Council’s Trade Waste Pricing Policy.

4. A 51.5% increase in trade waste non-compliant penalty charges from $7.26 to $11.00 per kilolitre for category 2 trade waste generators.

The average total amount of rates and charges for non-residential properties is therefore difficult to calculate due to the varying nature and service requirements of non-residential properties.

Significant Projects 2010/2011

As well as the flood mitigation works associated with loan borrowings and the proposed rate variation, the Draft 2010/2011 Operational Plan identifies a range of important programs to be pursued in the year ahead, including: Complete Stage 1(B) of the Brelsford Park redevelopment (amphitheatre, parklands

and picnic areas on the southern side of the park) - $1.2m Public Toilets Improvements - $32,000 Woolgoolga Swimming Pool Upgrade - $150,000 Coffs Harbour Regional Airport Apron Extension - $150,000; Air conditioning works -

$300,000 New library resources - $124,000 Sportz central improvement works - $43,000 Local Roads improvements totalling $3,138,138 Bridge Repairs totaling $722,000



Footpaths construction - $148,000 Cycleways construction - $100,000 Water Reticulation Mains works - $600,000 Coramba Water Main works - $750,000 Sewer - Pumps, Mechanical Equipment renewal - $3,020,000 Sewer – Sawtell Pump Station and Pipeworks - $19,000,000 Environmental Levy Program projects totalling $1,031,000

Draft 2010/2011 Fees and Charges

The most notable changes to the 2010/2011 Fees and Charges are: Significant review of the fees for Construction Certificates, with increases of

approximately 50 percent for residential works and 100 percent for commercial works. The increase is due to a review of the actual costs for providing this service; it brings Council into line with comparative fees charged by other Local Governments and the average fees for NSW.

Other than those fees and charges set by statute, all other Building and Development

fees have been reviewed. In particular, the fees for Principal Certifying Authority Appointment have been increased by approximately 20 percent, as a contestable charge.

The fee for occupation of a caravan in connection with an existing dwelling has

increased from $60.00 to $220.00, reflecting the need for an inspection of the dwelling and issue of the occupation letter. Similarly, a permit issued for camping or use of a temporary accommodation during the erection of a dwelling has also increased from $115.00 to $220.00.

Inclusion of fees for Temporary Place under SEPP (Temporary Structures) 2007. Inclusion of a charge of $150.00 for high risk premises with an Onsite Sewage

Management System, due to the need to inspect such premises on a four-monthly basis.

Increase in fees related to Rezoning Applications – Entrepreneurial Activities whereby

Council is preparing a rezoning application on behalf of a developer. A reduction in the fee for copies of a building or development application plan from

$30.00 to $10.00. The reduction in the fee is due to the availability of the applications on Council’s computerised database, where previously copies of older applications were stored on microfiche and required significantly greater staff time to access.

Introduction of Airport Car Parking Fees as approved by Council, effective from April

2010. The Dishonour Administration Fee for cheque payments has been reduced from

$30.00 to $15.00, due to the reduction in the fee charged by the bank to Council.



A 50 percent increase in Trade Waste User Charges in accordance with the phasing-in

of Council’s Trade Waste Policy. Water connection fees have increased between 12 and 19 percent due to the significant increase in the cost of copper piping.

Options Council is required by law to complete and adopt a Delivery Program and Operational Plan by 30 June 2010. It is appropriate at this time to consider the Draft 2010/2014 Delivery Program and Draft 2010/2011 Operational Plan for adoption and public exhibition. Implementation Date / Priority: Subject to Council approval, the Draft 2010/2014 Delivery Program and Draft 2010/2011 Operational Plan will be placed on public exhibition for a 28-day period from Tuesday, 27 April until close of business on Tuesday, 25 May 2010. Recommendation: That Council: 1. Adopt the Draft 2010/2014 Delivery Program and Draft 2010/2011 Operational Plan for

public exhibition for a 28-day period from Tuesday, 27 April until close of business on Tuesday, 25 May 2010.

2. Consider community submissions on the draft documents prior to adopting the 2010/2014 Delivery Program and 2010/2011 Operational Plan by 30 June 2010.

3. Note that the Draft 2010/2011 Budget is based on a projected deficit of $530,802 with an undertaking by Council to work to deliver a balanced result by the end of the period.

Stephen Sawtell General Manager


CITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORTS

CS10/10 TENDER: RISING MAIN 61 - PART RENEWAL - CONTRACT NO. 09/10-426-TO

Purpose: To report on tenders received for the renewal of approximately 660 metres of 300mm diameter rising main pipeline in Charlesworth Bay Road and Firman Drive, Coffs Harbour and to gain Council approval to accept a tender. Description of Item: The works comprise construction of approximately 660m of 300dia sewer rising main to replace an existing section of rising main which has had 11 breaks in the past 12 years. The work commences on Charlesworth Bay Road and tracks east and south to Firman Drive terminating near the pump station at the junction of Cutter and Firman Drives. Tenders were called in local and capital city newspapers and closed on 16 March 2010. Tenders were evaluated on the following criteria:

Tender price

Experience in similar work

OH & S management systems and performance

Construction period – as nominated by the tenderer

Financial capacity Six tenders were received. All were conforming offers.

1. AJ Pipelines and Constructions P/L

2. Bob Chambers P/L

3. Camco Civil Contractors P/L

4. Ernie Burnett Plumbing P/L

5. Knock Contractors P/L

6. Ledonne Constructions P/L Sustainability Assessment: Environment

The rising main will run in the sealed sections of Charlesworth Bay Road and Firman Drive. The work will achieve the following objectives:

Prevent environmental discharge of sewage due to pipe breaks.

Replace a defective section of rising main.

Improve the sewer line and its ongoing optimal functionality.


CS10/10 - Tender: Rising Main 61 - Part Renewal - Contract No. 09/10-426-TO (Cont'd)

Social

There have been 11 breaks since 1998 in the section of Rising Main 61 between Charlesworth Bay Road and Cutter Drive. Several have occurred during the night. Each break has resulted in an environmental discharge of untreated sewage into the stormwater system. Some discharges have been minor whilst several others, despite Council’s best efforts, have been very significant. On more than one occasion the lagoon at Annuka Beach Resort has received a major sewage inflow. The cause of the problems appears to have been a defectively constructed section of pipeline that was installed by a private contractor in 1989. The proposed works will eliminate breaks and prevent environmental discharges.

Economic

Broader Economic Implications: Each time the main has broken it has cost Council between $7,500 to $10,000 to rectify. Total repair expenditure since the first break in 1998 to the most recent in January this year is in the order of $90,000. This will be eliminated once the defective section of line has been replaced.


CS10/10 - Tender: Rising Main 61 - Part Renewal - Contract No. 09/10-426-TO (Cont'd)

The older the pipeline becomes the greater the risk is that there will be more frequent failures. It is likely that unless the pipe is replaced then the repair expenditure for this relatively short (700m) section of rising main will, within a few years, exceed $15,000 per year. Management Plan Implications: Provision for this work has been made in Council’s 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 Sewer Capital Fund.

Consultation: No formal consultation has occurred with local residents as all the work is confined to the road reserve. However, residents will be informed in writing prior to the commencement of work. Related Policy and / or Precedents: Tender procedures and analysis were carried out in accordance with Council policy, in particular the ‘Tender Value Selection System’ Statutory Requirements: The tender process was carried out in accordance with Part 7 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 Issues: No untoward issues arose during the tender assessment. Implementation Date / Priority: A contract can be awarded upon Council’s resolution to accept a tender. Completion time for the contract is 12 weeks with a forecast completion date of approximately mid-July 2010. Recommendation: That Council consider tenders received for the renewal of 660 linear metres of Rising Main 61, Contract No. 09/10-426-TO, and move the motion as detailed in the confidential attachment. Jenni Eakins Acting Director, City Services


CORPORATE BUSINESS DEPARTMENT REPORTS

CB10/18 COFFS HARBOUR REGIONAL AIRPORT CAR PARKING

Purpose: Determination of Fees and Charges for the introduction of paid car parking at Coffs Harbour Regional Airport. Description of Item: At its meeting held on 26 November 2009, Council resolved to introduce fee non security parking at the Coffs Harbour Regional Airport. Council adopted the following schedule of fees for the period ending 30 June 2010.

Duration Fee

0 - 15 mins Free

15 mins - 1 hr $2

1 - 2 hrs $4

2 - 3 hrs $6

3 - 4 hrs $8

4 - 5 hrs $10

5 - 24 hrs $12

Maximum per day (1st day) $12

Then:

Day 2 $12

Day 3 $10

Day 4 $10

Day 5 $8

Day 6 $8

Day 7 $6

Daily rate after 7 days $6 per day In accordance with the Local Government Act a Public Notice of the proposed fees were published in the local paper allowing 28 days for submissions prior to Council determining the fees. Work has commenced on the car park to enable the introduction of paid car parking. The car park operator (TAT Investments Pty Limited) will be installing their equipment shortly.


CB10/18 - Coffs Harbor Regional Airport Car Parking (Cont'd) Sustainability Assessment: Environment

Determination of the fees will have no environmental impact. Social

The introduction of a fee to use the Airport car park will be a small impost on the public, but one that is considered reasonable and affordable. The first 15 minutes will be free of charge which will mean that not all users of the car park will pay.

Economic


The introduction of paid parking at the Airport will bring Coffs Harbour into line with all other major east coast airports.

Management Plan Implications

Determination of the fees will allow the charges to be levied and provide an additional income stream for the Airport.

Consultation: The proposed fees have been notified in accordance with the Local Government Act (the Act). Statutory Requirements: Sections 610F, 705 and 706 of the Act have been complied with in determining the new fees, which Council is entitled to charge under Section 608 of the Act. Issues: In accordance with Section 706 of the Act, Council, before determining the fees, must consider all submissions made to it. Only one submission has been received. A copy of this submission has been distributed to Councillors prior to the meeting. It requests that the initial 15 minutes free parking be extended to one hour. Such a change is not recommended as it would affect the viability of the proposal, and be contrary to Council's previous resolution upon which is based the commercial agreement with the car park operator. Another matter is the commencement date of the paid car parking. Originally it was hoped that it would be operational on or about 6 April 2010. However, it appears that it will now commence in early to mid May, barring any hold ups with the installation of the equipment. This may require an adjustment to the agreement between the Council and the operator.


CB10/18 - Coffs Harbor Regional Airport Car Parking (Cont'd) Implementation Date / Priority: Following determination by Council, the advertised fees will be charged from commencement of operation of the paid car park. Recommendation: 1. That the following fees for non security car parking at the Coffs Harbour Regional

Airport be determined for the period ending 30 June 2010.

Duration Fee

0 - 15 mins Free

15 mins - 1 hr $2

1 - 2 hrs $4

2 - 3 hrs $6

3 - 4 hrs $8

4 - 5 hrs $10

5 - 24 hrs $12

Maximum per day (1st day) $12

Then:

Day 2 $12

Day 3 $10

Day 4 $10

Day 5 $8

Day 6 $8

Day 7 $6

Daily rate after 7 days $6 per day 2. That if required, the Licence Agreement to operate the non security car park at Coffs

Harbour Regional Airport between Council and TAT Investments Pty Limited, be amended to take into account the actual commencement date of the operation of the paid car park and any other amendments recommended by Council's Solicitors.


CB10/19 MONTHLY BUDGET REVIEWS FOR DECEMBER 2009, JANUARY & FEBRUARY 2010

Purpose: To report on the estimated budget position as at 28 February 2010. Description of Item: Estimated Budget Position as at 28 February 2010:

General Account

$

Water Account

$

Sewer Account

$

Original Budget adopted 30 June 2009 1,113,139 (D) 6,796,677 (D) 5,226,126 (D)

Approved Variations to 31 Nov 2009 (28,264) (S) (664,000) (S) (1,786,500) (S)

Recommended variations for December 2009, January and February 2010 (1,084,875)(S) (372,700) (S) 106,000 (D)

Estimated result 2009/10 as at 28 February 2010 Nil 5,759,977 (D) 3,545,626 (D)

General Account Deficit/(Surplus)

Coramba fuel contamination legal fees net surplus (200,000) (S)

Restructure of media staff positions 29,803 (D)

Restructure of finance branch staff positions 35,000 (D)

Revenue from road closure (28,181) (S)

Building application microfilming project surplus funds (10,000) (S)

Building and Development anticipated increased income (150,000) (S)

Revised contribution to NSW Fire Brigades (124,052) (S)

Telemetry net sales revised (69,372) (S)

General legal expenses anticipated savings (70,000) (S)

Assets Systems equipment surplus funds (4,000) (S)

Mobile library cessation of service (2,000) (S)

Library computer systems maintenance surplus funds (2,000) (S)

Revised sealed roads rehabilitation allocation (200,000) (S)

Revised rural roads unsealed maintenance allocation (10,000) (S)

Revised dust sealing allocation (80,000) (S)

Revised sealed roads reseals allocation (10,000) (S)

IT software maintenance increases 100,000 (D)

IT equipment lease rentals 8,325 (D)

SES increased subsidy 80,000 (D)

Revised general fund interest on investments revenue (416,398) (S)

Revised extra charges general rate income projections 38,000 (D)

Net variations $1,084,875 (S)


CB10/19 - Monthly Budget Reviews for December 2009, January & February 2010 (Cont'd) Water Account

Revised Water Access Charges projections 32,000 (D)

Revised Water Pensioner Subsidies projections (15,000) (S)

Revised Water Usage Charges projections (448,000) (S)

Revised Reservoir, Filtration plant and water efficiency costs 58,300 (D)

Net variations (372,700) (S) Sewer Account

Revised Trade Waste Application Fees 22,000 (D)

Revised Sewerage Rate projections (95,000) (S)

Revised Sewer fund interest on investments revenue 229,000 (D)

Revised Non Ratable Charges projections (50,000) (S)

Net variations 106,000 (D) Sustainability Assessment: Environment

There are no perceived short or long-term environmental impacts. Social

There are no perceived short or long term social impacts.

Economic


The Original budget for the General Account adopted on the 25 June 2009 provided for a deficit of $1,113,139. The approval of the recommended adjustments places the General Fund with a projected balanced budget position to 30 June 2010. This will continue to be monitored to ensure all efforts are made to deliver a balanced or positive result at the end of the year.

Consultation: This is the second budget review completed online using the new Enterprise budgeting system. The majority of Managers and their relevant staff have updated their budgets for each program in this electronic format. Requested variations and variations adopted by Council have been included in this report. Statutory Requirements: Under local government regulations Council is required to submit a quarterly budget review to Council. Therefore Council is under no obligation to provide monthly reviews but has recommended they be completed as part of prudent financial management.


CB10/19 - Monthly Budget Reviews for December 2009, January & February 2010 (Cont'd) The Responsible Accounting Officer believes this report indicates the financial position of the Council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of Income and Expenditure. Recommendation: The revised Budget position as at 28 February 2010 be noted: General

Account $

Water Account

$

Sewer Account

$

Original Budget adopted 30 June 2009 1,113,139 (D) 6,796,677 (D) 5,226,126 (D)

Approved Variations to 30 November 2009 (28,264) (S) (664,000) (S) (1,786,500) (S)

Recommended variations for December 2009, January and February 2010 (1,084,875) (S) (372,700) (S) 106,000 (D)

Estimated result 2009/10 as at 28 February 2010 Nil 5,759,977 (D) 3,545,626 (D)


CB10/20 COUNCIL PREMISES AT 23 GORDON STREET COFFS HARBOUR - LEASE PROPOSAL

Purpose: To obtain Council approval for the proposed lease of its premises situated at 23 Gordon Street Coffs Harbour. Description of Item: Council is the owner of office premises located at 23 Gordon Street Coffs Harbour. Until recently the subject premises provided accommodation for Council’s Business Units Branch. Following the relocation of Business Units staff back into the main Administration Building in March this year, the premises are now vacant. Pending the relocation of Business Units, Council was been approached by local consultancy firm GeoLink expressing an interest in taking up a lease of the premises. As a result, discussions were held between Council staff and representatives from GeoLink, which ultimately lead to GeoLink submitting a written offer in respect of the matter. This offer was referred to Senior Executive Team for consideration at its meeting on 17 March 2010. As a result Senior Executive team determined as follows: “Approval to proceed with leasing the Council premises at 23 Gordon Street to GeoLink as set out in the report.” Following on from this determination, negotiations were pursued and finalized with GeoLink. Sustainability Assessment: Environment

This lease proposal relates to an existing office building, which has been occupied and use for office purposes up until March this year. This leasing proposal will continue this use of the premises for office purposes. As such there will be no change to the environmental situation.

Social

This lease proposal will continue an existing use of the subject premises and as such there is no perceived change in regard to social sustainability and impact. Having the building occupied and used as an office facility creates a positive image, and is far better than leaving the building empty and unproductive.

Economic


Leasing the premises to GeoLink will enable this firm to relocate into a larger office building than it currently occupies and provide it with potential to grow its business operations in Coffs Harbour.


CB10/20 - Council Premises at 23 Gordon Street Coffs Harbour - Lease Proposal (Cont'd)


Leasing the premises to GeoLink at a current market rental will provide additional income for Council. If the building is to remain vacant then there are still holding costs for Council (rates, insurance, security services, maintenance and repair, etc). The grant of this lease will cover the costs and provide net income of approximately $32,500 per annum.

Consultation: As previously indicated, this matter has been referred to Council’s Senior Executive Team and approval gained to pursue this lease proposal. Related Policy and / or Precedents: Where excess Council property is not required for current use for Council purposes, then numerous precedents have been set for leasing such premises or properties in order to obtain additional income and help cover holding costs. Statutory Requirements: The subject property is classified as Operational Land in accordance with provisions of the Local Government Act 1993. Therefore, there are no impediments to pursuing this lease arrangement in accordance with normal leasing procedures and practices under the NSW Real Property Act 1900 and the Conveyancing Act 1919. Issues: As indicated above, the subject premises are currently vacant. Rather than leave this office building empty and still costing Council funds to upkeep, it is considered far more reasonable to keep it tenanted and generating additional income for Council. The lease proposal has only been pursued in accordance with a determination made by Council’s Executive Team for a two (2) year term. As the property forms part of Council’s larger commercial property holdings in Gordon Street Coffs Harbour, it is noted that further investigation and consideration needs to be carried out by Council in respect of its longer term proposals for this area. However, as this process will take additional time before final decisions are made, it is appropriate to continue temporary occupation arrangements in the meantime. In view of this situation the lease proposal pursued with GeoLink has been on the basis of an initial short term lease pending final decisions by Council concerning the future of these Gordon Street commercial property holdings.


CB10/20 - Council Premises at 23 Gordon Street Coffs Harbour - Lease Proposal (Cont'd) The lease proposal negotiated with GeoLink is as follows: Lessee: GeoLink Consulting Pty Ltd ABN: 79 896 839 729 Lessee Address: 33 Gordon Street Coffs Harbour (PO Box 1446 Coffs Harbour 2450) Premises: Office Building situated at 23 Gordon Street, Coffs Harbour (Lot 20 Sec 6 DP

758258) Lease Term: Two (2) years Use: Office premises Rental: $40,000 per annum, payable monthly in advance at the rate of $3,333.33 per

calendar month. GST is in addition to the above amounts. CPI increase to apply at end of first year of the lease.

GST: Lessee is responsible for the payment of GST. Outgoings: Lessee is to be responsible for payment of all rates, taxes, charges and all costs

associated with its use and occupation of the premises. Insurances: Lessee is to hold Public Liability insurance cover in respect of the premises in a

minimum amount of $10 million or such other amount as may be advised by Council from time to time. Council is to be noted as an interested party in respect of this insurance policy. Lessee is to hold Workers Compensation insurance cover in respect of any employees working at the premises.

Lease Costs: Lessee is to be responsible for costs associated with leasing the premises, including Council’s solicitors’ reasonable costs.

Car Parking Area: Lessee is to have sole use of the secured, tar sealed car parking area at the rear of

the office building. Other: General lease terms and conditions as may be advised or required by Council’s

solicitors. It is recommended that Council grant its formal approval to the lease proposal. Implementation Date / Priority: As soon as possible following Council's decision in the matter.


CB10/20 - Council Premises at 23 Gordon Street Coffs Harbour - Lease Proposal (Cont'd) Recommendation: 1. That Council lease its office premises situated at 23 Gordon Street Coffs Harbour,

being Lot 20 Sec 6 DP 758258, to GeoLink Consulting Pty Ltd on the following terms and conditions:

Lease Term: Two (2) years Use: Office premises Rental: $40,000 per annum, payable monthly in advance at the rate of

$3,333.33 per calendar month. GST is in addition to the above amounts. CPI increase to apply at end of first year of the lease.

GST: Lessee is responsible for the payment of GST. Outgoings: Lessee is to be responsible for payment of all rates, taxes, charges

and all costs associated with its use and occupation of the premises. Insurances: Lessee is to hold Public Liability insurance cover in respect of the

premises in a minimum amount of $10 million or such other amount as may be advised by Council from time to time. Council is to be noted as an interested party in respect of this insurance policy. Lessee is to hold Workers Compensation insurance cover in respect of any employees working at the premises.

Lease Costs: Lessee is to be responsible for costs associated with leasing the premises, including Council’s solicitors’ reasonable costs.

Car Parking Area: Lessee is to have sole use of the secured, tar sealed car parking area

at the rear of the office building. Other: General lease terms and conditions as may be advised or required by

Council’s solicitors.

2. That any necessary documents associated with the lease of 23 Gordon Street Coffs Harbour (Lot 20 Sec 6 DP 758258) to GeoLink Consulting Pty Ltd be executed under the Common Seal of Council.


CB10/21 PROCUREMENT POLICY

Purpose: To present to Council a Procurement Policy and recommend that it be adopted by Council. Description of Item: The intent of this policy is to state the requirements for a uniform approach to procurement of goods and services thus ensuring best value for money, good management practices, legislative compliance, transparency, probity and environmental responsibility. This policy outlines the principles under which Council makes its procurement decisions and conducts its procurement activities. Sustainability Assessment: Environment

There are no environmental impacts coming from this report. Social

There are no social impacts coming from this report.

Economic

There are no economic impacts coming from this report. Related Policy and / or Precedents: This policy replaces the Purchasing Policy, adopted in March 2006 Statutory Requirements: This policy is made under the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 Issues: The objective of Council’s Procurement Policy is to ensure all purchasing and contracting activities are: Legal Accountable and auditable Deliver value for money Ethically and environmentally responsible Appropriately manage risk Open to continuous improvement and development Recommendation: That Council adopts the Procurement Policy.

- 38 -

Attachment:

- 39 -

- 40 -

- 41 -

- 42 -


CB10/22 INVESTMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY

Purpose: To present to Council an Investment Policy and Strategy and recommend that they be adopted by Council. Description of Item: The purpose of the Policy is to provide a framework for the investment of Coffs Harbour City Council’s funds at the most favourable rate of interest available to it at the time and to maximise capital gains, whilst having due consideration of risk and security for that investment type and ensuring that its liquidity requirements are being met. The key differences between the proposed Investment Policy and the current policy which was adopted in December 2005 are as follows: Local Government Act 1993- Order (of the Minister) dated 31/7/08 now applies. This has the

impact of prohibiting purchases from 31 July 2008 onwards of particular types of investments such as Managed Funds, Subordinated Securities with Approved Deposit- taking Institutions (ADI’s), and deposits in prescribed securities that have a minimum long term credit rating of A (i.e. CDO’s). The order gives permission to invest in Bills of Exchange with a maturity of less than 200 days guaranteed by an ADI and land mortgages which are first mortgages which are less than 60% of the land value. The order now applies to investment income as well as principal.

Prohibition of investing in derivatives or borrowing (leveraging) to invest. An outline of the risks that need to be considered when investing. Requirement from December 2010 that investment advisory services will be subject to a

three year tender. Safe Custody arrangements criteria to be satisfied. Division of Local Government Circular 08-48 requirements for the sale of investments that do

not comply with Ministerial Order dated 31/7/08 and requirements for seeking investment advice.

Frequency of period to review policy has changed from “..as required or in the event of a

change in legislation which impacts on investments” to “..at regular six monthly intervals…or when either changes in regulation or market conditions necessitate a review….also be changed as a result of other amendments that are to the advantage of Council and in the spirit of this policy. Any amendment to the Investment Policy must be by way of Council resolution.”

Delegation of authority in 2005 policy mentioned that only the General Manager had authority

to invest surplus funds, proposed policy states that the General Manager can delegate the day to day management of Investment Portfolio to Executive Manager – Finance and Management Accountant – Expenditure.

Addition of the reference to the “Prudent Person Standard” i.e. exercising care, diligence and

skill.


CB10/22 - Investment Policy and Strategy (Cont'd) Addition of clauses relating to Ethics and Conflicts of Interest for staff and Council’s

Investment Advisers. Performance Benchmarks dissected into particular types of investments within differing time

horizons. Removal of Guidelines for approved investments with fund managers. Transfer of Guidelines for direct investments and diversification/credit risk to the Investment

Strategy. The purpose of the Strategy is to ensure that Coffs Harbour City Council funds are prudently invested with care, due diligence and skill, by following the investment management practices listed in the Strategy with the applicable outcomes and objectives in mind. The key differences between the proposed Investment Strategy and the current strategy which was adopted in December 2005 are as follows: Addition of investment management practices to ensure compliance with the “Prudent

Person Standard”. Addition of mechanisms for the management of risk. For portfolio construction:

(i) Credit Quality Ratings Limits increased - AA to AAA from 35% of portfolio to 100% for AAA and 80% of portfolio for AA, A from 35% of portfolio to 60% of portfolio, BBB from 25% of portfolio to 40% and unrated from 20% of portfolio to 40% (this increase along with the removal of the requirement for the General Manager to sign off on the suitability to invest in unrated products has been implemented to take advantage of the Commonwealth Government’s deposit guarantee arrangements).

(ii) Counterparty Limits - Counterparty limits per Long Term Credit rating have been

introduced. Previously the only counterparty limits applicable were for managed funds and unrated investments in Building Societies and Credit Unions (managed funds have now been removed and the limit for Building Societies and Credit Unions has remained the same).

(iii) Term to Maturity Targets – Target portfolio allocations based on differing time horizons

with required returns benchmarked against UBSA Bank Bill Index have been introduced.

(iv) Target Asset Allocations – Introduction of guidelines for allocation of funds with each

investment or asset class category. Removal of statement regarding investing in Ethical or Socially Responsible Investments –

as these types of investments (i.e. capital protected notes) are now prohibited under the 31 July 2008 Ministerial Order.

Removal of statement regarding consideration of investing in CDO’s.


CB10/22 - Investment Policy and Strategy (Cont'd) Removal of statement regarding usage of managed funds for liquidity purposes as

investment of funds in to these types of investments is now prohibited under the 31 July 2008 Ministerial Order.

Transfer of requirements for investment advisory services to investment policy. Sustainability Assessment: Environment

There are no environmental impacts coming from this report. Social

There are no social impacts coming from this report.

Economic

The successful implementation of the policy and strategy will ensure the return on council investments are maximised which will impact on the level of services provided to the community.

Related Policy and / or Precedents: This policy and strategy replaces the previously adopted Investment Policy and Strategy (December 2005). Statutory Requirements: The policy and strategy are made under the: Local Government Act 1993 Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 The Trustee Amendment (Discretionary Investments) Act 1997 – Sections 14A(2), 14C(1) &

(2); Issues: While exercising the power to invest, consideration is to be given to the preservation of capital, liquidity, and the return of investment. Council therefore has four primary objectives for its investment portfolio: The preservation of the amount invested; To ensure there is sufficient liquid funds to meet all reasonably anticipated cash flow

requirements; and To generate income from the investment that exceeds the performance benchmarks as

outlined in the policy. Compliance with legislation, regulations and best practice guidelines. Recommendation: That Council adopts the Investment Policy and Strategy.

- 46 -

Attachments:

Attachment 1

- 47 -

- 48 -

- 49 -

- 50 -

- 51 -

- 52 -

- 53 -

Attachment 2

- 54 -

- 55 -

- 56 -

- 57 -

- 58 -

- 59 -

- 60 -

- 61 -

- 62 -

- 63 -

- 64 -

- 65 -


CB10/23 BANK BALANCES AND INVESTMENTS FOR FEBRUARY AND MARCH 2010

Purpose: To list Council’s Bank Balances and Investments as at 28 February 2010 and 31 March 2010. Description of Item: A copy of the state of Bank Balances and Investments as at 28 February 2010 and 31 March 2010 is attached. It should be noted that Council is now required to account for investments in accordance with the Australian International Financial Reporting Standards. As such the ledger balances at the end of each month reflect market value movements which would be inclusive of accrued interest. Interest when paid, say quarterly, would result in reductions in the market value of the investments. The Investment Report reflects the above requirements and reflects the interest earned (or accrued) on each investment, based on the acquisition price. A monthly economic commentary which examines economic and financial markets data for February 2010 and March 2010 is attached along with the Investment Portfolio Quarterly Performance to 31 March 2010 (attached separately), all of which have been provided by CPG Research & Advisory Pty Ltd (Council’s investment portfolio advisors). Sustainability Assessment: Environment

There are no perceived current or future environmental impacts. Social

There are no perceived current or future social impacts.

Economic

Council’s investments are held according to the requirements stated within Council’s investments policy and the returns are acceptable in relation thereto. For February 2010 it is noted that after deducting, from the total bank and investment balances of $151,105,346 the estimated restricted General, Trust, Water & Sewerage cash and investments ($149,706,448), the Unrestricted Cash is $1,398,898. For March 2010 it is noted that after deducting, from the total bank and investment balances of $150,748,050 the estimated restricted General, Trust, Water & Sewerage cash and investments ($149,349,152), the Unrestricted Cash is $1,398,898.Further details are provided as a note on the attachment.


CB10/23 - Bank Balances and Investments for February and March 2010 (Cont'd) Recommendation: 1. That the bank balances and investments totalling (from loans, Section 94 and other

avenues that form the restricted accounts and are committed for future works) one hundred and fifty one million, one hundred and five thousand, and three hundred and forty six dollars ($151,105,346) as at 28 February 2010 be noted.

2. That the general fund unrestricted cash and investments totalling one million, three hundred and ninety eight thousand, eight hundred and ninety eight dollars ($1,398,898) as at 28 February 2010 be noted.

3. That the bank balances and investments totalling (from loans, Section 94 and other

avenues that form the restricted accounts and are committed for future works) one hundred and fifty million, seven hundred and forty eight thousand, and fifty dollars ($150,748,050) as at 31 March 2010 be noted.

4. That the general fund unrestricted cash and investments totalling one million, three

hundred and ninety eight thousand, eight hundred and ninety eight dollars ($1,398,898) as at 31 March 2010 be noted.

Craig Milburn Director, Corporate Business

- 68 -

Attachments:

Attachment 1

- 69 -

- 70 -

- 71 -

- 72 -

Attachment 2

- 73 -

- 74 -

- 75 -

- 76 -

- 77 -

Attachment 3

- 78 -

- 79 -

- 80 -

- 81 -

- 82 -

- 83 -

Attachment 4

- 84 -

- 85 -

- 86 -

- 87 -


LAND USE HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT

L10/2 “OUR LIVING COAST” REGIONAL SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE

Purpose: The purpose of this report is to outline progress of the grant funded “Our Living Coast” regional sustainability initiative, and to seek Council’s endorsement of the program. Description of Item: The project is a joint initiative of Coffs Harbour City Council, Bellingen Shire Council and Nambucca Shire Council and is being funded through a $ 1.998M grant from the NSW Environmental Trust, under the Urban Sustainability Program. This grant was awarded December 2008. The project is overseen by a Steering Committee with representatives from each of the three Councils and is governed according to a Memorandum of Understanding and a business plan. The project will run for a remaining two years until March 2012. Coffs Harbour City Council is responsible for administering and acquitting the grant. The objectives of the project are:

1. To improve biodiversity and sustainability outcomes at both a regional and local level;

2. To increase community capacity toward achieving sustainability improvements and active biodiversity conservation in urban areas;

3. To improve actions and governance mechanisms for sustainability within and across the 3 Councils;

4. To build and strengthen local and regional partnerships for biodiversity conservation and sustainability.

Under the terms of the grant with the NSW Environmental Trust, funding allocations are broadly described as follows: Core Activities

The activities described below, amounting to $963,850, are largely non discretionary under the terms of the grant and business plan, and will be rendered across the three Council areas. - Grant administration, preparation of a business plan, reporting, support and evaluation. - Regional Sustainability Strategy -preparation of a regional sustainability strategy that

identifies the barriers and opportunities to advance sustainability in the region e.g ecotourism, regional cooperation, growing and buying local, value adding.

- Internal Council Action Learning – Internal sustainability training and support for the three Councils – This will involve staff training, setting up Green Teams or the like, measures to reduce energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, water use, waste, and resource use.

- Sustainability Website – linked to the three Council’s websites that will provide information regarding sustainability tips, events, links, ecotourism experiences and information about our region.


L10/2 - "Our Living Coast" Regional Sustainability Initiative (Cont'd)

- Living Smart – a program to encourage more sustainable practices in the home, e.g. water, composting, energy, buying local and home gardens.

- Working Smart – a program to encourage businesses to be more energy, water, and waste efficient.

- Transport Project – a program to explore and promote sustainable transport options for the region.

Two personnel have been employed on a fixed term to administer and support the program for the three Councils. The first milestone, the development of a business plan, has been completed and was recently endorsed by the NSW Environmental Trust. To date the Trust has provided $100,000 for the initial stage of preparing the business plan. The remaining funds will be provided over the next two years, commensurate with completion of grant milestones.

On Ground Works

An amount of $1,034,970 is being set aside for on ground works that advance regional sustainability. The activities being targeted are broadly described as ecotourism, biodiversity, and energy efficiency/renewable energy projects. These will be the subject of a further report to Council before proceeding.

Grant Budget

The budget for the Our Living Coast program over the three year term of the grant is as follows.

OUR LIVING COAST ACTIVITIES Total Amount over term of

Grant Core Activities

1. Salaries – 2 staff $376,030 Incl. on costs

2. Regional Sustainability Strategy - Consultant $50,000 - Documentation $5,000 - Workshops $15,000 - NC Energy Forum $5,000

3. Internal Council Action Learning - Consultant $50,000 - Materials See works

budget below 4. Sustainability website – Consultant ( design, ongoing

maintenance, hosting, training for 2 years ) $50,000

5. Living Smart Household program $123,400 6. Working Smart Business program $24,600 7. Transport project – Cycling, Experts, Survey. $99,000 8. Program evaluation $45,000 9. Community surveys $15,000

10. Administration and overheads $105,820 Total Core Activities $963,850 On Ground Sustainability Works - ecotourism, renewable

energy, biodiversity, etc. $1,034,970

TOTAL GRANT BUDGET $1,998,820


L10/2 - "Our Living Coast" Regional Sustainability Initiative (Cont'd) Sustainability Assessment: Environment

- Identification of broad sustainability issues for the region within a single plan that provides clear direction based on ecological, physical and social evidence and on-going monitoring and evaluation.

- Improve urban biodiversity health (weeds, regeneration, corridors). - Improved understanding of biodiversity and sustainability issues by key stakeholders

including Councils, partners, decision-makers, the community and businesses. - Increased capacity of Councils to adopt sustainable practices. - Reduced energy, water and waste across councils, community and businesses. - Improved sustainable use of resources through improved management techniques within

Councils. - More use of alternative transport options.

Social

- Improved knowledge and data management and information sharing across all stakeholders through a regional online hub.

- New and strengthened partnerships and networks across a range of stakeholders, including business and community.

- Sustainability embedded in Council systems and governance. - Community actively engaged in participatory activities such as Landcare, Coastcare,

indigenous green teams. - Improved access, amenity and educational opportunities in urban natural areas for

communities. - Indigenous communities engaged in design and planning of education materials and on-

ground works.

Economic

- Improved understanding of sustainable economic development possibilities in the region (e.g. ecotourism).

- Improved resource sharing (knowledge, costs) and allocation across alliance and partners group by identification of priority funding requirements.

- Reduced energy and water usage and improved efficiencies with associated costs savings. - Funding secured for regional sustainability initiatives.


The project is fully grant funded and there will be no financial impact in relation to Council’s general fund. Provision has been made in Council’s current Management Plan for the grant income and expenditure.


L10/2 - "Our Living Coast" Regional Sustainability Initiative (Cont'd)

Participation in the project is consistent with a number of Council’s strategic objectives including: - Establish Coffs Harbour as a model of sustainable living. - Promote pride in the environment and improve the urban landscape. - Create an integrated approach to environmental management through the gathering of

data, environmental reporting and program implementation. - Ensure quality environmental management to assist sustainable development.

Consultation: Extensive consultation has taken place between the three participating Councils. Representatives of the three Councils make up the Steering Committee which coordinates the Our Living Coast grant program. Related Policy and / or Precedents: Council has previously undertaken a number of NSW Environmental Trust grant funded projects, and there are several such projects still being rolled out. Issues: There are no significant issues associated with undertaking the project. Implementation Date / Priority: Initial activities including the preparation of the mandatory business plan have been completed with the support of personnel employed under the grant. Separate consultancy briefs have been prepared, and quotations called in respect to items 2, 3 and 4 in the aforementioned grant budget. Once Council’s endorsement has been obtained as per the recommendations in this report, consultancy projects will be awarded forthwith and the Core Activities will be progressively rolled out. To date Council has received $100,000 from the NSW Environmental Trust. Payment of the next installment of $1,037,780 is to be released when the above consultancy projects are advanced, in June 2010. The remaining funds of $861,040 are expected in the 2011/2012 financial year. The on ground works will be the subject of a further report to Council before proceeding. Recommendation:

1. That Council endorse progress of the “Our Living Coast” sustainability initiative, that is being conducted in partnership with Bellingen and Nambucca Shire Councils, with funding from the NSW Environmental Trust.

2. That a further report be provided to Council in the coming months to update progress of the Our Living Coast program and to outline proposed on ground works activities.


L10/3 DRAFT PRIORITY HABITATS AND CORRIDORS STRATEGY 2010 – 2030

Purpose: To report on submissions received in respect to the draft Priority Habitats and Corridors Strategy 2010 - 2030 (PHACS). This report recommends that the draft PHACS be amended, and be subject to further public exhibition and consultation. The report also presents revised draft PHACS mapping and recommends a process to translate this into the draft Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan (SI LEP). Finalisation of the draft PHACS and associated mapping is not being requested from Council at this stage. Description of Item: Council recently indentified and mapped important environmental attributes at a landscape scale throughout the Coffs Harbour local government area (LGA). This mapping was to inform the environmental layers being developed for the new Coffs Harbour SI LEP as per the NSW Department of Planning (DoP) LEP practice note for Environmental Protection Zones and regional corridor mapping. This is contained in the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy 2009 (MNCRS) which states that ‘local environmental plans will include provisions to encourage habitat and corridor establishment in future zoning of land with environmental and rural values’. The corridor mapping was originally developed by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) and provides a broad framework for corridors which has been adopted into the MNCRS. This was developed at a coarse regional scale and provided broad guidance as to where corridors could potentially be located. The revised priority habitats and corridors mapping uses the best available information from a range of sources and maps corridors at a local, sub-regional and regional level (see Map 1 attached). It uses the DoP corridor mapping as a guide while recognising its stated limitations in terms of scale and reliability (see Map 2 attached). The draft PHACS was placed on public exhibition from 19 November 2009 until 14 March 2010. Significant changes have been made to the original draft PHACS mapping based on the submissions received during the public exhibition, and discussions with stakeholders and relevant state government departments. Sustainability Assessment: Environment

While the draft Strategy identifies a timeframe between 2010 – 2030 to link with Council’s Vision 2030, it is expected to influence environmental outcomes for the next 50 – 100 years. In the face of increasing environmental threats including ‘universal’ threats such as climate change and regional threats, the linking and buffering of habitat areas is seen as the best practical solution to reducing the impacts of habitat loss, habitat modification, loss of individuals and loss of genetic diversity.


L10/3 - Draft Priority Habitats and Corridors Strategy 2010 - 2030 (Cont'd)

Conservation connectivity and building resilience is a key strategy under the draft PHACS to ensure that our natural systems have the capacity to adapt to shifting climatic zones. Securing, linking and enhancing critical intact habitats throughout the LGA is the most important and immediate step we can take to increase ecosystem resilience. There will be broader environmental services associated with the draft PHACS including improved soil, water and air quality within catchments.

Social The draft Strategy is likely to drive employment opportunities in the areas of bush regeneration and sustainability. Funds raised through the Environmental Levy and Council’s proposed Environment Trust, amongst other initiatives may assist landholders, particularly rural landholders manage their corridor areas. While the broader community will benefit from better catchment management in terms of improved habitat and biodiversity, soil fertility and water quality, the funds generated through the ‘Incentives Package’ will be primarily directed towards targeted projects in the identified corridors in the rural sector. The translation of the draft Strategy into environmental zonings will have limited impact on agricultural and private native forestry as Council has received advice that the Native Vegetation Act (NV Act) will take precedence over any local government zonings. Private Native Forestry (PNF) will continue to be a permissible activity if the environmental categories are translated into environmental zones under the Standard LEP, subject to an approval from DECCW. Given that the NV Act will operate within environmental zones, businesses dependant on the local timber industry should remain unaffected. Routine Agricultural Management Activities (RAMAs) will also be permissible within environmental zones under the NV Act. Accordingly, the draft PHACS will have little impact on the day to day management of native vegetation on rural properties. The proposed overlay will ensure that due consideration is given to priority habitats and corridors during the Development Application process and assessing Activities under Part V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act). The draft PHACS brings together a number of environmental parameters at a landscape level so that developments can be seen within the broader context of environmental values within the LGA.

Economic


The draft Strategy would not impose any additional restrictions on landholders. Landholders would not be required to revegetate, fence or undertake any other activity on their land unless they choose to do so. Neither will the draft PHACS “sterilise” any agricultural land.



During the Development Application process some consideration will need to be given to the draft PHACS. The draft Strategy will ensure that environmental values are considered under the one Strategy rather than a multitude of biodiversity planning documents and provides a logical and practical solution to ensuring that development is appropriately located and is sympathetic to the broader environment. Council prepared a Landholder Incentives Guide as part of draft PHACS. The document provides a range of possible incentives for landholders who have priority habitats and corridors mapped over their property. Some of the incentives are available now, while others will take time while policy is developed and considered by Council. The Environment Trust, to be set up by Council is expected to generate a significant amount of funds over time. The draft PHACS identifies priority areas for rehabilitation and re-vegetation which will provide the best outcomes for biodiversity and catchment management.

Management Plan Implications The development of the draft PHACS is being funded from Council’s Environmental Levy. The draft PHACS will inform the SI LEP process and provide information to assist in determination of development applications and activities under Part IV of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. These aspects will have no budget implications. The possible draft PHACS incentives are under review and will be the subject of a further report to Council for consideration.

Consultation: The draft PHACS was placed on public exhibition from 19 November 2009 until 14 march 2010. Council received a total of 580 public submissions of which 63 were supportive and 517 were against. Of the 517 submissions against the proposal 76 were form submissions. A summary of the submissions is included as Attachment 1. Copies of all the submissions have been bound and made available in the Councilor's room. There were 6 submissions, which argued against the draft PHACS, which were not submitted by the recorded landowner and were therefore not included in the final count. This casts doubt on the validity of the remaining submissions however, without a significant investment in resources it would be difficult to determine how many others are invalid. Over the course of the exhibition period biodiversity officers met with over 300 landholders to discuss the draft Strategy in detail and the potential implications of possible future zonings. Senior Council representatives met with the Farmers Association and the Coo-ee Property Rights Association following closure of the public exhibition period. Various sectors of Council were also consulted prior to the exhibition of the draft PHACS.



Related Policy and / or Precedents: The Native Vegetation Act 2003 has a significant bearing on how the environmental zones under the SI LEP are interpreted and therefore managed. Advice to date suggests that the NV Act would prevail over all environmental zones. Statutory Requirements: Council is required by law to prepare a SI LEP. The timeframes and requirements of the SI LEP are being driven by the NSW Department of Planning. The draft PHACS has no statutory basis, but will inform the environmental zoning of the SI LEP. Issues: Based on the submissions received, representations and discussions held with landholders over the exhibition period the following changes are recommended to the draft Strategy and associated mapping. Given that substantial changes will be made to the draft Strategy, the document is proposed to be placed on public exhibition for a further 28 days. Based on the issues raised, the following changes are proposed and will be incorporated into a revised draft: Native Vegetation Controls At the heart of the draft Strategy are the provisions governing protection of native vegetation within each of the categories. This has caused the greatest level of concern within the community. Recent external advice is that the NV Act provisions prevail over the SI LEP and as such all Environment zones will be subject to the NV Act. In essence, there will be no change in how native vegetation is managed in rural areas under the SI LEP, under the operation of the NV Act. The following changes are recommended to the draft PHACS:

1. The draft PHACS to be amended to make it clear that native vegetation identified within Category 2 and Category 3 is subject to the NV Act 2003 and its Regulations;

2. Existing agricultural use rights within both Category 2 and 3 prevail on previously mapped

1A agricultural land;

3. Of the original 23 666 hectares identified as Category 2 (orange), that 10 114 hectares be downgraded and subject to a Natural Resources Sensitivity clause, rather than a zone.

4. All Category 3 (blue) not be zoned but subject to the Natural Resources Sensitivity clause

in respect to Development Applications and Activities under Part IV of the EPA Act.



Table 1 Changes to vegetation controls between draft PHACS Vegetation controls

Draft PHACS as exhibited Revised Draft PHACS Cat 2 Native vegetation is protected and development consent is required

Native vegetation subject to the Native Vegetation Act and its Regulations.

Cat 3 Native vegetation is protected and development consent is required.

Subject to the Natural Resources Sensitivity clause Native vegetation subject to the Native Vegetation Act and its Regulations.

Cat 4 Native vegetation protected

Subject to the Natural Resources Sensitivity clause

Cat 5 Council policy for public open space zones

No change

Table 2 Area changes between PHACS exhibited and PHACS revised

Draft PHACS as exhibited (ha)

Draft Revised PHACS (ha)

Cat 2 - 23,666 Category 2 – 13,552 * Potential additional Category 2 – 1,560 Secondary (A) koala habitat + a small area of Primary koala habitat to be the subject of negotiations re applicable zoning with NSW Department of Planning (Note there is currently 8,500 ha of 7A under LEP 2000. Increase to 13552 ha mainly made up of existing 7A + Endangered Ecological Communities)

Cat 3 – 8 466 Subject to Natural Resources Sensitivity clause Cat 4 - 293 Subject to Natural Resources Sensitivity clause Cat 5 – 1 088 Cat 5 – 538 Overlay not included Subject to Natural Resources Sensitivity clause

19 665 ( may vary depending on * above) Secondary Koala Habitat Under LEP 2000 the majority of Primary Koala Habitat was protected as 7A Environmental protection. The DoP has expressed a preference in protecting a greater proportion of ‘core koala habitat’ within the Coffs Harbour LGA. The current definition of ‘core koala habitat’ is primary, secondary and tertiary habitat under the draft KPoM 1999. Strictly, under the SEPP 44 definition it probably should just include primary and adjoining secondary koala habitat.


L10/3 - Draft Priority Habitats and Corridors Strategy 2010 - 2030 (Cont'd) Accordingly, a compromise position would add 1,560 ha of secondary koala habitat that adjoins primary koala habitat, to the Category 2 layer. There is also a small area of Primary Koala Habitat that is currently not included in 7A Zone. These areas may be recommended for an E2 zone under the new Standard LEP depending upon the outcomes of negotiations between Council’s planning section and the Department of Planning. General Provisions That an easy to read summary of the document be included up front in the draft PHACS highlighting most of the major issues. Further, that the following paragraphs be inserted into the draft Strategy to dispel any perceived restrictions on land management. The draft Strategy would not impose any additional impositions on landholders. Landholders

would not be required to revegetate, fence or undertake any other activity on their land unless they choose to do so. Neither will the draft PHACS “sterilise” any agricultural land.

Existing dwelling and subdivision rights would not be extinguished as a result of the proposals

within the Strategy. Any rights currently enjoyed by the property will continue to be permissible activities.

Draft PHACS Objectives and Actions Tables (Chapter 5) It is proposed to review each of the individual actions contained in the tables to ensure they align with information obtained over the exhibition period. Specific actions associated with Native Vegetation; Landholder Incentives Guide; Dwellings and Infrastructure will be assessed to ensure the context it which they are drafted is appropriate from a policy and planning perspective. Editorial Changes As a result of the public exhibition process a number of submissions have pointed out corrections, omissions, inaccuracies or lack of clarity which will be rectified in the revised version which goes to Council. These editorial corrections will not change the intent or management objectives of the document and are therefore not considered further here. Implementation Date / Priority: Draft PHACS Mapping It is proposed that the revised draft PHACS mapping of environmental categories be interpreted by Council’s Planning section and incorporated into the draft Coffs Harbour SI LEP as the draft Environmental zones. This is necessary to meet DoP timeframes this exercise needs to be completed by May 2010 Finalisation of the draft PHACS and associated mapping is not being requested from Council at this stage.


L10/3 - Draft Priority Habitats and Corridors Strategy 2010 - 2030 (Cont'd) The draft PHACS mapping will be subject to ongoing revision and refinement until after the next draft PHACS public exhibition. There will be further opportunity to refine the draft PHACS mapping as the SI LEP is being progressed. Draft PHACS Strategy It’s proposed that further public consultation on the revised draft PHACS be sought, including comments from the DoP, after which the draft Strategy will be referred back to Council, on or about 22 July, for formal adoption. Recommendation: 1. That Council endorse the environmental categories and overlay of the revised draft

Priority Habitats and Corridors mapping layers to allow them to be incorporated into the draft Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan, specifically:

(a) Category 1 to E1 (National Parks and Nature Reserves) (b) Category 2 to E2 (Environmental Conservation) (c) Categories 3 and 4 to be subject to the Natural Resources Sensitivity – Priority

Habitats and Corridors clause. (d) Category 5 to RE1 (Public Recreation)

2. That the draft Priority Habitats and Corridors Strategy and draft mapping layers be the subject of further negotiations with the Department of Planning as part of the Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan process.

3. That it be noted that finalisation of the draft PHACS and associated mapping is not being requested from Council at this stage.

4. That a revised draft Priority Habitats and Corridors Strategy 2010 - 2030, be submitted to Council's meeting of 13 May with a recommendation of further public consultation for 28 days.

5. That, with the benefit of further public input and Department of Planning comments, the draft Priority Habitats and Corridors Strategy 2010 - 2030 and associated mapping be referred back to Council on or about 22 July to consider formal adoption of the document.

6. That any changes arising from the above be incorporated into the draft Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan prior to its public exhibition which is currently scheduled for October 2009.

Jeff Green Acting Director, Land Use, Health & Development

- 99 -

Attachments:

Attachment 1

Summary of Submissions April 2010

No ISSUES (SUPPORT) 1 Error in Chapter 2 of the draft PHACS regarding EPBC Act being State legislation, it should be listed as federal

legislation 2 Suggests an Environmental Levy or tax on all NSW residents to finance the creation and maintenance of draft

PHACS projects. 3 No issues. 4 Suggests that revegetation adjacent to rainforest areas should include sclerophyll forest to improve wildlife corridor

function, which can be impeded by pure rainforest vegetation. 5 1. The draft PHACS needs a system for assessing and managing complaints to offset emotive self-interested

complaints. 6 1. Offsetting of minor works and fines for non-compliance should also apply to Council operations that require

vegetation removal. 2. Possibly too much reliance on Environmental Levy for funding unless the levy rate is increased. 3. Do the riparian corridors in draft PHACS consider water level increases likely to result from climate change. 4. Disagrees with the draft PHACS statement 7(page 11) regarding th9e ability to maintain the current ecological footprint. 5. Page 60 par 2 dot pt 2 why should DA be referred to Rec Services? 6. Page 52 Clause B (2b) “vegetated” should be “vegetation”. 7. A time schedule needs to be attached to the actions in Table 7. 8. Additional EL charges to be allocated specifically to draft PHACS. 9. The proportion of EL funding going to draft PHACS should be noted in the Landholder Incentives Guide. 10. Council should assist or partner affected landholders in seeking and completing grant applications for state and federal funding for rehabilitation goals. 11. Page 30 – point 1.1.10 change “should” to “will” to remove ambiguity. 12. Page 33 – if the Vision 2030 statement is to replace Council’s Management Plan then “consider the” should be changed to “instil the”. 13. Actions 5.1.5 and 5.1.7 should also apply to Council activities. 14. There should be an action that specifically requires accountability for development decisions made by Council, councillors and/or the GM under delegated authority. 15 The significant tree register should be administered by Councils Biodiversity Unit.

7 No issues 8 Resist watering the draft PHACS down under pressure from self-interested parties. 9 Happy with strategy, suggests some amendments/

corrections 10 Could have better public information.

Hopes Koala Plan more substantial and council will be more sincere in its implementation. 11 No issues. 12 Recommends that the draft PHACS document provide more detail with regards to the GDR connecting on the

coastal plain, species at their distributional limits, clarify which species are migratory. Fruit-dove migration is uncertain and should not be used as an example. draft PHACS should refer to the various shorebird and seabird migrants. Should list senna as another highly invasive weed.

13 Suggests more consultation. Document is complex. Current legislative framework is complex, need clearer guidelines. Points out that perception that landowners who have preserved vegetation will get less incentives/entitlements than those who have cleared vegetation. Need to manage this perception.

14 Environmental benefits. Economic benefits. Cultural and social benefits. Lists errors and omissions.

15 Offers general support for draft PHACS. 16 In support. No issues of concern. 17 In support. No issues. 18 In support, no issues.

- 100 -

No ISSUES (SUPPORT) 19 In support. Recommended that two areas north of the Bonville Village Growth Area not be delineated as growth

areas. 20 In support. Notes that on page 26 of draft PHACS CHRL or the Orara Valley Rivercare Group Mgt Comm. Should

be nominated as the partner organisations, rather than Landcare Australia. Note some confusion with EECs and RVCs on page 78, Table 12 of draft PHACS. Recommends that all RVCs occurring within each EEC be included in the table.

21 1. The draft PHACS needs a system for assessing and managing complaints to offset emotive self-interested complaints.

22 Strongly supports. Supports dog and cat free subdivision 23 Supports document 24 General support 25 Maintenance burden. 26 Suggests mapping of watercourses 27 Supports the document, offers some specific comments 28 No issues. 29 No issues 30 Commends the long term management approach and targeting of future investment for rehabilitation in specific

areas. The draft PHACS could be more effective in terms of community appeal if the detail could be simplified. draft PHACS should state its purpose in terms of informing the SLEP.

31 Supportive of the draft PHACS. Approves of the proposed incentives approaches outlined in draft PHACS.

32 Supports the draft PHACS initiative. 33 Supportive of draft PHACS. Considers it to be an important piece of work. 34 Supportive of the draft PHACS.

Approves of the proposed incentives approaches outlined in draft PHACS. Commends council efforts at community consultation.

35 Is supportive of draft PHACS. Would like to see more stringent rules to prevent clearing of vegetation from Category 2 areas. Offset plantings are insufficient to compensate for the removal of mature vegetation. Recommends total protection of old growth trees in the significant tree register. draft PHACS should incorporate a detailed coherent plan for regeneration/rehabilitation to emphasise the need for perpetual active management. CHCC need to provide better management of roadside vegetation identified as high conservation habitat. Bushfire APZs for new dwellings etc should not encroach into environmental zones. Only a small proportion of funding should go towards research and monitoring. It is more important that funds are targeted at on ground works.

36 In support of draft PHACS. 37 Strongly supports draft PHACS. Recommends more comprehensive inclusion of SEPP14 areas in E2 zones. 38 Supportive of draft PHACS. 39 Supportive of draft PHACS. 40 Supports draft PHACS. Emphasises the importance of the proposed incentives in getting landholders involved and

committed to draft PHACS. 41 Supports the general principles of draft PHACS.

Inadequate community consultation. draft PHACS penalises landholders that have done the right thing in the past. draft PHACS definition of “native vegetation” in Clause B needs to be clarified.

42 In support of draft PHACS which acknowledges the good work done by volunteer groups. 43 In support of draft PHACS. 44 In support of draft PHACS. 45 In support of draft PHACS. 46 In support of draft PHACS. 47 In support of draft PHACS. 48 In support of draft PHACS. 49 No issues. 50 On page 10, section 1.2.2 of draft PHACS add deer to the list of major vertebrate pests in the Coffs Harbour LGA. 51 Need to consider estuarine vegetation communities in the zonings. 52 Supports. Proposes mapping change along northern boundary of 45 Rutland St Bonville on behalf of Amberstar. 53 In support 54 Strongly supports 55 Strongly support 56 Supportive of both documents. 57 Commends both documents. Supports recommendations. 58 Generally supportive.

- 101 -

No ISSUES (SUPPORT) 59 In support of draft PHACS. 60 Requests that Lot 2 DP 840016 Pacific Highway, Emerald Beach be excluded from any proposed changes to land

zoning until the DoP has completed assessment of a current project application for a 121 residential subdivision on the subject land.

61 Recommends that the revised draft KPOM consider the National Koala Conservation and Management Strategy. 62 Refer to comments for IR 2449735. 63 No issues.

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 1 1. Rejects impact on property owner’s rights;

2. The burden of draft PHACS is carried by a select few for the benefit of the broader community; 3. Questions who will be responsible for maintaining revegetated areas within draft PHACS; 4. Requests that landholders be compensated for the costs of maintaining trees and bushland in draft PHACS; 5. Concern for increased bushfire risk associated with draft PHACS; 6. Approval from council should not be required for maintenance of rural infrastructure requiring removal of vegetation in draft PHACS; 7. Corridors have been incorrectly mapped over areas containing houses and buildings.

2 Draft PHACS impacts on productive agricultural land with inadequate compensation for affected landholders. Residential landholders should pay more into the environmental levy to support draft PHACS. Incentives need to include more funding for fencing and weed management in draft PHACS areas. Disapproves of significant tree register.

3 Insufficient community consultation with affected landholders. 4 1. Recommends that Council pay to acquire land within draft PHACS. 5 1. Questions the need to rezone the land;

2. Concerned about the potential adverse effect the future market value and viability of her property. 6 Believes the draft PHACS to be grossly unfair to rural dwellers and farmers.

Suggested that Council staff should grow up because we are all off with the fairies. 7 1. Inadequate compensation proposed for affected rural landholders.

2. Potential negative impacts on farm viability and productivity. 3. Negative impact on future property values. 4. Category 3 zoning will make any future Council approvals for logging more difficult to obtain. 5. Proposed incentives are inadequate. 6. Loss of landholder rights.

8 1. Inadequate community consultation. 2. The costs of draft PHACS should be spread over the entire community, not just rural landholders. 3. Proposed incentives/compensation for affected landholders is inadequate and unrealistic. 4. Questions who will be responsible for maintaining the corridors. 5. More site-specific evidence is required to justify changes to land management.

9 1. Draft PHACS will impact on farming viability. 2. Draft PHACS will impact on affected rural property values. 3. Existing LEP 2000 provides adequate protection to riparian areas. 4. Opposed to increasing Environmental levy, yet believes proposed incentives are also inadequate. 5. Refers to an error in the Environmental Levy formula provided on page 46 of the draft PHACS. 6. Draft PHACS is not wanted by the community.

10 1. Lack of community consultation. 2. Draft PHACS has inadequate compensation for affected landholders.

11 AS PER FORM LETTER 12 Concerned about impacts of draft PHACS on property value, bushfire control, general uses of the land (i.e. camp

fires, bike riding etc) and the ability to continue maintaining the vegetation i.e. removing saplings, slashing. 13 1. Inadequate community consultation.

2. Draft PHACS is unfair to landholders that have retained native vegetation on their properties. 3. Categories 2 and 3 impact negatively on farm viability and productivity. 4. Nearby area of Category 4 is situated on steep land under a powerline, which is unsuitable for any living. 5. Corridor is incorrectly placed on their property. 4. Draft PHACS would reduce property values. 6. More approvals would be required to facilitate simple tasks ie. Building a shed or pump house. 5. Recommends that a rural economist be contracted to evaluate the draft PHACS impacts on the rural economy.

- 102 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 14 1. No compensation for affected rural landholders.

2. Inadequate community consultation. 3. Potential negative impacts on farm viability and productivity.

15 1. Inadequate community consultation. 16 1. No compensation for affected rural landholders.

2. Inadequate community consultation. 3. Potential negative impacts on farm viability and productivity. 4. Loss of landholder rights and freedom of choice.

17 1. Draft PHACS proposes inadequate compensation and incentives for affected landholders. 2. Draft PHACS will result in reduced rural productivity. 3. The cost of maintaining the corridors will be an added financial burden to rural landholders.

18 Lack of consultation with affected landholders during preparation of the draft PHACS. 19 Lack of consultation with affected landholders during preparation of the draft PHACS. 20 Lack of consultation with affected landholders during preparation of the draft PHACS. 21 AS PER FORM LETTER 22 1. Inadequate community consultation.

2. Potential negative impacts on farm viability and productivity. 3. Potential negative impacts on rural property values. 4. Draft PHACS could worsen flooding impacts due to more blockages in riparian areas.

23 1. Inadequate community consultation. 2. Potential negative impacts on rural property values.

24 1. Inadequate community consultation. 2. Potential negative impacts on farm viability and productivity. 3. Potential negative impacts on rural property values. 4. Draft PHACS could worsen flooding impacts due to more blockages in riparian areas.

25 1. Category 3 zoning will prohibit or restrict future changes in agricultural uses. 2. The landholder will not continue weed control measures on their land if ordered to do so by draft PHACS. 3. Lack of consultation with affected landholders during preparation of the draft PHACS. 4. The draft PHACS should include an outline of future economic benefits that would result through its implementation. 5. Calls for compensation to landholders who suffer a loss of income resulting from the draft PHACS. 6. Demands that a rural economist be commissioned to evaluate the effect of draft PHACS on the rural economy and residential land development in the LGA.

26 draft PHACS does not adequately address issues relating to bushfire management within areas affected by draft PHACS. Lack of community consultation.

27 1. Lack of community consultation. 2. Loss of landholder property rights.

28 1. Lack of community consultation. 2. Loss of landholder property rights.

29 Concerns regarding draft PHACS impacts on future land usage and family lifestyle. 30 Concerned that 50 metre wide habitat corridor on Bucca Creek would affect property income and livestock carrying

capacity. 31 1. Inadequate community consultation.

2. Concerns about changes to existing rights to subdivide in the future. 3. Impacts on landholder rights.

32 1. Inadequate community consultation. 2. Compensation for affected landholders is required.

33 AS PER FORM LETTER 34 1. Draft PHACS is a violation of landholder rights.

2. Draft PHACS will devalue land. 35 Inadequate community consultation. 36 1. Draft PHACS is a violation of landholder rights. 2. Inadequate community consultation. 37 No valid issues. 38 Concerned that draft PHACS will restrict future agricultural and forestry uses.

Draft PHACS will impact negatively on future rural land values. 39 Draft PHACS will impact negatively on future rural land values. 40 1. Increased riparian vegetation resulting from draft PHACS will:

Restrict views required to oversee the land, livestock and pests; and Increase weeds problems.

2. Draft PHACS impacts on rural productivity. 3. Fencing of riparian areas is impractical, expensive to maintain and counter-productive in terms of protecting biodiversity due to increased fire hazards. 4. Lack of community consultation.

- 103 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 41 1. Refers to errors in the draft PHACS vegetation mapping as discussed in a meeting with Council staff. 42 1. Points to a council conspiracy to hide something!!

2. Found the draft PHACS very difficult to read and interpret. 3. Proposed incentives are inadequate. 4. Recommends that the Biodiversity Unit take a pay cut to repay the money spent on the draft draft PHACS.

43 Draft PHACS needs comprehensive explanations of the various to assure the community that it is not a land grab. Draft PHACS needs to be consistent with other council strategies. Draft PHACS should acknowledge the good work already achieved by rural landholders in rehabilitating and protecting biodiversity.

44 Restriction of land use. Lack of consultation. Financial implications, flow on effects. Increased maintenance burden. Reduced property values. Health implications, i.e. suicide.

45 Points out mapping error, Cassia lane Woolgoolga 46 Needs Plain English summary.

Needs more public meetings and Q & A sessions. 47 Lack of community consultation.

No assessment of economic impacts of draft PHACS. Draft PHACS would result in lost rural productivity and associated economy. Draft PHACS would restrict future expansion of agricultural activities. Questions likely effectiveness of proposed draft PHACS incentives. Loss of property values. Draft PHACS will impact on landholder rights. Calls for a rural economist to review the economic impacts of draft PHACS.

48 Alienation of productive farm land. Decrease of property values

49 Alienation of productive farm land. Decrease of property values

50 Rejects plan. No nominated issues.

51 Increased maintenance burden. Lack of consultation. Cost should be borne by whole community.

52 Current regulations sufficient. Increased financial burden. Cost should be borne by whole community. Maintenance burden.

53 Lack of consultation. No economic analysis. Loss of agricultural productivity. Economic flow on effects. Conflicts with current zoning. No analysis of incentives. More approvals, Das required. Decreased land value. Erosion of rights. Recommends independent rural economist analysis.

54 AS PER FORM LETTER 55 The draft PHACS document is difficult to read and unclear in terms of potential implications for affected properties.

Lack of community consultation during preparation of draft PHACS. 56 1. Draft PHACS impacts on farm productivity and future land values.

2. Lack of community consultation. 3. Draft PHACS is unnecessary given high level of protection provided by the NV Act.

57 1. Have been successful land managers, protecting habitat. 2. Loss of earning potential 3. Environmental problems such as increased weeds, feral animals

58 More trees mean more bush fire hazard. 59 Lack of community consultation.

No assessment of economic impacts. Draft PHACS impacts on PNF. Draft PHACS impacts on future subdivision and boundary adjustment options. Draft PHACS represents another layer of approvals required for undertaking basic rural tasks. Draft PHACS impacts on rural land values.

- 104 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 60 Draft PHACS impacts on land values and future uses of the land. Recommends review by a rural economist. 61 Landowner’s rights affected.

Existing riparian corridors are adequate. Loss of income and flow on effects. Incentives not detailed. Lack of consultation. Difficult to understand.

62 Lack of consultation 63 Landholders have been doing adequate job, more laws not needed. 64 Concerned about the draft PHACS impact on private native forestry, the viability of his timber mill, future

employment of his employees and rural economic impacts in general. 65 1. Potential negative impacts on farm viability and productivity.

2. Loss of landholder rights.

66 Concerned about his and his wife’s future employment at a timber mill in Ulong. Employer has informed him that their jobs would be jeopardised by draft PHACS.

67 Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS will exacerbate weed problems due to restricted access by machinery due to trees. Draft PHACS impacts on DA applications. Concerned about the requirement to fence off draft PHACS areas. The broader community should bear the cost of draft PHACS if they want the potential benefits, not just rural landholders.

68 Refer to NSW Farmers Fed comments. 69 1. Draft PHACS proposes inadequate compensation for affected landholders.

2. Draft PHACS will result in reduced rural productivity. 3. The cost of maintaining the corridors will be an added financial burden to rural landholders. 4. Inadequate community consultation. 5. Draft PHACS would prevent implementation of an existing PNF PVP.

70 Increased bushfire risk. Existing riparian zone adequate. Increased maintenance burden. Loss of timber rights.

71 Perception that it does not allow existing land use in Category 2. Land loss without compensation. Next to State Forest, so corridor unnecessary. Maps show canopy veg, but not where under-cleared. What is relation to NV Act? Suggests some improvements.

72 Proposed area covers house and gardens. Subdivision potential affected. Requests visit.

73 Cat 3 extends beyond existing 7A zone. Considers this will devalue her property. Wants cat 3 removed from her property. Existing corridor adequate.

74 No specific issues, objects to the strategy as restriction on private land. 75 No issues. Rejects the draft PHACS. 76 Rejects the draft PHACS. No issues stated. 77 draft PHACS impacts on rural property values. Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS would result in

greater impacts by weeds and fire hazard. 78 The draft PHACS contravenes landholder will and is therefore against the Australian Constitution. 79 AS PER FORM LETTER 80 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS.

Lack of community consultation in preparing the draft PHACS. Draft PHACS will exacerbate weed control and fire management hazards that are currently under control on well managed rural lands.

81 1. Inadequate community consultation. 2. The costs of draft PHACS should be spread over the entire community, not just rural landholders. 3. Proposed incentives/compensation for affected landholders is inadequate and unrealistic. 4. Questions who will be responsible for maintaining the corridors. 5. More site-specific evidence is required to justify changes to land management.

82 Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS impact on the local economy through loss of rural productivity, particularly private native forestry. Draft PHACS provides inadequate compensation to affected landholders.

83 Concerned about draft PHACS impacts on rural productivity and farm viability.

- 105 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 84 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS.


85 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS. Lack of community consultation in preparing the draft PHACS. Draft PHACS will exacerbate weed control and fire management hazards that are currently under control on well managed rural lands.

86 draft PHACS impacts on rural economy. Inaccurate vegetation mapping for their property. Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS impact on rural land resale values. Recommends Council pay $5000 per acre to acquire his land. Concerned draft PHACS may lead to communism breaking out.



89 Draft PHACS could impact on agricultural viability of the property. Draft PHACS will add to the burden of landholders in terms of increased maintenance and weed control costs.

90 Impacts landowner’s rights. Existing riparian corridors are adequate. Loss of income and flow on effects. Incentives plan not detailed enough. Lack of consultation. Difficult to understand.

91 draft PHACS will have negative impact on rural land values. Banks could foreclose on mortgages if the revalued assets are reduced as a result of draft PHACS zonings. Lack of consideration of potential economic impacts of draft PHACS. Recommends that the compensatory actions contained in the draft PHACS be committed prior to the draft PHACS being implemented. Draft PHACS could limit potential to access assistance opportunities from other government bodies.

92 Council needs to discuss current land uses with affected property owners. It is unclear how the mapping was derived for his property, which does not appear to make sense. Would like notification from council as to why his property is substantially more affected than neighbouring properties.

93 Draft PHACS will impact on values of rural residential land. Concerned that draft PHACS will impact on dwelling entitlements for his properties, which are covered in Cat 3. Questions the value of increasing riparian corridor widths. Concerned that any future development will require substantial replanting of trees.

94 The mapped property boundaries in the draft PHACS are out of alignment, which results in most of the property infrastructure (house, pool, sheds etc.) being located in Category 2. The vegetation on the property mapped Cat 2 has been planted by the landholder. Such vegetation should not be rezoned to Cat 2. No compensation for reduced land values or lost productivity resulting from draft PHACS. Impacts on landholders rights to use their land.

95 Lack of community consultation. Lack of economic impact analysis. Lack of compensation for affected landholders.

96 AS PER FORM LETER 97 Lack of consultation, cost of rehabilitation works, increased fire risk 98 AS PER FORM LETTER 99 AS PER FORM LETTER 100 AS PER FORM LETTER 101 Draft PHACS document is confusing. 102 Lack of consultation, devalue of property. 103 Lack of consultation, increased fire risk 104 No consultation, increased weeds and erosion, devaluation. 105 AS PER FORM LETTER 106 AS PER FORM LETTER 107 Expansion of riparian zone will usurp productive river flats. Because of flood these cannot be fenced. 108 Expansion of riparian zone will usurp fertile river flats. Unclear of how this operates with NV Act. 109 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS.


110 AS PER FORM LETER 111 Lack of consultation, lack of notification. 112 Mapping errors and inconsistencies, including mapping of orchard and previous banana land. Need more

checking, more info about landowner rights 113 Poorly researched. Protecting weeds. Erosion of rights. No real compensation. 114 AS PER FORM LETTER

- 106 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 115 AS PER FORM LETTER 116 AS PER FORM LETTER 117 AS PER FORM LETTER 118 AS PER FORM LETTER 119 AS PER FORM LETTER 120 Restriction of rights. Disagrees with creating fauna corridors associated with crossing pacific highway. 121 Lack of community consultation and poorly presented to the general public.

Draft PHACS contains inaccurate mapping. The mapping of the various categories makes no sense. Intends to take a class action lawsuit against council if draft PHACS is adopted.

122 Mapping inaccuracies. Lack of consultation. Cost and maintenance burden on property owners. 123 Property will be devalued, unable to recoup expenditure. Financial hardship. Has preserved vegetation, unlike

surrounding farms, now is penalised. 124 AS PER FORM LETTER 125 AS PER FORM LETTER 126 Existing regulations enough. No consultation. Result in weeds and fire risk. 127 Existing regulations enough. No consultation. Result in weeds and fire risk. 128 Economic hardship. Devalue property. 129 Concerned about draft PHACS impacts on private native forestry.

Loss of landholder rights. Concerned about draft PHACS impacting on the future development potential of lands formerly zoned for agriculture. Draft PHACS will penalise landholders that have retained native vegetation and reward those that have denuded the land. Draft PHACS is incompatible with other local and state legislation i.e. Karangi subdivision plan and NV Act. Draft PHACS requires real compensation for affected landholders.draft PHACS will not address future housing demands of a growing population. Requests that Council circulates a detailed Q&A response letter to the submissions to all affected landholders and stakeholders.

130 As per FORM LETTER 131 As per FORM LETTER 132 As per FORM LETTER 133 Comprehensive review of document. Issues: loss of productivity, does not address other threats to wildlife.

Considers SF should be considered as part of strategy. Erosion of rights. Inequitable (to other LGAs). Lack of consultation.

134 Lack of consultation, existing riparian adequate, maps not detailed enough to distinguish property. 135 Lack of consultation. No economic evaluation. Lost productivity. Reduction in property value. Erosion of rights. 136 Lack of consultation. Draft PHACS is a land grab with no compensation.

Impacts on private native forestry and associated businesses and economy. 137 Draft PHACS mapping contains inaccuracies.

Draft PHACS penalises landholders that have retained and revegetated their properties. Draft PHACS will impact negatively on rural land values affected by draft PHACS. Lack of identified corridors in urban area, Bonville golf course and north-south through urban areas, why?

137 Impacts on private native forestry. Council to compensate for lost timber resource. 138 draft PHACS would result in loss of productive agricultural land.

WHO would undertake and pay for maintaining areas affected by draft PHACS? 139 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS.


140 Agrees with draft PHACS aspirations, but not to achieve via local government legislation. Wants the proposed incentives kept, but remove any constraints to future land uses. Rural land holder will be penalised and unfairly burdened by draft PHACS.

141 Weed issue. Increased financial burden. Lack of compensation. Reduced farm productivity. Inadequate incentives.

142 Do not lock up my waterfront unless you’re willing to pay full market price. 143 Disputes the corridor value of his property.

Concerned that draft PHACS will devalue his property and make harder to sell in future. Lack of community consultation. Concerned that the Category 4 zone will limit future development on his land. Draft PHACS will impact on land user rights.

- 107 -






















164 Draft PHACS impacts on individual farm economies and broader rural economic effects. Potential impacts on timber mills and private forestry. The burden and costs of draft PHACS need to be shared among the entire community.

- 108 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 165 Draft PHACS impacts on individual farm economies and broader rural economic effects.

Potential impacts on timber mills and private forestry. The burden and costs of draft PHACS need to be shared among the entire community.






171 Draft PHACS will incur extra costs to affected landholders and reduce land values. 172 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS.


173 Draft PHACS is a land grab. 174 Lack of community consultation.

Draft PHACS impacts on rural land values. Inadequate compensation for affected landholders. Weed control issues and responsibilities.

175 Doubts that the draft PHACS can achieve its stated aims. Proposed incentives provide insufficient compensation to affected landholders. Increased fire and weed issues.

176 Impacts on farm viability. Draft PHACS document difficult to comprehend. Council’s dictatorial approach to devising and communicating the draft PHACS to the community has generated angst. Recommends draft PHACS include input from a rural economist. Advises Council worker to “get the hell out of the office”.

177 Draft PHACS contains inaccurate mapping. No consideration of site-specific factors. No economic modelling. Increased costs to landholders for future management and maintenance of draft PHACS affected lands. Lack of consultation. What will be the costs to ratepayers for draft PHACS implementation.






183 Loss of property rights. Increased costs of fencing. Reduced land values. Need to simplify the draft PHACS to make it legible to the layperson. Lack of community consultation.

- 109 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 184 Lack of community consultation.

Inadequate ground-truthing. Loss of productive agricultural land. Not enough detail provided in draft PHACS about restrictions and future management in affected areas. Who will be responsible for weed management in draft PHACS areas and who will pay for it? Lack of compensation for affected land holders.

185 Impacts on private native forestry and associated businesses. Longer travel distances for workers to gain work will result in increased environmental impacts.

186 Draft PHACS will result in lost income and reduce land values. Impacts on private native forestry. Broader impacts on rural economy.

187 Loss of productive land. Increased weed issues resulting from draft PHACS. Lack of compensation to affected land holders.

188 AS PER FORM LETTER 189 States that 60% of LGA already forested. No need to protect any more.

Not enough scientific substantiation of proposed corridors and their use. Draft PHACS would impact on rural properties and families. Increased fir hazards. Loss of rural productivity, hence rural economic impacts would be inevitable. Calls for council to purchase draft PHACS affected land. Draft PHACS contains no compensation for affected landholders. Lack of economic analysis of draft PHACS impacts. No assessment of costs for implementation. Lack of community consultation.

190 Wildlife are already adequately protected in remaining forests. Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS has not considered economic impacts, disruption to land management practices or potential fire hazard risks. Draft PHACS is unreasonable as consumes entire properties with restrictions. Draft PHACS needs to be more realistic. Draft PHACS requires more site specific scientific studies to justify constraints. Draft PHACS will sterilize agricultural land without achieving any real environmental outcome over the proposed 20 to 30 year period. Draft PHACS has ignored the entitlement of landowners. Draft PHACS appears incomplete and rushed.

191 Council should purchase draft PHACS affected land or provide adequate compensation to affected landholders. 192 Draft PHACS impact on land value. 193 Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS will alienate landholders, which will have an adverse effect on

rehabilitation and revegetation initiatives. Draft PHACS will penalise landholders that have retained native vegetation and reward those who have denuded their land. Lack of ground-truthing to verify the mapping provided in draft PHACS. Some of the draft PHACS statements regarding scientific concepts ie. Climate change is not substantiated with facts. Section 1.2.4 makes some pretty big claims regarding draft PHACS being a fix-all solution to population growth, pollution etc. This is unrealistic and should be toned down or further substantiated. The negative impacts of the strategy need to be acknowledged and discussed in draft PHACS. It’s not a win-win proposition. Draft PHACS will reduce rural productivity, resulting on greater reliance on non-local produce, hence greater use of fossil fuels etc. thus contradicting the objectives of the strategy in terms of sustainability. Draft PHACS needs to confirm that the biodiversity values it seeks to protect, which are primarily within State Forest areas, will be protected by public land managers. Council need to make public the rule sets that were used for defining each corridor. How will draft PHACS interact with the rural fires act? Council should prove RVC accuracy scores on their website. Second draft of draft PHACS should be prepared and put back on public exhibition. Significant tree register should be treated as a stand-alone proposition rather than piggybacked on the draft PHACS. How will draft PHACS interact will State Forest legislation in protecting significant trees on public lands. Costs of implementing the significant tree register should be made public. Panel of experts should include a permanent member to maintain consistency in assessment.


195 Loss of property rights. 196 Loss of property rights. 197 Draft PHACS is unnecessary, existing regulations are sufficient to protect environmental values.

Draft PHACS presents an economic burden on council and rate payers. Draft PHACS worsen weed and fire hazards. Methodology used for draft PHACS is too broad and not site specific enough to be effective.

- 110 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 198 Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS impacts on landholder rights. Impacts on rural economy and

agricultural land productivity. Unfair burden would be placed on only one group in the community for benefits to be enjoyed by entire community. Proposed incentives inadequate.

199 draft PHACS methodology is too broad and needs to be refined to property scale in consultation with individual landholders. Loss of private property rights. Draft PHACS incentives are insufficient.

200 Lack of consultation. Draft PHACS will exacerbate weed, fire hazard and soil erosion problems. Draft PHACS will devalue the land.

201 Lack of consultation. Draft PHACS will exacerbate weed, fire hazard and soil erosion problems. Draft PHACS will devalue the land.



204 Draft PHACS will have a detrimental effect on farm productivity and viability, which in turn would impact on the local economy. Existing conservation areas are sufficient. Draft PHACS will exacerbate weed control and fire management hazards.

205 No specific issues. 206 No specific issues. 207 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS. Lack of

community consultation in preparing the draft PHACS. Draft PHACS will exacerbate weed control and fire management hazards that are currently under control on well managed rural lands.

208 AS PER FORM LETTER 209 Draft PHACS does not meet the stated vision or provide mechanism to monitor when draft PHACS could meet the

vision. Draft PHACS is not consistent with statements made in the Great Eastern Ranges project with regards to PVPs co-existing with GER. No studies have been done with regard to social, economic, cultural or spiritual impacts associated with draft PHACS. Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS impact on hard rock supplies and timber resources. Requirements to fence off draft PHACS too onerous on landholders. Disputes the use of the Old Growth definition provided in draft PHACS. Draft PHACS contains no economic analysis of implementation costs. Draft PHACS would increase the need for dual consent from state and local government to clear native vegetation. Draft PHACS will incur additional costs on council, which will in turn impact on finances to address other council obligations.

210 Lack of community consultation. Recommends that Council provides a full brief to each affected landholder as to how they will be affected and compensated.

211 No specific issues raised. 212 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS. Lack of

community consultation in preparing the draft PHACS. Draft PHACS will exacerbate weed control and fire management hazards that are currently under control on well managed rural lands.

213 Loss of prime agricultural land resulting from draft PHACS will impact on rural productivity, local economy and will affect future generations in a negative way. Draft PHACS will impact on rural land values. Draft PHACS lack of compensation for affected landholders. Fencing off areas will exacerbate weed and feral animal problems.

214 Lack of community consultation. Incorrect mapping of Category 2 on the subject land. Draft PHACS categories will have a detrimental economic impact in terms of future agricultural productivity. Draft PHACS applies a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Need to clarify the term environmentally sensitive lands in clause A, is it synonymous with lands zoned for environmental protection? Several terms in clause A require clarification. Assessment requirements under Clause A greater than that required under EP&A Act. Recommends that clause a not be adopted by council. Clause A would extend council powers to control activities over extensive areas of cleared land beyond the powers under the standard LEP. Clause B issues with the definition of Native Vegetation. The definition should exclude vegetation planted or regenerated since January 1990 not subject to public funding or requirements of a restoration or rehab plan. The suggested change in definition is required to ensure no disincentive to private planting of native vegetation. The potential economic impacts of draft PHACS have not been assessed. Economic impact assessment is recommended. Draft PHACS does not provide any evaluation or discussion of alternatives for achieving the stated draft PHACS aims. The methodology for determining corridor widths is flawed and based on minimal scientific evidence. Draft PHACS adopts only one type of corridor (linear) despite evidence that several other type of corridor would also be effective. Draft PHACS provides no evidence of a sound understanding of how different species move through and respond to varying forms of structural connectivity. The new generation vegetation mapping is no more accurate, and potentially less accurate than the existing Fisher mapping.


- 111 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 216 Draft PHACS category 4 will restrict future development potential in her back yard. Draft PHACS is invasive and

unnecessary. The east-west corridor at Sapphire Crescent doe not make sense as it leads wildlife to a proposed six lane highway.

217 Lack of community consultation. Online presentation of the draft PHACS was very poor in terms of people not being able to locate their own properties and determine how they were affected.

218 Draft PHACS is filled with jargon and acronyms and needs to be simplified for public consumption. Each land holding should be assessed on its merits rather than by blanket computer modelling approach. Such initiatives should be implemented by state or federal government so as to spread the costs over all tax payers.


220 Draft PHACS will take away landholder rights. Draft PHACS will impact on ability to graze horses in the paddock. Draft PHACS will increase fire hazard. Recommend that landholders be included on the draft PHACS committee.

221 Lack of community consultation. Is not sure if his property is affected. Strongly objects to draft PHACS if it does affect his property. Is apologetic if draft PHACS does not affect his property.

222 Draft PHACS will increase bushfire hazard by limiting ability to suppress vegetation growth near residential dwelling. Draft PHACS will prohibit future intended dual occupancy development of the site.

213 No valid issues. 214 Lack of community consultation. Widening of riparian buffer zones has not been justified. No justification for the

loss of agricultural land for Category 3 zonings. Draft PHACS will diminish rural land values. Draft PHACS contravenes the Australian Constitution in terms of landholder rights. Recommends a new brief be formulated by a rural economist, rural representatives and a constitutional legal representative. Council’s decision on draft PHACS should be notified to all landholders by mail.

215 Draft PHACS impacts on weed problems. Draft PHACS impacts on aquatic habitat quality. Draft PHACS impacts on flooding effects and damage to infrastructure. Draft PHACS will exacerbate fire hazards.

216 Lack of community consultation in preparing the draft PHACS. Concerned about who will be responsible for and pay for maintenance and fencing off of draft PHACS areas. Draft PHACS will exacerbate weed issues. Draft PHACS will restrict future plans to develop the site. Fears draft PHACS is a stepping stone to a dictatorship.





221 Lack of community consultation. Loss of property rights. Draft PHACS impacts on land values. Loss of farm income due to restrictions on selective logging in environmental categories. Draft PHACS will lead to weed problems.




225 Uncertainty regarding proposed draft PHACS zonings will devalue rural land holdings. Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS impacts on landholder rights and future agricultural activities. Draft PHACS will lead to bushfire management issues. Draft PHACS does not include a rural living zone equivalent to the environmental living zone proposed for urban areas. Draft PHACS contains contradictory statements with regard to maintaining existing agricultural use rights. Draft PHACS incentives are insufficient. Draft PHACS provides no compensation for landholders whose properties are devalued by environmental categories.

- 112 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 226 Draft PHACS will penalise this particular landholder for retaining native vegetation over a large proportion of the

subject land. Concerned about impacts of draft PHACS on continuing rural activities such as selective timber removal for fencing, removal of regrowth and building a shed. Draft PHACS will devalue the land. Draft PHACS will impede current management of noxious weeds by prohibiting slashing in corridor areas. Impacts on agricultural productivity. The NV Act provides sufficient protection of native vegetation.

227 Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS impacts on landholder’s rights. Draft PHACS should not reduce the area of land set aside for current and future agricultural production. Draft PHACS will impact on agricultural productivity. Draft PHACS unfairly places the costs on to rural landholders. Draft PHACS will have negatively impact on rural land values. Proposed incentives are inadequate.

228 The mapped property boundaries in the draft PHACS are out of alignment, which results in most of the property infrastructure (house, pool, sheds etc.) being located in Category 2. The vegetation on the property mapped Cat 2 has been planted by the landholder. Such vegetation should not be rezoned to Cat 2. No compensation for reduced land values or lost productivity resulting from draft PHACS. Impacts on landholders rights to use their land.

229 Does not support the fencing of riparian zones as they are hazardous during floods, impede weed and bushfire management and result in livestock and wildlife entanglement. Increased corridor widths will result in increased weed management problems. Fencing of riparian areas would be very costly. Recommends more incentives based approach than a regulatory approach to habitat and corridor management. Lack of community consultation.

230 Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS will incur additional costs to rural landholders for submitting Das for future development. Draft PHACS does not provide an adequate definition of native vegetation. Request for council to inform affected landholders of future developments regarding implementation or adoption of the draft PHACS.

231 Refer to Nigel Cotsell’s meeting notes regarding modification of categories on this property. 232 Draft PHACS would severely restrict future development of the land, particularly for agriculture. Draft PHACS will

impact on property values. Lack of community consultation. More ground-truthing required for such an important issue. Draft PHACS would exacerbate fire hazard problems.

233 Draft PHACS would devalue the land and exacerbate weed and fire hazard problems. Lack of community consultation.

234 Draft PHACS would severely restrict future development of the land, particularly for agriculture. Draft PHACS will impact on property values. Lack of community consultation. More ground-truthing required for such an important issue.

235 Draft PHACS is inequitable, affecting mainly rural landholders. Cost not shared with the broader community. Inadequate community consultation. Draft PHACS would reduce land values. Greater restrictions on farming activities. No assessment of potential economic impacts of draft PHACS. Inadequate compensation for affected landholders. Draft PHACS would have broader impacts on food production. Loss of land rights. Inaccurate vegetation mapping in draft PHACS.





240 Against. No specific issues. 241 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS.




- 113 -



















261 Existing regulations are sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS. Lack of community consultation in preparing the draft PHACS. Draft PHACS is inequitable, with urban dwellers being unaffected while rural landholders are burdened with the costs. No economic assessment done. Potential loss of prime agricultural land. Loss of landholder rights. Need to ground-truth every property to be acceptably accurate.

262 Draft PHACS online maps are difficult to interpret. Draft PHACS will restrict future access road and drainage maintenance. Draft PHACS will restrict or prohibit future intentions to subdivide. Requires direct consultation if draft PHACS intends to change zoning of the land.

263 AS PER FORM LETTER 264 Loss of land values.

Draft PHACS will inconvenience landholders and decrease farming income. 265 AS PER FORM LETTER 266 AS PER FORM LETTER

- 114 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 267 draft PHACS mapping is inaccurate.

Draft PHACS takes too much of a broad brush approach with lack of site-specific considerations. Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS contains no analysis of economic impacts.

268 AS PER FORM LETTER 269 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS.


270 AS PER FORM LETTER 271 AS PER FORM LETTER 272 AS PER FORM LETTER 273 AS PER FORM LETTER 274 AS PER FORM LETTER 275 AS PER FORM LETTER 276 AS PER FORM LETTER 277 AS PER FORM LETTER 278 AS PER FORM LETTER 279 AS PER FORM LETTER 280 AS PER FORM LETTER 281 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS.


282 AS PER FORM LETTER 283 AS PER FORM LETTER 284 AS PER FORM LETTER 285 AS PER FORM LETTER 286 AS PER FORM LETTER 287 AS PER FORM LETTER 288 AS PER FORM LETTER 289 Draft PHACS will ruin the family farming business. 290 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS.




293 Orara River riparian vegetation does not support a koala population. Existing reserves provide sufficient protection of habitat corridors. Proposed incentives are inadequate. Who would be responsible for flood damage caused by draft PHACS?


295 Draft PHACS will exacerbate bushfire hazards. Draft PHACS will lock up more land without compensation to affected landholders. Calls for full compensation for affected landholders. All rehabilitation costs should be covered by council. Subdivision of ex-banana plantations should be allowed to enable landholders to cover maintenance and rehabilitation costs.

296 Draft PHACS will increase land management costs, while decrease farm income and reduce land values. Draft PHACS will impact on PNF related businesses ie. Timber mills etc. Lack of community consultation. The revised draft PHACS must include input from affected landholders. Draft PHACS needs to consider impacts on the rural economy and social welfare issues. The burden of draft PHACS needs to be shared across the entire community who would benefit not just rural landholders.

297 Refer to comments on IR No. 2451512 298 Refer to comments on IR No. 2451512 299 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS.


- 115 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 300 Most farms are already being managed sustainable. Existing state regulation is already too onerous and provides

more than enough environmental protection. Draft PHACS will impact on future plans to undertake PNF. Draft PHACS will devalue the land and prevent the landholder from reducing existing debts. Council should work more closely with affected landholders in revising the draft PHACS. Recommends a holistic rotational landscape approach to selective logging, which would form mosaics of habitat for wildlife to move within. Draft PHACS will result in council enforcing a wide range of conditions when ever a DA is lodged for lands in draft PHACS. Draft PHACS will impact on rural economic growth, which has not been considered in the draft PHACS. Draft PHACS will impact on Australian food production. Draft PHACS will worsen weed and feral animal issues.

301 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS. Lack of community consultation in preparing the draft PHACS. Draft PHACS will exacerbate weed control and fire management hazards that are currently under control on well managed rural lands. Concerned that future successive council staff will change the rules again, thus losing even more control of the land.

302 No legible comments. 303 There is insufficient community support for widening of riparian zones.

Council has insufficient funds to implement the proposed incentives. Council does not have the funds to adequately maintain the current areas of public lands in their control, let alone the additional funds required to implement draft PHACS. Draft PHACS contains mapping errors of the subject land, which have been discussed with Nigel Cotsell. Concurs with general comments put forward by the NSW Farmers Fed.









312 Generally very unhappy with the readability of the draft PHACS document. Provides many pedantic comments regarding the draft PHACS structure, legibility to the layperson and unsubstantiated statements. Draft PHACS contains very little actual data. Draft PHACS has no meaningful discussion regarding economic, social, cultural and spiritual values under consideration. The proposed incentives plan is open to corruption and do not provide sufficient detail to enable landholders to determine their worth.


314 Draft PHACS document is difficult to interpret by laypersons. Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS riparian fencing requirements would be too costly and time consuming to maintain. Concerned that council would use forested private land to offset their carbon footprint. Draft PHACS will devalue affected rural land. Draft PHACS contradicts requirements of the rural fire service. Money for draft PHACS would be better spent on other pressing community needs.


- 116 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 316 Draft PHACS is not transparent enough. Draft PHACS vegetation mapping is incomplete due to lack of ground-

truthing. Draft PHACS would place additional impositions on landholders. Existing landholder rights are likely to become more expensive to exercise under draft PHACS. Draft PHACS provides no compensation to affected landholders. More site specific evidence is required before adopting draft PHACS. Significant Tree Register should be treated as a separate issue to the draft PHACS. Inconsistent widths and locations of proposed corridors in relation to the distribution of koala habitat and urban development. Draft PHACS seems to contradict serval bushfire hazard reduction requirements. Draft PHACS does not analyse potential economic or social negative impacts.



319 State regs are sufficient. Draft PHACS is a waste of money. Council is already broke and will not be able to afford implementation of draft PHACS. Riparian fencing will exacerbate weed and bushfire hazards. Lack of community consultation.

320 Current farming practices will become unviable if draft PHACS is adopted. 321 Current riparian buffers are adequate.

Draft PHACS will reduce land values. Current management is appropriate and does not require change.

322 Current farming practices will become unviable if draft PHACS is adopted. Would be seeking compensation if draft PHACS is implemented.

323 Lack of community consultation. Will council provide compensation if draft PHACS impacts on farm productivity or resale value? draft PHACS mapping is incorrect. Draft PHACS encourages wildlife to cross main roads. Draft PHACS will increase financial burden to affected landholders. Draft PHACS impacts on landholder rights. Draft PHACS increases bushfire hazards. Draft PHACS reduced primary agricultural land.


325 Lack of community consultation. No assessment of impacts on rural economy. Draft PHACS would reduce farm productivity. Objectives of Environmental categories conflict with those of the existing 1A zoning. Draft PHACS would impact on future farming options. Lack of site specific investigation when preparing draft PHACS. Proposed incentives have not been costed or analysed for effectiveness. Draft PHACS would require more onerous DA approvals. Draft PHACS would reduce land values. And impact on landholder rights.

326 If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. 327 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS.


328 Draft PHACS impacts on landholder rights. Draft PHACS contains no summary. Proposed incentives are insufficient. Urban dwellers need to foot some of the bill for implementing draft PHACS. Draft PHACS has no solid base.



331 Farmers are already environmentally friendly. 332 Lack of community consultation.

Farmers are already doing a good job of managing the environment. 333 Farmers are already environmentally friendly. 334 Lack of community consultation.

Farmers are already doing a good job of managing the environment. 335 Lack of community consultation.

Farmers are already doing a good job of managing the environment. 336 Lack of community consultation.

Farmers are already doing a good job of managing the environment. 337 No meaningful comments

- 117 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 338 Lack of community consultation. 339 Lack of community consultation. 340 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS.





344 draft PHACS will reduce rural incomes, yet increase costs of rural management. Existing NPs and SFs provide adequate environmental protection. Draft PHACS does not consider impacts on rural economy, particularly those related to PNF. Lack of community consultation.

345 AS PER FORM LETTER 346 Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS document very difficult to comprehend due to overuse of jargon.

Draft PHACS penalises landholders that have retained native vegetation on their property. Draft PHACS will devalue forested land. Draft PHACS places unfair burden on rural landholders to achieve a broad community benefit. Past landholder actions that benefit the environment need to be considered in the draft PHACS when assessing future development of the property. Draft PHACS needs to consider alternative means other than wide corridors for managing edge effects. Opposes significant tree register process, which is not voluntary by the affected landholder. Opposes changes to the existing riparian zone width.

347 Recommends substantially greater input in to draft PHACS by affected landholders through one-on-one interviews with council.

348 Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS will impact on landholder use rights. Proposed incentives, particularly the Environmental levy will be insufficient to effectively implement draft PHACS. The STR is flawed as third parties can make spurious claims about trees on ones property.





353 Could not obtain sufficient information about draft PHACS. 354 Lack of community consultation.

Draft PHACS imposes unfair burden on affected rural landholders. Draft PHACS will lock up land in the long term. Proposed incentives are inadequate to compensate affected landholders. The burden of draft PHACS needs to be spread over the entire community, not just rural landholders. Draft PHACS mapping contains many errors. Draft PHACS is too simplistic and does not consider the vast array of complexities involved in rural land management.

355 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS. Lack of community consultation in preparing the draft PHACS. Draft PHACS will reduce land values for affected properties, which in turn will impact on borrowing capacity. Draft PHACS will impact on farm viability.


357 Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS will increase weed problems and fire hazards. Draft PHACS will devalue affected rural land. Draft PHACS will result in reduced farm productivity and impact on rural economy and rural incomes.

- 118 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 358 Draft PHACS will impact on farm productivity.

Draft PHACS will impose additional financial burdens on rural landholders. 359 Draft PHACS will impact on farm productivity.

Draft PHACS will impose additional financial burdens on rural landholders. 360 Draft PHACS will reduce farm productivity and increase weed problems and fire hazards. 361 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS.


362 There are no koalas in riparian vegetation along the Orara river. More ground-truthing is required. Compensation will be required for affected landholders. Council is to cover costs of managing, fencing and maintaining corridors. Environmental levy funds will be inadequate to cover costs of draft PHACS. Opposes fencing of riparian areas. Council needs to form partnerships with individual landholders.

363 Draft PHACS would increase weed problems and fire hazards. Interference from public authorities in rural land management is unnecessary given farmers good track record in environmental management. Does not trust lines on a map.











374 Refer to comments for IR No. 2449921 375 Requests to examine the submissions on draft PHACS. 376 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS.


377 Draft PHACS impact on PNF. Opposes fencing of riparian areas due to lost carrying capacity and increased weed problems.

378 Draft PHACS is not based on accurate assessment of individual properties. Draft PHACS is inconsistent with the rural residential strategy for Nana Glen. Draft PHACS will devalue the land and inhibit agricultural productivity.

- 119 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 379 Lack of community consultation

Devaluing of affected properties, which in turn will affect landholder’s borrowing power and future productivity. Draft PHACS does not adequately consider the economic and associated social impacts. Draft PHACS places unfair burden on rural landholders. Recommends rural economist to assess impacts of draft PHACS. Draft PHACS should include adequate compensation. Draft PHACS should acknowledge and quantify conservation measures and costs already incurred by landowners in the past. Threats of legal action if draft PHACS goes ahead.

380 State regs provide sufficient environmental protection. Draft PHACS will increase weed problems and fire hazards. Council will have insufficient funds to provide adequate incentives or compensation. Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS will devalue affected properties. Draft PHACS will undermine chosen lifestyles.

381 Draft PHACS document is difficult to comprehend. Draft PHACS does not acknowledge the good work being done by the rural community. Draft PHACS has idealistic expectations. Council is dictating future land use through draft PHACS. Lack of compensation for affected landholders. Rural fears that further restrictions will creep in over time. Draft PHACS will devalue affected rural land. Proposed incentives are insufficient. Fencing of riparian areas is unrealistic and expensive. Draft PHACS description of rate rebates is unclear. Recommends the use of regular awards as an incentive. Too many uncertainties remain in the description of incentives. Recommends that environmental levy accumulated for individual properties should be made available to the landholders of those properties for rehab works.


383 Existing 7A is adequate protection. Does not support further restrictions on landholder’s rights. Draft PHACS will increase fire hazards.

384 Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS will take away landholders control of their land. Draft PHACS will impact on rural land values and future development options. Draft PHACS will restrict private native forestry. Draft PHACS does not consider the economic implications for rural areas.

385 Lack of community consultation. Draft PHACS impacts on rural land values, farming activities, landholder rights and any future development of the affected lands.

386 Draft PHACS will devalue the land, reduce farm productivity and increase weed and fire hazards. Lack of community consultation.

387 Draft PHACS impacts on private native forestry, farm productivity and landholder rights. Draft PHACS will reduce land values without compensation for affected landholders. Council or the state should purchase the affected lands at market value. Draft PHACS will impose additional infrastructure costs if affected areas are to be fenced off. Draft PHACS will increase fire hazards.

388 Draft PHACS impacts on farming diversification within environmental zones. 389 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS.


390 Concerned about the impact of draft PHACS on private native forestry and farm productivity. Disapproves of fencing requirements and the associated additional costs to the landholder.

391 Lack of community consultation. Inaccurate mapping in draft PHACS. Current state legislation is adequate. Draft PHACS will devalue affected lands. Draft PHACS has no provision for RAMAS in Category 2 areas. Draft PHACS will result in higher rate of illegal activities.

392 AS PER FORM LETTER

- 120 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 393 Reduced property values.

Errors in draft PHACS vegetation mapping. 394 AS PER FORM LETTER 395 AS PER FORM LETTER 396 AS PER FORM LETTER 397 Lack of community consultation.

Draft PHACS document is confusing to read. Draft PHACS does not include any process for discretion in circumstances where common sense is required. Draft PHACS is unclear in terms of which agricultural practices can continue to be undertaken in riparian zones. Do riparian zones need to be fenced? Draft PHACS does not appear to have considered loss of rural productivity or devaluation of rural property. Conflict between draft PHACS zones and actions permissible under the NV Act. Draft PHACS mapping is highly inaccurate. Draft PHACS should be based on individual assessment of each affected landholding. draft PHACS has no scope for goodwill between council and rural landholders.

398 Refer to IR 2448661 for same comments. 399 Refer to IR 2448661 for same comments. 400 Refer to IR 2448661 for same comments. 401 Refer to IR 2448661 for same comments. 402 A large proportion of the LGA is already contained in environmental zones.

Does removal of barriers to fauna movement entail removing of farm fencing and letting the livestock roam free? Draft PHACS will increase weed problems. Draft PHACS drawing on the Environmental levy will deprive other worthy projects of funding. Lack of scientific assessment in draft PHACS derivation of Cat 2 land.

403 AS PER FORM LETTER 404 AS PER FORM LETTER 405 AS PER FORM LETTER 406 AS PER FORM LETTER 407 draft PHACS will reduce rural productivity and land values. 408 AS PER FORM LETTER 409 AS PER FORM LETTER 410 AS PER FORM LETTER 411 Lack of community consultation.

State regulations are sufficient to protect vegetation. Draft PHACS will exacerbate weed and fire hazard problems.

412 Lack of community consultation. State regulations are sufficient to protect vegetation. Draft PHACS will exacerbate weed and fire hazard problems.

413 Lack of community consultation. Inaccurate mapping of vegetation used in draft PHACS. Draft PHACS will impact on farm productivity and rural land values. The objectives of the proposed environmental zonings will conflict with the objectives of the current Agricultural zoning. Draft PHACS will incur significant financial burden on affected landholders through increased weed control costs. Economic costs of the draft PHACS are unknown and have not been assessed. Recommends review of draft PHACS by an independent rural economist.

414 AS PER FORM LETTER 415 Lack of community consultation.

Draft PHACS is biased towards coastal developers. Draft PHACS impacts on landholder rights, without compensation. Concerns about bushfire and weed management under draft PHACS.

416 AS PER FORM LETTER 417 Refer to IR 2444050 418 AS PER FORM LETTER 419 AS PER FORM LETTER 420 AS PER FORM LETER 421 AS PER FORM LETTER 422 AS PER FORM LETTER 423 AS PER FORM LETTER 424 AS PER FORM LETTER 425 AS PER FORM LETTER 426 AS PER FORM LETTER

- 121 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 427 AS PER FORM LETTER 428 Lack of community consultation.

State regulations are sufficient to protect vegetation. Draft PHACS will exacerbate weed and fire hazard problems.

429 Draft PHACS will cost him his job as a farm labourer. 430 Draft PHACS not detailed enough.

Questions the quality of the science behind draft PHACS. Draft PHACS will impact on the productivity of valuable rural land. The signicant tree register should be treated as a separate issue to draft PHACS. Draft PHACS does not provide adequate compensation to affected landholders.

431 Farmers are the best environmental managers. 432 Farmers are the best environmental managers. 433 Farmers are the best environmental managers. 434 Farmers are the best environmental managers. 435 Lack of consultation. 436 Farmers are the best environmental managers. 437 Farmers are the best environmental managers. 438 Farmers are the best environmental managers. 439 Refer to IR 2451630 comments. 440 Lack of community consultation. State regs are sufficient. Did not buy the land with restrictions.

Draft PHACS incurs large costs on affected rural landholders. Who will fence the draft PHACS areas? Increased costs of weed control. Increased bushfire hazards. Loss of property values.

441 Lack of community consultation. State regs are sufficient. Did not buy the land with restrictions. Draft PHACS incurs large costs on affected rural landholders. Who will fence the draft PHACS areas? Increased costs of weed control. Increased bushfire hazards. Loss of property values.

442 Farmers are the best environmental managers. 443 Lack of community consultation.

Loss of farm productivity and land value. Draft PHACS is unclear in terms of potential impacts on essential rural activities ie. fencing and subdivision of paddocks. What are the impacts of draft PHACS on weed management ie. slashing and spraying, in draft PHACS areas. Draft PHACS will form another layer of approvals being required for everyday farming practices. Draft PHACS impacts on the local economy need to be analysed properly.

444 Does not want some do-gooders telling him what to do. 445 Draft PHACS will impact on farm productivity, future land uses and property values. Draft PHACS will increase fire

hazards. Draft PHACS will prevent or inhibit future development options. Draft PHACS will incur additional costs to rural landholders. Lack of ground-truthing in draft PHACS maps. Lack of community consultation. Incorrect mapping boundaries on draft PHACS maps. Koala mapping is also inaccurate for the property.

446 Draft PHACS will limit or prohibit future subdivision of land and limit potential developments on draft PHACS affected areas.

447 Draft PHACS will increase fire hazards, devalue land and incur increased costs to landholders without compensation. Lack of community consultation.

448 Agrees with the need for a long term strategy to protect habitat and corridors. 449 Draft PHACS would take away landholder rights and will reduce land value. 450 AS PER FORM LETTER 451 AS PER FORM LETTER 452 AS PER FORM LETTER 453 Impacts on land values and ability to use the land for horse riding and growing vegetables. 454 AS PER FORM LETTER 455 Lack of community consultation.

Draft PHACS does not consider the costs of implementation to council or the landholders. Inadequate compensation for landholders to fence and manage weeds in draft PHACS. No compensation for loss of agricultural productivity.

456 Draft PHACS does not include an economic analysis of potential impacts. Impacts of draft PHACS on rural land values.

457 No comments. 458 AS PER FORM LETTER 459 Draft PHACS would take away rural landholder rights.

Draft PHACS will create fire hazards. Lack of community consultation.

- 122 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 460 Refer to comments submitted by Peter Griffin IR No. 2452992

Another case of cut & paste. 461 Fencing draft PHACS would severely limit the livestock carrying capacity of the property. Draft PHACS contains

no compensation for such losses. 462 AS PER FORM LETTER 463 AS PER FORM LETER 464 AS PER FORM LETTER 465 Rejects strategy 466 Reduce usable land area. 467 AS PER FORM LETTER 468 AS PER FORM LETTER 469 Increased maintenance burden, require compensation 470 AS PER FORM LETTER 471 AS PER FORM LETER 472 Lack of consultation 473 AS PER FORM LETTER 474 AS PER FORM LETTER 475 Existing regulations are adequate. Existing riparian zone adequate. No consultation with farmers. 476 AS PER FORM LETTER 477 Wants no further restriction on logging, riparian zone already enough, river flats most fertile land, not used for

more corridors 478 AS PER FORM LETER 479 AS PER FORM LETER 480 AS PER FORM LETTER 481 State regulation is sufficient for achieving the environmental outcomes proposed by draft PHACS.


482 Not enough information has been provided to landholder to make an informed decision. 483 The draft PHACS is to be commended. 484 1. Draft PHACS will impact on landholder’s confidence in Council.

2. Rural property sales will dwindle thus increasing land prices. 3. Lack of compensation for primary producers.

485 1. Draft PHACS will have significant negative impacts on private native forestry and associated businesses and rural landholdings.

486 1. Perceived devaluation of landholdings affected by Category 3 zoning. 2. The area affected by Category 3 zoning is excessive given the extent of existing 7A land on the property. 3. Recommends that the Category 3 corridor be removed from the property and that the Category 3 zoning be excluded from maps. Alternatively, landholders affected by Category 3 should be contacted individually to discuss voluntary reafforestation incentives.

487 Chapter 5 – difficult to connect actions, timeframes and priority. Suggest table for these and articulate the hierarchy of actions, objectives, etc. More detail on relationship with SLEP.

488 draft PHACS impacts on farm productivity. Draft PHACS inadequate compensation for affected landholders. Lack of community consultation.

489 Erroneous mapping of primary koala habitat on lot 107 and 112 DP 752817. 490 Refer to comments for IR No. 2451500 491 Increase in riparian zones, reduction in productivity, interplay between existing use and legislation. 492 Considers existing regulations are enough. More vegetation equals fire risk 493 AS PER FORM LETER 494 Expansion of riparian corridors will consume almost half this property. 495 Table 2 (page 16) of draft PHACS needs to be clarified to demonstrate that other zones other than rural may have

Cat 3 (ie. 6c private rec). Draft PHACS is more restrictive than existing regs under the NV Act. Concerns about current and future development of the site and implications resulting from draft PHACS and the Cat 3 zone. The draft PHACS should include and describe appropriate appeal mechanisms to enable affected landholders to refute future decisions resulting from draft PHACS. Will the proposed Biobanking incentive be administered by council or the state govt.

496 Lack of consultation. No economic evaluation. Land removed from production. No measure of uptake of incentive. More approvals required.

497 Loss of income, loss of control. No compensation.

- 123 -

No ISSUES (OBJECTIONS) 498 Loss of productive agricultural land and flow on negative economic effects to associated businesses.

Higher costs for weed and feral animal control. Lack of community consultation. Lack of economic analysis. Proposed incentives have not been assessed in terms of potential effectiveness. More approvals required to undertake basic rural tasks. Loss of land values. Draft PHACS penalises farms with corridors and retained native vegetation.

499 Concerned about draft PHACS Category 4 zone prohibiting future development of the site. 500 Concerned that draft PHACS will prohibit vegetation clearing for the maintenance of bushfire APZs.

Concerned that draft PHACS will inhibit the current and future operation of a rock quarry where even the operating face is proposed for Category 2.

501 AS PER FORM LETER 502 The draft PHACS mapping requires further ground-truthing.

Draft PHACS does not consider all aspects of our city. Draft PHACS places all the responsibility of ownership and maintenance on individual landholders.

503 Requests exclusion of subject land on the basis that an existing consent is in place to develop the site as a caravan park.

504 No input from rural economists. Draft PHACS will jeopardise viability of agriculture on the property. No input into draft PHACS from the agricultural sector. Data used in draft PHACS is old and flawed. Ground-truthing is required but is unlikely to be completed. Draft PHACS will result in further losses of prime agricultural land.

505 Site specific concerns about inclusion of cat 3 in an area adjacent to the Pacific Highway Upgrade, which would encourage fauna movement across a 4 lane highway, which does not make sense.

506 Draft PHACS will affect future expansion of Jung’s Quarry, which will have significant economic impacts for many businesses and individuals. Draft PHACS needs to adopt a broader more holistic approach to future land management.

- 124 -

- 125 -

coffs harbour city council ordinary meeting … · community engagement strategy that has included...

Documents