Agenda of Meeting of Singleton Council

SINGLETON COUNCIL	Meeting of Singleton Council - 21 June 2010

	Business Support Report (Items Requiring Decision) - DBS56/10

56.

Adoption Draft Management Plan 2010/11 - 2013/14

Author: Anthony Egan

FILE: 02/0208-3

Executive Summary

Council at its Ordinary Council meeting held on 3 May 2010 in considering the 2010/11 to 2013/14 Draft Management Plan (DMP) resolved that:

“1. Council adopt the 2010/2011 – 2013/2014 Draft Management Plan for public exhibition.

2. In accordance with Section 405 of the 1993 Local Government Act, Council place on public exhibition its 2010/11 to 2013/14 Draft Management Plan from Friday 7 May 2010 to 4.30 pm on Friday 4 June 2010.

3. The Draft Management Plan be exhibited in the Customer Service Centre of the Council Administration Building, in the Library and on Council’s Web page for the period of exhibition.

4. Council advertise in the Singleton Argus that the Draft Management Plan is on public exhibition and invite public comment on the Plan.”

In accordance with the above resolution, the DMP was placed on public exhibition on Friday 7 May 2010 until Friday 4 June 2010. The DMP was available at the Council Administration Centre, Singleton Public Library and on-line at www.singleton.nsw.gov.au.

The exhibition period has now closed and the Draft Management Plan for 2010/11 to 2013/14 is now presented for adoption.

RECOMMENDED that Council:

1. make the following rates for 2010/11

Rate Type	Category	Sub-Category	Ad Valorem Amount Cents in $	Base/Min Amount		Rate Yield $’000
Rate Type	Category	Sub-Category	Ad Valorem Amount Cents in $	$	% of Total Rate	Rate Yield $’000
Ordinary	Residential	Singleton	0.3860	$170.30	26.63%	3,316
Ordinary	Residential	Rural Residential	0.3667	$163.45	16.60%	813
Ordinary	Residential	Village	0.3252	$163.45	35.44%	147
Ordinary	Residential	Ordinary	0.2007	$176.40	26.25%	801
Ordinary	Business	Singleton	0.5328	$188.50	12.10%	799
Ordinary	Business	Mount Thorley	0.5328	$188.50	11.22%	156
Ordinary	Business	Village	0.5328	$188.50	24.98%	25
Ordinary	Business	Ordinary	0.2131	$188.50	20.34%	145
Ordinary	Farmland	Ordinary	0.1964	$154.80	14.85%	1,869
Ordinary	Mining	Coal	3.7996			3,752
Ordinary	Mining	Coal Rights	0.4464			0
					Total Yield	11,823

2. adopt the 2010/11 – 2013/14 Management Plan as tabled.

Background:

It is a legislative requirement for Council to adopt a Management Plan (MP) each financial year. The MP is the primary means by which Council establishes its specific intent with regard to activities to be undertaken, performance criteria and budgets.

The MP must be adopted by 30 June each year, after being publicly exhibited for at least 28 days.

Management Plan:

The MP has been prepared and sets out Council’s projects and services for the next 4 years and also includes the rates, fees and charges for the next 12 months.

Council Policy/Legislation:

The process of preparing the DMP, placing on public exhibition and final adoption of the MP needs to be carried out in accordance with Sections 402, 403, 404, 405 and 406 of the Local Government Act 1993.

All requirements specified under the relevant legislation have been complied with.

Financial Implications:

Draft Budget

The draft budget has been amended to incorporate Council’s resolution number 105/10 from the Council Meeting held on 17 May 2010. This resolution is in relation to the adoption of a strategic approach to respond to identified safety issues associated with Council’s unmaintained roads. This resolution has provided an additional annual budget allocation of $50,000 commencing in the 2010/11 budget for an “Unmaintained Roads Safety Program” in order to improve accessibility on all “Unmaintained Roads”. In addition this resolution provided a budget variation in the 2010/11 budget of $14,000 for the maintenance of the additional length of Mount Royal Road which will be an ongoing budget item.

Fees and Charges

Council’s DMP provides a full list of Council’s proposed Fees and Charges for the 2010/11 Financial Year.

At the Council meeting held on 7 June 2010, Council adopted the recommendations from the Regional Livestock Markets Advisory Committee which was held on Wednesday 26 May 2010. Included in the recommendation was an adjustment to the charges associated with the Saleyards Truck Wash. The draft Fees and Charges Schedule indicated a charge of $0.30 per minute with a minimum charge of $3.00 per wash. The Regional Livestock Markets Advisory Committee has recommended that this fee be increased to $0.40 per minute with a $4.00 minimum charge per wash.

Whilst the draft fees and charges were on public display Library Staff have identified that a proposed new annual fee for Community Book Clubs of $200.00 was excluded from the draft fees and charges schedule. This fee is to enable Community Book Clubs to borrow Book Club Kits from the library. The income generated will enable the Library to sustain its commitment to supplying resources to the Community Book Clubs.

With the introduction of the Government Information (Public Access) Act NSW 2009 on the 1st of July 2010 changes to the charges for access to information by the public were required. The Act requires certain information to be made available (Open Access) in at least one format free of charge. While newer information in electronic form will be made available on the council website, older information primarily building and development files will need to be made available to view free of charge by the public. These charges in relation to building searches have been removed. As some of these charges were incorporated with final building inspections the inspection charges have now been added as an individual charge. Whilst checking the fees and charges, other inconsistencies in relation to charging for information were also identified. Two different charges for the same specification were identified and one removed and a charge for a policy available on the web was also removed.

Consultation/Social Implications:

As detailed previously in this report Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 3 May 2010, in considering the DMP resolved that the draft plan be put on public exhibition and exhibited at Council’s Administration Centre, Singleton Library and online at Council’s webpage.

At the close of the exhibition period no submissions had been received.

Environmental Consideration:

The MP address environmental matters and due consideration is given to the environment as part of Council’s commitment to sustainability.

Risk Implications:

The Management Plan contains certain programs addressing Risk Management strategies and policies for the organisation.

Options:

In order for Council to meets its obligations under Section 406 of the Local Government Act 1993 Council needs to adopt its Management Plan prior to the 30 June 2010. Council however has the ability to make changes/alterations to the Management Plan prior to adoption if deemed necessary or appropriate.

Conclusions:

The DMP has been exhibited and no submissions have been received. This report has identified a number of changes to the DMP which are recommended for adoption.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Anthony Egan

Director Business Support

SINGLETON COUNCIL	Meeting of Singleton Council - 21 June 2010

	Business Support Report (Items Requiring Decision) - DBS57/10

57.

Request by Ourcare Services Inc for rental relief on premises in Bathurst Street Singleton

Author: Jennifer Blythe; Alan Fletcher

FILE: 10/0012

Executive Summary

Ourcare Services has requested Council waive its annual rental payment of approximately $46,000 and renegotiate the current lease over its premises, in Bathurst Street Singleton, in twelve months. Ourcare Services is making this request in order to assist in generating up to $200,000 it advises is needed to undertake additional works on the upper level of the building. This report recommends declining the request. The current rental amount was agreed by both parties and includes a discount of more than 50% on the commercial rental value of the property.

RECOMMENDED that Council maintain the existing lease arrangements as agreed and signed by Council and Ourcare Services Inc in 2007.

Background:

Ourcare Services Inc (previously known as Singleton Home & Community Care (HACC)) is a non-profit organisation which provides a range of services to the Singleton community including community transport, meals on wheels, neighbour aid, home maintenance, home modification, domestic assistance and personal care. These services are provided from Ourcare Services’ premises at 1B Bathurst Street, which is leased from Singleton Council. Ourcare Services is predominantly funded by the NSW Government – Ageing, Disability and Home Care (ADHC).

In 2006 Ourcare Services proposed to Council an extension of the building, in Bathurst Street Singleton, which would enable all services to be provided from the one location, plus the provision of an additional service for clients with dementia. The proposal stated that this would be at no cost to Council. Non-recurrent capital funding for the project was provided by ADHC.

In 2007 Council agreed to the development and construction of the building extension. Although the work was to be at no cost to Council costs for sewer repairs, electricity supply point changes and building lot consolidation were incurred.

In 2008 a Development Application (DA529/2008) was lodged for works described as “Additions to existing building including one toilet, one kitchen, patient holding room and upstairs storage area”. The value of the works was $274,764. This work has been fully completed. An interim occupation certificate was issued. Council will issue a final Occupation Certificate pending finalisation of the fire schedule and installation of a maximum floor loading sign.

In 2007 Singleton Council and Ourcare Services entered into a new rental agreement for the building. This agreement included a per annum rental amount of approximately $40,000 indexed to CPI. The reasons for the increase in rent are as follows:

§ The area rented had increased significantly, as it included the area previously occupied by the Council’s Activity Centre

§ The previous rental was unrealistically low and unsustainable

§ The area rented is approximately 500m² and commercial rental for this building was valued at $90,000 p.a. plus GST. Council has offered a rental discount to Ourcare Services, as a community service organisation, of more than 50%

On 29 April 2010 Ourcare Services wrote to Council requesting Council waive the rental payments for a period of twelve months. Ourcare Services also requested that the lease agreement be renegotiated after this twelve month period. Ourcare Services states in its letter the reason for the request is that it needs approximately $150,000 to $200,000 to complete the building as the upper level is only a shell. According to Council’s records, the work as described in DA529/2008 included fitting out the upper level as a storage area only. Any additional work, including fitting out this level for office space, would be subject to an additional Development Application.

In a subsequent meeting with the Manager of Ourcare Services Inc, and the President of the Ourcare Services Inc Board of Directors, The Manager Parks and Facilities and The Acting Manager Community and Cultural Services were advised that Ourcare Services urgently needs additional office space to house new employees; and that Ourcare Services plans to deliver an increased range of services in the future.

Indications are that Ourcare Services Inc has knowingly entered into another commercial rental agreement at a cost per metre far in excess than that specified in Council’s lease agreement.

This report recommends declining the request to waive the rental payments. The current rental amount includes a discount of more than 50% being provided.

Management Plan:

Council’s current Management Plan and Budget includes approximately $46,000 in rental income for the 2010/2011 financial year. This amount was agreed by Council and Ourcare Services Inc when the lease was signed in 2007. The current lease is due to expire on 30 June 2012.

Council Policy/Legislation:

N/A

Financial Implications:

Ourcare Services is funded by the NSW Government to provide a variety of services to the Singleton Community. This funding is to include the cost of office accommodation. Ourcare Services received a non-recurrent grant to complete the extensions and upgrade to the existing building.

In order for Council to maintain a balanced budget, a decrease in rental income of approximately $46,000 would need to be offset by a decrease in service provision to the value of the same amount.

Should Council consider a resolution other than the recommendation contained within this report, Council would need to consider what existing services may need to be delayed or cancelled to allow for a reduction in income contribution.

Consultation/Social Implications:

Consultation occurred with Ourcare Services Inc in 2006 and 2007. The initial proposal to extend and upgrade the building in order to accommodate all services in the one location and provide additional services was instigated by Ourcare Services. Council remained engaged in the process via participation on the Building Development Construction Committee.

Ourcare Services provides a range of services of great value to the Singleton Community, however the provision of these services is predominantly funded by the NSW Government.

Environmental Consideration:

NIL

Risk Implications:

Should Council not receive this rental income it will further erode its ability to maintain our existing community facilities to a standard whereby they can be used to adequately address the needs of the community.

Ourcare Services Inc has not indicated that it requires rent relief in order to maintain its current level of service to the Singleton Community. Ourcare Services Inc has indicated that it is subject to increased financial pressure for a number of reasons.

Options:

1. Maintain the existing lease arrangements as agreed and signed by both parties in 2007.

2. Provide the rent relief as requested for a period of 12 months and renegotiate the rent amount after the 12 month period. This option also requires Council to decide where to reduce its expenditure by $46,000 to offset the reduction in income.

Conclusions:

According to Council records the work to upgrade and extend the building at 1B Bathurst Street Singleton has been substantially completed in accordance with DA529/2008. This Application specified that the upper level of the premises be used for storage only.

Should Ourcare Services intend to undertake additional works on the upper level to the value of approximately $150,000 to $200,000 this would be subject to a further Development Application.

The current rent amount was agreed by both parties in 2007 and includes a discount of more than 50% on the commercial rental rate of the building.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Anthony Egan

Director Business Support

Attachment 1	Business Support Report (Items Requiring Decision) - DBS62/10
Minutes of Colleen Gale Childrens Services	Colleen Gale Children's Services Advisory Committee Meeting

COLLEEN GALE CHILDREN’S SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD

Wednesday, 9 June 2010

Present:

Anthony Egan Director Business Support

Jennifer Blythe Acting Manager Community & Cultural

Julie-Ann Stephens Acting Director CGCS

Cassandra Hill Authorised Supervisor Mobile Preschool CGCS

Carol Hepworth Diploma CGCS

Kim Deaves Administration CGCS

Natalie Downes Administration CGCS

Cr Ruth Rogers Councillor

Leanne Halsey Community Representative

1. WELCOME & APOLOGIES

Resolved that the following apology be accepted:

Cr Val Scott

(Hepworth/Deaves)

2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD 10 March 2010

Resolved that the minutes of the previous meeting be adopted as a true and accurate record.

(Downes/Deaves)

3. BUSINESS ARISING

· Line marking completed. Council’s use of an external contractor has contributed to the delay in having this work completed. Julie-Ann to discuss this with Gary Thomson.

· Funding – grant money has been allocated to the current year’s budget: GL172.0719. Money to be expended by 30 June 2010.

4. GENERAL BUSINESS

4.1 B-Pay

· Parents have requested the ability to pay on-line. Direct debit to be made available to users of the Mobile Preschool only as this service has a set fee with no Child Care Rebate calculated. Users of the other services will have the option of using B-pay. Kim to discuss with Anthony which B-pay service will be the most appropriate and establish the facility.

4.2 Security Buzzer

The following quotes have been received for security buzzers:

Newcastle Security - $4,774

Baileys - $6,475

- $5,775

The security order is to be confirmed on 22 June 2010.

The Committee discussed the various options and chose the Bailey Security & Communications quote for $6,457. This solution gave the functionality to enable security operation from the playground, from all three playrooms, and also the front office.

Resolved to recommend that Council to accept the quote from Bailey Security & Communications in the amount of $6,457.

(Egan/Blythe)

4.3 Finance report was submitted.

Resolved to recommend that Council note Colleen Gale Children’s Services financial report as of 31 May 2010.

(Egan/Stephens)

4.4 Director Report

· Julie-Ann to talk to Mark Wiblen regarding a computer/laptop for the

Mobile Preschool.

· CGCS has been nominated for Business Awards. Julie-Ann to discuss

this with Henry.

4.5 Other

· Kim advised parents are requesting payment via Eftpos at OOSH. Kim to discuss provision of a unit with Renee Carter.

· Kim advised that families are cutting back days due to the fee increase.

· The Committee discussed the effect of the fee increases and agreed that to date the effect has been minimal.

· Kim advised that the staff had a working bee before Accreditation. The Staff of the Centre were acknowledged as being very dedicated.

· Kim advised that there is a lot of administration work to be completed before the end of the financial year.

· Leanne advised that:

- 4 parents helped with the fundraiser for the BBQ as well as the rest of the staff.

- 3 parents helped with pie drive as well as the rest of the staff

5. NEXT MEETING

Wednesday , 11 August at 6.30pm in the Committee Room.

There being no further business the meeting concluded at 7.35pm

STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS:

Those matters considered relevant in the assessment of this application with respect to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act, 1997 include:-

(a) the provision of:

(i) Any environmental planning instrument.

The subject land is zoned 2 Residential and under the provisions of the Singleton Local Environmental Plan 1996, is permissible with Council consent.

The objectives of the zone are:

(a) to allow residential development, including dwelling-houses and residential flat buildings;

(b) to maintain and enhance the character and amenity of residential areas, to promote good urban design and to retain heritage values;

(c) to allow uses normally associated with residential development together with other development servicing the needs of the community, including schools, public utilities, professional chambers, churches and the like;

(d) to ensure that development does not have an unacceptable effect on adjoining land by way of shading, invasion of privacy, noise and the like; and

(e) to control development and impose minimum floor heights for dwellings in flood prone areas.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with these objectives.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) applies to the proposal and a BASIX Certificate has been submitted as part of the proposal. The consent will be conditioned to ensure compliance with the requirements and commitments of the BASIX Certificate.

(ii) Any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority.

No such instrument applies.

(iii) Any development control plan.

The Singleton Development Control Plan applies to the proposed development, in particular, the following elements:

Element 1 – Single Dwelling Houses

1.3.2 The proposal complies with the minimum site area for dwellings, site density requirements, or the floor space ratio requirements of this element of the DCP.

1.4.1 The building does not comply with Building Line and Setback requirements of the DCP, however this is discussed later.

1.4.2 The building does not generate significant overshadowing. This is discussed later.

1.5.2 The proposal satisfies the requirements for private open space.

1.7 The proposal complies with building height requirements.

1.8 The dwelling will be prominent in the subdivision, however is in keeping with similar developments in the locality.

1.9 The site has adequate access to Council’s reticulated water and sewer, as well as electricity and a public road. The site has sufficient space onsite to accommodate storage of garbage bins and external clothes drying facilities.

1.10 Solar Access – the site has adequate access to solar energy and will have minimal impact on the solar access of adjoining properties as compliance with Element 1.10 has been demonstrated.

Element 9 – Vehicle Parking and Manoeuvrability

9.2 Vehicular car parking is adequate.

9.5 The vehicular access and mobility is satisfactory.

Element 10 – Landscaping

10.4 A landscape plan has been submitted as part of the application and is considered to meet the requirements of Element 10.

Element 11 – Erosion and Sediment Control

11.2 A sediment control plan has been submitted as part of the proposal and conditions relating to erosion and sediment control will form part of the conditions of consent.

Element 12 – Stormwater Management

12.3 Onsite Stormwater Retention and Detention – the dwelling is to be fitted with two underground 10,000L water tanks. Overflow is to be drained to the street.

Element 13 – Waste Management

13.3 Waste Treatment and Disposal – the dwelling will be connected to Council’s sewer system.

Element 20 – General Building Line and Setback Requirements

20.1 The building complies with the general building line of 6 metres and the side boundary setback of 1.3 metres.

The building does not comply with the rear boundary setback of 7.8 metres.

In relation to the Singleton Development Control Plan, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the DCP elements, although it does not comply with sections of Elements 1 and 20 with regard to the rear boundary setback.

(iiia) Any planning agreements.

Not applicable.

(iv) Any matters prescribed by the regulations that apply to the land to which the development application relates.

Not applicable.

(b) The likely impact of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality.

Context & Setting:

The development is similar in scale with existing dwellings in the locality and will contribute to the streetscape. It will not significantly impact on the neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing or by compromising their visual or acoustic privacy. The proposal is consistent with the character of the locality and is consistent with existing landuses.

Access, transport & traffic:

The traffic movements generated as a result of the development will not be significantly noticeable in the locality.

Utilities:

The site has access to sewer, electricity and water. The supply of these utilities will not have any significant impact on the environment.

Water:

The water needs of the development will not significantly impact on the conservation of water resources and the water cycle. The dwelling is to be fitted with water saving devices in accordance with the commitments set out in the BASIX Certificate. All the roof water from the units will be collected and stored in two 10,000L tanks onsite.

Soils:

Throughout the construction stage, appropriate sediment and erosion control mitigation measures are to be implemented as per plans and conditions of consent. The land is in a residential area and is not likely to be used for agricultural purposes in the future.

Flora & fauna:

The site has been cleared for the purposes of residential subdivision and does not currently house any fauna or vegetation, with the exception of unkempt grass cover. Landscaping is proposed as part of the development and will be an improvement on the site’s current condition.

Waste:

Waste generated as a result of construction work will be stored onsite appropriately, before being moved off-site as soon as practical. Domestic waste generated as a result of residents will be collected by Council’s garbage collection service.

Energy:

The proposal must comply with the energy commitments set out in the BASIX Certificate. The site has adequate access to solar energy and is unlikely to impact on neighbouring properties’ access to solar energy.

Noise & vibration:

Noise and vibration will be generated during the construction of the development. On occupation general domestic noise will be similar in type and amount to the noise emitted by adjoining dwellings and will not have a significant impact on the residential amenity.

Natural hazards:

The land is not subject to flooding, bushfire, geological/soil instability or any other natural hazards.

Social impact in the locality:

Nil.

Economic impact in the locality:

Nil.

Site design:

The proposal is considered to be relatively sensitive to the site attributes and constraints. The proportion of the lot covered by the building is generally consistent with that of existing dwellings in the area, and the 2 storey design utilises the available space, while maximising the areas of private open space. The private open space meets the minimum requirements of Council policies. Landscaping will contribute to the amenity of the streetscape.

SINGLETON COUNCIL	Meeting of Singleton Council - 21 June 2010

	Planning and Regulations Report (Items Requiring Decision) - DP&R30/10

30.

Proposed Warkworth Mine Extension Project & Modification to the Hunter Valley South Project Consent

Author: Mark Ihlein

FILE: M6-6

Executive Summary

Coal & Allied have lodged two applications with the NSW Department of Planning seeking the Minister of Planning’s consent to extend the Warkworth Mine to the west, involving the possible closure of Wallaby Scrub Road, and to modify the Hunter Valley South Project consent to allow the Archerfield Biodiversity Enhancement Area to be used as part of the Northern Biodiversity Offset Area for the proposed Warkworth Extension.

Both proposals have been publically exhibited by the Department of Planning and any community submissions have been made directly to the Department.

This report provides an overview of the likely environmental impacts arising from both proposals and where appropriate raises issues of concern, particularly local community and infrastructure impacts. The issues arise from the following areas of impact:

· Biodiversity/Ecology

· Air Quality

· Visual Amenity

· Traffic and Transport – Wallaby Scrub Road

It is intended that this report together with other issues raised by the Council would be Singleton Council’s submission to the Department of Planning.

RECOMMENDED that this report be forwarded to the NSW Department of Planning as Singleton Council’s submission in respect of the Proposed Warkworth Mine Extension Project and Modification to the Hunter Valley South Project.

Background:

Warkworth Mine Limited has lodged a major project application for the Warkworth Extension Project.

The proposal is classified as a Major Project under State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 and will be assessed and determined by the Minister for Planning under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979.

The Environmental Assessment (EA) has been on public exhibition from 30 April 2010 until 15 June 2010. The Department of Planning has extended the time for Singleton Council to make a submission until 22 June 2010.

As part of the future expansion of the mine the proposal involves a biodiversity offset strategy which in part relies upon modifying the Hunter Valley South Coal Project consent to allow the Archerfield Biodiversity Enhancement Area to be used as part of the Northern Biodiversity Offset Area for the proposed Warkworth Extension.

Consequently, Coal and Allied Operations applied to the Minister for Planning to simultaneously modify the Hunter Valley Operations South consent. The Environmental Assessment has been on public exhibition from 25 May 2010 until 15 June 2010. The Department of Planning has also extended the time for Singleton Council to make a submission until 22 June 2010.

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the likely environmental impacts arising from both the proposals and where appropriate recommending raising issues of concern as a consequence of these impacts, particularly local community and infrastructure impacts. It is not the intention to provide a full or comprehensive environmental assessment of the proposed projects as would be the case if Council were the consent authority.

The Proposals

1.0 Warkworth Extension

The key components of the proposed Warkworth Extension include:

· extending the two main pits at Warkworth Mine (North and West pits) to the west;

· the completion, filling and rehabilitation of other smaller pits (CD, South and Woodlands Pits);

· the transfer of overburden and coal, between Warkworth Mine and Mount Thorley Mine;

· progressive replacement of the aging equipment fleet to allow for improved mining efficiencies;

· upgrading of some support infrastructure;

· closure of Wallaby Scrub Road in about Year 7 (nominally 2017) of proposed mining operations; and

· continuing the life of the Mount Thorley CPP and other mining infrastructure at Mount Thorley Mine currently used as part of the integrated Mount Thorley Warkworth (MTW) operations beyond the expiry of the Mount Thorley development consent in 2017.

The proposal also includes strategies to offset the potential impacts on biodiversity and Aboriginal cultural heritage.

While the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road is preferred, the proponent would relocate Wallaby Scrub Road if this is determined as the preferred option by the relevant authority. This issue is discussed further on in the report.

The proposed Warkworth Extension will extend the life of the mine from the current consent life of 2021 to 2031 (assuming project approval is granted in 2010), which is a 10 year extension of current approved mining. The proposed extension comprises approximately 1,271ha, which includes approximately 566ha of land approved for mining under the 2003 approval.

The following components of the current approved operations will continue unchanged and continued approval is sought for:

· the maximum production rate (18Mtpa of ROM coal);

· the maximum capacity of the Warkworth CPP (14Mtpa ROM);

· continuation of the maximum capacity of the Mount Thorley CPP beyond 22 June 2017;

· transfer of and disposal of overburden and coal between Warkworth Mine and Mount Thorley Mine; and

· integrated management systems for rejects and water.

An aerial photographic representation of the proposal is appended as “Attachment 1”.

2.0 Hunter Valley Operations South Modification

It is proposed to modify the terms of consent so as to reallocate remnant Woodland vegetation and native enhancement areas (140ha) in Archerfield to an alternative site within the Goulburn River Biodiversity Area as shown in “Attachment 2”. Archerfield was set aside as a biodiversity offset area for the clearing of nature remnants (48ha) and regrowth (92ha) vegetation as a consequence of the approved Hunter Valley Operations South Coal Project.

The proponent states the modification would allow the Archerfield Biodiversity Area to be used as part of the proposed Warkworth Extension – Northern Biodiversity Offset Area. In turn it is proposed to utilise an area of 140ha of remnant woodland within the Goulburn River Area for Hunter Valley Operations in lieu of Archerfield.

3.0 Local Environmental Impact

The following is an overview of likely environmental impacts together with issues of concern, where relevant, which are proposed to be raised with the Department of Planning.

The Hunter Valley Operations modification is effectively part of the Warkworth Extension proposal and the common impact issue is biodiversity. There would appear to be no other impact issue in respect of the Hunter Valley Operations modification.

Biodiversity

Approximately 764.7ha of woodland communities and 447ha of grassland will require clearing for the proposed Warkworth Extension.

Of the vegetation to be cleared a significant majority comprise Ecologically Endangered Communities (EEC) currently listed under the Threatened Specifies Conservation Act. Approximately 103.5ha of the EEC Warkworth Sands Woodland Community (WSW) would also be cleared.

The proponent has considered avoidance measuring including not open cut mining through the area as well as underground mining, but considered these as not feasible as it would result in sterilization of approximately 81% of the insitu coal resource.

Consequently, the following offsets package is proposed:

· Southern Biodiversity Area (718ha) which consists of land adjacent and a short distance from the proposed Warkworth Extension area offers long term protection of some 534.6ha of forest and woodland;

· Northern Biodiversity Area (342ha) which consists of land to the north of the proposed Warkworth Extension area offers long term protection of 123.3ha of woodland (including almost 20ha of WSW to be enhanced) as well as conservation, re-establishment and long term protection of some 195.8ha of WSW;

· Goulburn River Biodiversity Area (1,562ha) offers long term protection of some 1,203.5ha of forest and woodland which WML has an agreement to acquire and consists of land spanning the Goulburn River adjacent to the Goulburn River National Park a short distance south-west of Merriwa in western NSW. An area of 140ha has been set aside as a provision to offset the general woodland requirements for the HVO South Project Approval that forms part of the non-EEC woodland within the Northern Biodiversity Area, therefore 1,063.5ha is available and is directly attributable to the proposed Warkworth Extension; and

· Rehabilitation Area – establishment of some 780.6ha of woodland, 218.5ha of trees on grassland and 1,312.7ha of grassland. The rehabilitation has been aligned to provide a connecting north-south corridor of treed vegetation from the Hunter River/Wollombi Brook in the north, through rehabilitation of Warkworth Mine, Mount Thorley and Bulga Mines to provide a connection to Singleton Military Area in the south.

The Southern and Goulburn River Biodiversity Areas are proposed for the State and Commonwealth as well as rehabilitation of Mine Leases.

Loss of the WSW community is to be offset by the Northern Biodiversity Area.

In relation to the proposal to re-establish the WSW community the EA states the following:

“The desired outcome of enhancement and re-establishment of the WSW community is considered achievable through the University of New England research programme. Historical aerial photographs show that areas now considered to have good quality WSW were cleared in the early 1960s. However, by 1979 the vegetation had undergone significant regeneration and is now considered a good quality example of this community. A precedent therefore exists to show that the community can regenerate naturally when protected from grazing and ongoing clearing. The application of best available research combined with a knowledge that the woodland can naturally regenerate provides confidence that the community can be regenerated in the Biodiversity areas.”

Issues

1. The mine expansion would traverse through an area which was previously intended to be set aside as a conservation area.

2. To what extent are their alternative actions available should the re-establishment of WSW community fail.

Aboriginal Heritage

The EA considers project impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage and management in the context of the following land use management zones.

· The current and proposed disturbance area;

· The potential future development zone; and

· The proposed Wollombi Brook Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Conservation Area.

Up to 114 individual Aboriginal heritage sites would be impacted by the Extension. To mitigate those impacts it is proposed to establish an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Agreement or Accord. Important elements of such an agreement is improved Aboriginal access to land; establishment of the proposed Wollombi Brook Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Conservation area comprising approximately 500ha of land and permanent protection of a significant proportion of the Bulga Bora Ground.

Noise and Vibration

The proponent has undertaken a noise and vibration study using a computer model with local terrain and metrological data to predict noise levels at sensitive receivers from the proposed extension area and other mines operating concurrently.

The study also considered likely impacts arising from cumulative noise, sleep disturbance criteria exceedances, blasting, vibration and road traffic on 129 residences surrounding the mine over the 21 years of the proposal.

The study concludes that with the implementation of mitigation measures operational noise levels will exceed the consent acquisition limits at 7 private receivers. Six of these receivers are currently located within a zone of acquisition for the existing Warkworth operation and other mines. However, the Kermode residence (Receiver 153) would be included in the zone of acquisition.

In relation to ongoing monitoring the EA states the following:

“ In addition, real-time noise monitoring currently undertaken at locations in Bulga and the east of the mine will be expanded and upgraded to correlate with real-time weather data and used to improve existing noise management techniques. The real-time monitoring (when correlated with real-time weather monitoring) will be used to pre-emptively manage noise generated by mining operations before noise criteria are exceeded. Operational controls may include relocation and/or standing down of equipment. In the assessment of the need for the noise attenuation of equipment, WML commit to develop a noise trigger action response plan (TARP) that sets the operational noise level trigger for action. Action would include such things as analysis of real time monitoring, other monitoring, sound power level testing and modelling of current operations if required.”

Air Quality

The main area of concern regarding air quality impacts is the potential for impact on human health from the ingestion of particulate matter through the respiratory system.

The Environmental Assessment states the following in respect of environmental health criteria:

“Air quality impact assessment criteria are stipulated by DECCW in a document titled Approved Methods of the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales.

The assessment criteria provide benchmarks, which are intended to protect the community against the adverse effects of air pollutants. These criteria generally reflect current Australian community standards for the protection of health and protection against nuisance effects.

Particulate matter consists of particles of varying size and composition. The potential for harmful effects on human health is dependent on particle size and/or chemical composition.

The human respiratory system has in-built defensive systems that prevent particles larger than approximately 10 mm from reaching the more sensitive parts of the respiratory system. Particles with aerodynamic diameters less than 10 mm are referred to as PM10. Particles larger than 10 mm, while not able to affect health, may soil materials and generally degrade aesthetic elements of the environment. For this reason, air quality goals refer to measures of the total mass of all particles suspended in air. This is referred to as Total Suspended Particulate matter (TSP). In practice particles larger than 30 to 50 mm settle out of the atmosphere too quickly to be regarded as air pollutants. The upper size range for TSP is usually taken to be 30 mm. TSP includes PM10.

The health-based assessment criteria used by DECCW have, to a large extent, been developed by reference to epidemiological studies undertaken in urban areas with large populations where the primary pollutants are the products of combustion. This means that, in contrast to dust of crustalc origin, the particulate matter from urban areas would be composed of smaller particles and would generally contain acidic and carcinogenic substances that are associated with combustion. The indication therefore is that particulate matter of crustal origin, such as dust from mining, may be less harmful to health as it contains a smaller fraction of fine particulate matter, (e.g. PM2.5 and PM1) and also relatively less matter containing acidic and carcinogenic substances.

Just as PM10 particles are a sub-component of TSP, so PM2.5 particles are a sub-component of PM10 and therefore a sub-component of TSP. PM2.5 are fine particles with aerodynamic

diameters of 2.5 mm or less that can penetrate deep into the respiratory system and there is evidence that particles in this size range are more harmful than the coarser component of PM10 namely the 2.5 to 10 mm fraction.

Mining emissions will also include particles from diesel exhausts in activities where diesel

powered equipment is used. Thus mining generates particles in all the above size categories, namely PM2.5, PM10 and TSP. However, the great majority of the particles from mining operations are due to the abrasion or crushing of rock and coal and general disturbance of dusty material. As such most of the emissions will be larger than 2.5 mm. This is in contrast to particles found in bushfire smoke, or in the atmosphere in urban areas, where many of the particles are the result of combustion processes. A study of the distribution of particle sizes near (10 to 200 m) mining dust sources was undertaken on behalf of the State Pollution Control Commission (SPCC – now EPA) in 1986. The average of approximately 120 samples showed that PM2.5 comprised 4.7% of the TSP, and PM10 comprised 39.1% of the TSP in the samples (SPCC, 1986). Thus, although emissions of PM2.5 do occur from mining the percentages of the emissions in this size range are small and in practice the concentrations of PM2.5 in the vicinity of mining dust sources are likely to be low compared with internationally recognised goals.

In May 2003, NEPC released a variation to the NEPM (NEPC, 2003) to include advisory

reporting standards for PM2.5. The advisory reporting standards for PM2.5 are a maximum 24-hour average of 25 mg/m3 and an annual average of 8 mg/m3. The aim of the reporting standard was to gather sufficient data nationally to facilitate the review of the Air Quality NEPM which commenced in 2005 and was due to be completed during 2006. The review would include a protocol setting out monitoring and reporting requirements for particles as PM2.5. In November 2009, NEPC released a consultation draft for the proposed approach to setting national air quality goals, however at present; there is no time line for the states to attain compliance with any PM2.5 goals.

At this stage, the advisory reporting PM2.5 standards are not part of the NSW DECCW

assessment criteria, however predictions have been made as to the likely contribution that

emissions from the proposed Warkworth Extension would make to ambient PM2.5

concentrations. These predictions are provided as isopleth figures in Appendix B, with the

proposed advisory standard shown in red.

The criteria contained in this document that are relevant for use in assessing potential impacts from mining using dispersion models are summarised in Table 11.2 and Table 11.3.

Table 11.2 Impact Assessment Criteria for Deposited Dust

Pollutant

Averaging Period

Maximum Increase

Maximum Total

Dust Deposition

Annual

2g/m2/month

4g/m2/month

Table 11.3 Impact Assessment Criteria for TSP and PM10

Pollutant

Averaging Period

Concentration

Condition

TSP

Annual mean

90μg/m3

Total

PM10

Annual mean

30μg/m3

Total

24-hour maximum

50μg/m3

Increment

While DECCW applies the maximum 24-hour average PM10 level in any year to assess the potential for impacts from the proposal, DoP applies somewhat different assessment criteria to assess whether the size and frequency of the potential impacts warrants acquisition, negotiated agreements and the like, as referenced in recent Project Approvals. The DOP criteria are summarised in Table 11.4.

lTable 11.4 DoP Acquisition Criteria for PM10

Pollutant

Averaging Period

Criterion

Percentile

Condition

PM10

24-hour maximum

50ìg/m3

98.6

Increment

24-hour maximum

150ìg/m3

Total

Dispersion modelling using localized meteorological and terrain data was used to predict dust emissions.

The dust dispersion modelling reveals that the proposal together with other dust sources in the locality would be likely to exceed air quality criteria at a number of surrounding private receivers. In this regard the EA concludes as follows:

“The predictions indicate the potential for 26 receivers to experience exceedances in PM₁₀ concentrations on occasions, two of which are predicted to experience exceedances in dust deposition as well. At four of these receivers (Receiver Nos. 77, 78, 102 and 109), the level of PM₁₀ 24-hour average is predicted to be exceed the DoP acquisition limits and would therefore be subject to a ZoA. However, three of these receivers (Receiver Nos. 77, 78 and 109) are located within existing ZoAs for mining operations and the remaining receiver (Receiver 102) is the Warkworth Hall, a non residential structure.

A range of management and monitoring measures are currently used to reduce dust emissions (under the EMS) and these would continue for the proposed Warkworth Extension.

Issues

1. A PM₁₀ and PM_2.5monitoring and reporting system be established in respect of the expanded Warkworth Mine and the Minister for Planning be requested to impose a suitable consent condition in this regard should consent be granted.

2. While the EA seeks to address environmental health impacts in relation to particulate size, it does not consider any broader possible health impacts associated with air quality. Given that the proposal would continue the emission of particulate matter it is considered appropriate the proponent make a financial contribution toward a broader health impact study.

Visual Amenity

The EA identifies the following aspects of the proposal influencing visual effects:

· Open cut mining advancing westwards to end approximately 2.6km from Wambo Road at Bulga Village;

· Mining would advance through an elevated area, Saddleback Ridge;

· Overburden emplacements would be established behind the extended mine pits but the emplacements would be kept within existing approved height limits on average. Some overburden would be taken to mined out areas in the east of Warkworth. Overburden will also be transferred to Mount Thorley to assist with creation of the final landform. These areas would then be rehabilitated.

· New haul roads and realignment of a bridge over Putty Road between Warkworth and Mount Thorley mines as may currently occur; and

· Night lighting and large scale equipment including draglines which are illuminated at night.

The main area of concern regarding visual impact is from view corridors from Bulga Village to immediate surrounds. The EA addresses this visual impact in the following manner.

“From Bulga village the view is mostly of trees along Wollombi Brook which generally conceal Warkworth Mine with only glimpses available.

The view of the mine from some areas of Inlet Road [particularly near its intersection with Turnbull Road] is more open as this area is higher than Bulga village. Visual effects would be moderate to low due to limited views to Warkworth Mine and continuing views to Mount Thorley Mine. These visual effects would be further reduced when the outer faces of the overburden emplacement areas are rehabilitated.

The overburden emplacements of Warkworth and Mount Thorley Mine are largely screened from Wambo Road as it is at lower elevations and benefits from screening by trees along Wollombi Brook. Overall, the visual montages indicates that there is no visibility to either Warkworth or Mount Thorley mines from Wambo Road so this locality would not experience any visual potential impact.

The visual impacts of the proposal from the west would generally be moderate to low due to the limited visual exposure of the mine.”

The EA does however, offer in respect of elevated locations in Bulga, that a significantly affected landowner may request a site specific visual assessment, which may result in mitigation measures such as receiver visual screening.

Issues

1. The EA generally concludes there would be a low level of visual impact, however still offers elevated locations in Bulga the opportunity to request a site specific visual assessment, resulting possible in receiver visual screening. A further detailed supplementary visual impact assessment should be carried out for the elevated locations in Bulga to determine the need for mitigation measures prior to the Minister for Planning deferring the application.

Groundwater

A groundwater study has been carried out comprising numerical modelling of potential groundwater impacts.

The groundwater assessment predicts the proposal is not likely to have a significant impact on groundwater levels in the alluvial aquifer as the mine will not directly intersect the aquifer. Furthermore, the assessment also predicts there is no significant drawdown in water levels in the alluvial aquifer and consequently no change in groundwater quality.

Surface Water

While the proposed extension would bring more surface water and groundwater into the mine it is not likely to affect any users.

The extension area does not impact up the Wollombi Brook floodplain.

European Heritage

One heritage item is located within the extension area being the former Royal Australian Air Force Base. The eastern end of one runway will be impacted by the extension. The EA proposes the site be surveyed and recorded in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Heritage Office.

Social and Economic

The predicted employment growth as a result of the proposal is derived in terms of total operation employees (TOE’s) for the Mount Thorley Warkworth integrated operations. The net increase in TOE would peak in 2014 at 288 and taper back to 115 by 2020.

A regional economic assessment estimates the proposal would inject an additional $16,754M into the Hunter Region Economy between 2011 and 2031 and an additional 44,675 jobs.

Traffic and Transport

Should the proposal be approved in its present form it would result in the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road which is a local Singleton Council asset.

The EA states that the impact of closing Wallaby Scrub Road is an increased travel time of 6 minutes for traffic travelling to and from Bulga and 3.5 minutes for vehicles travelling to and from Charlton Road. The option to relocate Wallaby Scrub Road has been assessed with the EA reaching the following conclusion:

“The proposed Warkworth Extension will require the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road in approximately Year 7 of mining operations [which is nominally 2017]. Closure or relocation of the road is unavoidable if the project is to proceed.

The proposal to close the road without relocation is presented in the EA and is based on the results of a number of technical investigations which indicate that the impacts of road relocation outweigh the impacts associated with closure, including investigations relating to ecology, Aboriginal cultural heritage, traffic and economics. Notwithstanding the results of these technical investigations, WML has sought feedback from the community and community representatives through a range of forums. Feedback received indicates that closure is of particular concern to the local community and that relocation of the road should be considered.

This report provides an assessment of a potential alignment for relocating Wallaby Scrub Road for inclusion in the EA to allow the community and local, State and Commonwealth governments to assess and make an informed decision on whether to close Wallaby Scrub Road with or without relocation.

The potential alignment for relocating Wallaby Scrub Road was selected with consideration of design constraints including ecology, Aboriginal cultural heritage, flooding and land tenure.

This report indicates that relocation of Wallaby Scrub Road would not have any significant impacts on the performance of the local road network where roads and intersections would still generally operate at existing capacities. Due to the change in alignment, the relocation will increase travel times [over and above travel times using the existing road] for road users of between approximately one and two minutes

depending upon their origin and destination.

Relocation of Wallaby Scrub Road would result in the clearing of approximately 32.1ha of native forest and woodland [including 3.3ha of WSW]. The native forest and woodland are EECs under the TSC Act. The clearing would also result in the loss and fragmentation of habitat for native fauna, including threatened woodland birds and bats. Part of the road would intersect the northern section of the Southern Biodiversity Area. The existing road within the Southern Biodiversity Area presently fragments vegetation communities and would be removed in the event of closure to enable reconnection.

Clearing of the native forest and woodland for the relocation of Wallaby Scrub Road would reduce the proposed offset ratios for the proposed Warkworth Extension by approximately 0.1:1. As a result of the additional impacts the offset ratios for the project would be:

• 2.8:1 for WSW;

• 1.5:1 for all EECs;

• 2.4:1 for all forest and woodland types; and

• 3.4:1 for all forest and woodland types and rehabilitation.

The relocation of Wallaby Scrub Road would result in the removal of nine additional Aboriginal Cultural heritage sites, all of which are isolated stone artefact[s]. The new road would also intersect the northern section of the Wollombi Brook Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Conservation Area. The road has been located to avoid the Bulga Bora Ground and will be located no closer than 200m from this site.

Noise and vibration, and air quality assessments indicate that construction and operation of the realigned Wallaby Scrub Road would generally comply with relevant guidelines. Notwithstanding this, the noise assessment indicates that the closest residence to the road [Receiver 81] may experience construction noise above guidelines, both during the site preparation and construction phases. However, the noise assessment was conservative in its approach and assumed that all construction equipment would be operating at once, which in reality is unlikely to happen often. In addition, construction will only be undertaken during the day.

A surface water assessment indicates that, with the exception of two locations, the realigned road is located outside the 100 year ARI extent of flooding along Wollombi Brook. The two areas where it is located within the flood extent are backwater areas outside the main channel of Wollombi Brook and hence the road realignment would not likely affect flood conveyance along Wollombi Brook. Drainage structures will need to be incorporated into any detailed design to channel surface runoff from a number of local catchments that drain westwards towards Wollombi Brook.

The realigned Wallaby Scrub Road will intersect the western sections of both runways at the former RAAF base. While this former base is considered to have some national heritage significance, it is in poor condition, particularly the condition of the former runways, and conservation is not considered practical. Recording of the former RAAF base to NSW Heritage Office standards will ensure that the current

elements of the base [and their condition] are documented prior to any disturbance by the relocated road alignment.

An economic assessment indicates that the relocation of Wallaby Scrub Road would have net costs to society of $15.4M. The majority of costs relate to the value that society places on the clearing of EECs, as well as the cost of constructing the road. These net costs are less than those net costs of $45.9M presented in the EA. This is because the EA was based on a preliminary alignment and the potential alignment in this report now avoids a significant Aboriginal site which had an economic cost of $31.4M.

The option of relocating Wallaby Scrub Road would satisfy the concerns raised by the local community during consultation on the proposed Warkworth Extension. As this report indicates, relocation of Wallaby Scrub Road would result in minor increases in travel time compared to the existing road but would be less than closure and no relocation.

Relocation of Wallaby Scrub Road has potential impacts that may be valued differently by other stakeholders in the community. These include a reduction of local ecological values and some effects on Aboriginal and European heritage items. These effects have been quantified in economic terms and it can be seen that they have material value for the general community.”

The issues regarding the potential closure and/or relocation of Wallaby Scrub Road have been assessed by Council’s Asset & Facilities staff. The Manager Works comments are as follows:

“Assets and Facilities considered various alignment options provided in the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Warkworth Extension. At a recent meeting by Coal and Allied (C&A) was favouring the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road and as a carrot were prepared to spend the money they were saving on upgrading existing roads and intersections in the area. The proposal to construct a round about at Broke Road and Golden Hwy was not acceptable to the RTA and required further traffic study and Sidra analysis to resolve the intersection type. There are concerns about the traffic at Mount Thorley Intersection on Golden Highway. Based on the various meetings, Assets and Facilities propose that the following road issues are considered at the time of submission to the Department of Planning:

1. If Wallaby Scrub Road is closed there shall be a negative impact on the residents of Bulga travelling out west. The travel times shall increase, resulting in additional carbon pollution and community dissatisfaction. The impact is considered significant, however only a smaller number of populations would be affected. Traffic travelling from Windsor to Jerrys Plains may be required to go all the way along the Putty Road before they could turn into Golden Highway. Only smaller volume of traffic is expected to travel from Windsor to Jerrys Plains and out west and travel this route. The closure of wallaby Scrub Road will divert traffic and may load the intersection at Mount Thorley Road. Putty Road has isolated horizontal alignment concerns suitable for traffic of less than 100km/h traffic located just before the intersection at Mount Thorley. The increased traffic may increase risk to traffic travelling along the Putty Road before the intersection. The increase traffic along the Golden Hwy between Mount Thorley Intersection and Intersection of Wallaby Scrub Road have two turn offs to local roads. The entry and exist times from and into the Golden Hwy (HW27) would increase due to the increased traffic.

Traffic using Wallaby Scrub Road coming from Charlton Road, may choose to either travel through Putty Road or choose Broke Road. If Wallaby Scrub Road is closed, the most likely scenario for the traffic from Broke village is to use Broke Road-Golden Hwy in order to get to Jerrys Plains and surrounding mines. This route may require upgrade of the already overloaded intersection

of Broke Road with The Golden Hwy (HW27).

The closure will decrease road network maintenance costs for the Works Program and reduced sealed road to maintain.

2. If Wallaby Scrub Road is realigned, all of the above negative impacts will be experienced by road users, however to a lesser degree by some road users.

An additional disadvantage of realignment is that Works Program Area may have to maintain additional road for lesser convenience to the rate payers and road users.

3. If a decision is made to close or realign Wallaby Scrub Road, an appropriate price may need to be placed on all of the above negative impacts identified.

4. The community of Singleton have paid to maintain and construct Wallaby Scrub Road. The average maintenance costs over the last 10 years are approximately $158,340. The resealing expenditure is $199,044. The construction costs are estimated at $1,131,000. The total expenditure made by the community on Wallaby Scrub Road is $1,488,384. This value excludes land value where road is located.

Conclusions

Based on the available information, the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road is not a viable option as it would introduce additional traffic to the Mount Thorley and Broke Road intersections with the Golden Highway. The existing intersections are under stress and may be unable to take additional traffic.

Realignment is not considered a viable option, as it is a considered view that most of the traffic from the village of Broke may choose to use Broke Road – Golden Highway instead of using realigned Wallaby Scrub Road. A realigned road may provide a better option compared to a closure for the residents of Bulga, however the majority of the current users of this road would be disadvantaged.

On balance, it is a considered view, that a realigned or closed Wallaby Scrub Road would disadvantage current road users. Both closure and realignment can not be supported on technical grounds.”

Issues

1. The closure and/or relocation of Wallaby Scrub Road is not supported because of potential adverse impacts on the level of service of the intersections of Broke Road and Putty Road and Putty Road and Golden Highway. Furthermore, the proposal to relocate the road may result in a lower level of use by the community and is therefore not likely to result in a positive benefit cost.

Conclusion

This submission highlights a number of issues of concern to be raised with the Department of Planning, particularly in respect of Biodiversity, Air Quality, Visual Amenity and the future of Wallaby Scrub Road.

Attachments

AT-1View	Aerial Photo Proposed Warkworth Extension	1 Page
AT-2View	Archerfield Biodiversity Enhancement Area	1 Page

Mark Ihlein

Director Planning and Regulations

SINGLETON COUNCIL	Meeting of Singleton Council - 21 June 2010

	Organisation Performance Report (Items Requiring Decision) - DOP2/10

Internal Audit Committee - Community Representatives

Author: Shari Tanzer

FILE: 07/0097

Executive Summary:

The Internal Audit Committee is an advisory committee assisting Council in fulfilling its Corporate Governance responsibilities and in its overall exercise of due care and diligence. As such, the persons sitting on the committee are required to exercise due diligence and demonstrate specific skills in carrying out their duties.

Following a call for Expressions of Interest in the local newspaper, and a review of interested persons, 2 candidates have been recommended for inclusion in the Committee as Community representatives.

RECOMMENDED that Council appoint Gerard McMillan and John Bennetts to act as Community Representatives on the Internal Audit Committee for a period of 3 years from date of appointment.

Background:

As defined in the Internal Audit Committee Charter, the Internal audit committee comprises of the Mayor (or Deputy), the General Manager and three independents, one of whom is required to have financial expertise.

The three independents are self-nominated community representatives, who have, through a selection process, demonstrated suitable skills, experience and/or qualifications, relevant to undertaking the role required of a Committee Member. This is consistent with department guidelines as outlined in the Internal Audit Guidelines, October 2008, produced by the Division of Local Government.

Currently, Jim Gauld sits on this committee as one of three Community Representatives, with the other two community representative positions vacant.

In early May, 2010, Council advertised for Expressions of Interest for community persons to sit on this committee.

This closed on the 17^th of May, with candidates reviewed at this point, and a recommendation (as above) determined, based on the skills and experience of the candidates.

In summary, there were 4 nominations received for these roles. The persons nominating were:

· Bennetts, J.

· Russell, W.

· O’Brien, K.

· McMillan, G.

Candidates were asked to respond to a series of questions, in order to assess the merits of their application. This included demonstration of their experience, skills or qualifications relevant to a business environment, as well as an understanding of their role/ relationship within the Singleton Local Government Area.

The recommended candidates offer strong business acumen, in addition to an understanding of the local area and economic environment. Please note personal information was also included in the application process. This has not been included to protect the individual.

A summary of their responses and suitability is provided below:

John Bennetts

John is a long term resident of Singleton, and has held senior roles (most recently) at Liddell power Station. He has post graduate qualifications in Engineering Management. His work experience has focused strongly on risk and project management within the Electricity industry.

John is and has been involved locally in Rural Fire Services, Apex, Rotary, and other local projects such as the Memorial Fence project at Burdekin Park.

In addition, John has held roles of Company Director and Secretary in private organisations in the region, where interaction with Internal Audit Committees and involvement on Internal Audit Committees was required.

Kerrie O’Brien

Kerrie has recently relocated to Singleton, and is currently completing an MBA. On a leave of absence, Kerrie is employed by Ernst and Young as an Internal Audit Manager, and intends to re-enter the workforce in Singleton in July 2010 in a business analyst role.

Her involvement in Internal Audit includes preparing and presenting reports and findings to IAC in various businesses.

Kerrie is involved in local sporting teams and play groups.

Gerard McMillan

Gerard is currently the Manager for the Singleton RSC, and holds qualifications in Business Management and Commerce (Accounting), as well as the Company Directors Essentials Certificate. His experience also includes work with public accountants, including Auditing functions.

As a long term resident of Singleton, Gerard has been active in the community, involved in service organisations as well as a number of community based projects.

Attachment 1	General Manager's Report (Items Requiring Decision) - GM25/10
Report and Determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal	Local Government Remuneration Tribunal

Attachment 1	Assets and Facilities Report (Items Requiring Decision) - DA&F23/10
Minutes - April 2010	Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting - April 2010

AT-1View	Minutes of Colleen Gale Children’s Services	2 Pages
AT-2View	Financial Report Colleen Gale Children's Services	4 Pages

Attachment 2	Business Support Report (Items Requiring Decision) - DBS62/10
Financial Report Colleen Gale Children's Services	Colleen Gale Children's Services Advisory Committee Meeting

AT-1View	Locality Plan	1 Page
AT-2View	Site Plan	1 Page
AT-3View	Elevation Plans	2 Pages
AT-4View	Variation Application	1 Page
AT-5View	Objection In Confidence	1 Page

SINGLETON COUNCIL	Meeting of Singleton Council - 21 June 2010

	General Manager's Report (Items Requiring Decision) - GM24/10

SINGLETON COUNCIL	Meeting of Singleton Council - 21 June 2010

	Assets and Facilities Report (Items Requiring Decision) - DA&F23/10

Attachment 1	Planning and Regulations Report (Items Requiring Decision) - DP&R29/10
Locality Plan	DA107/2010 - Erect a Residential Dwelling - 165 McMahon Way, Singleton Heights

Attachment 2	Planning and Regulations Report (Items Requiring Decision) - DP&R29/10
Site Plan	DA107/2010 - Erect a Residential Dwelling - 165 McMahon Way, Singleton Heights

Attachment 3	Planning and Regulations Report (Items Requiring Decision) - DP&R29/10
Elevation Plans	DA107/2010 - Erect a Residential Dwelling - 165 McMahon Way, Singleton Heights

Attachment 4	Planning and Regulations Report (Items Requiring Decision) - DP&R29/10
Variation Application	DA107/2010 - Erect a Residential Dwelling - 165 McMahon Way, Singleton Heights

Attachment 5	Planning and Regulations Report (Items Requiring Decision) - DP&R29/10
Objection In Confidence	DA107/2010 - Erect a Residential Dwelling - 165 McMahon Way, Singleton Heights

Attachment 1	Planning and Regulations Report (Items Requiring Decision) - DP&R30/10
Aerial Photo Proposed Warkworth Extension	Proposed Warkworth Mine Extension Project & Modification to the Hunter Valley South Project Consent

Attachment 2	Planning and Regulations Report (Items Requiring Decision) - DP&R30/10
Archerfield Biodiversity Enhancement Area	Proposed Warkworth Mine Extension Project & Modification to the Hunter Valley South Project Consent

SINGLETON COUNCIL	Meeting of Singleton Council - 21 June 2010

	General Manager's Report (Items for Information) - GM26/10

Attachment 1	General Manager's Report (Items for Information) - GM26/10
Conference Report - Cr Rogers	LGSA Conference Report - Cr Rogers

SINGLETON COUNCIL	Meeting of Singleton Council - 21 June 2010

	Business Support Report (Items for Information) - DBS59/10

Attachment 1	Business Support Report (Items for Information) - DBS60/10
Investment Report - May	Monthly Investments

Attachment 1	Business Support Report (Items for Information) - DBS61/10
Gym & Swim Advisory Committee 5 May 2010	Singleton Gym & Swim Advisory Committee Meeting