Agenda of Infrastructure Policy Committee

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE

Airport Community Committee

HELD IN Councillors Workroom, Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange

ON 10 May 2017

COMMENCING AT 4.00pm

1 Introduction

Attendance

Cr C Gryllis (Chairperson), Cr R Gander, Mr R Williams, Mr R Alford, Commercial and Emergency Services Manager, Airport Supervisor

1.1 Apologies and Leave of Absence

RESOLVED Mr R Williams/Cr C Gryllis

That the apologies be accepted from Mr J Pullen and Mr J Wigmore for the Airport Community Committee meeting on 10 May 2017.

1.2 Acknowledgement of Country

1.3 Declaration of pecuniary interests, significant non-pecuniary interests and less than significant non-pecuniary interests

2 Previous Minutes

RESOLVED Cr R Gander/Cr C Gryllis

That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Airport Community Committee held on 16 September 2015 (copies of which were circulated to all members) be and are hereby confirmed as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of the Airport Community Committee meeting held on 16 September 2015.

3 General Reports

3.1 Airport Master Plan

TRIM Reference: 2017/762

Recommendation Cr R Gander/Mr R Alford

That the report provided by the Commercial and Emergency Services Manager on the review of the Airport Master Plan be acknowledged.

3.2 Current Works

TRIM Reference: 2017/763

Recommendation Cr R Gander/Mr R Alford

That the report on current works at Orange Airport by the Commercial and Emergency Services Manager be acknowledged.

3.3 Hangar Space

TRIM Reference: 2017/778

Recommendation Cr R Gander/Mr R Alford

That the report on hangar space at Orange Airport by the Commercial and Emergency Services Manager be acknowledged.

4 DISCUSSION ITEMS

Airport Open Day

Cr Gryllis suggested there should be an open day conducted at the Airport following all the works that have been completed. This could be done in conjunction with the Aero Club and other interested users. The suggested time would be a Saturday between 12.00 noon and 3.00pm.

RECOMMENDATION Cr C Gryllis/Cr R Gander

1 That Council endorse the proposal to conduct an open day at the Airport.

2 That Council write to the Orange Aero Club and other tenants seeking their involvement for the open day.

Orange Airport Presentation

RECOMMENDATION Mr R Alford/Cr C Gryllis

That Council and staff be congratulated on the management and appearance of Orange Regional Airport

Airport Land Tenure

The Commercial and Emergency Services Manager advised the Committee that Council was now providing long term leases at the Airport.

Possibility of Future Air Park

A question was raised in regard to the future possibility of an air park attached to the airport. At this stage the land adjacent to the airport was to be considered for an industrial and business park. There are no current plans for an air park.

Consideration of Security Parking

The security paid car parking had previously been raised, however there had been no approaches to Council. Council has sought grant funding to install a facility, however this has not been successful at this stage. The Commercial and Emergency Services Manager informed the Committee a secure car park is in the future planning for the Airport and it should be a facility built and owned by Council as it would be a revenue stream for the airport.

The Meeting Closed at 4:40PM.

Infrastructure Policy Committee 6 June 2017

3 General Reports

3.1 Current Works

TRIM REFERENCE: 2017/1042

AUTHOR: Chris Devitt, Director Technical Services

EXECUTIVE Summary

The purpose of this report is to update Council on construction and maintenance works which have been carried out since the last current works report to Council.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “14.1 Our Environment – Design and construct new infrastructure assets as specified with the Asset Management Plan to agreed levels of service”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That the information provided in the report on Current Works be acknowledged.

further considerations

Consideration has been given to the recommendation’s impact on Council’s service delivery; image and reputation; political; environmental; health and safety; employees; stakeholders and project management; and no further implications or risks have been identified.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Road Maintenance

Maintenance grading works were undertaken on:

· Morris Lane

· Blunt Road

· Bargwanna Road

· Buttle Road

· Ginns Road

Council crews undertook repair works to the causeway on Beasley Road.

Limited hotmix patching was undertaken to address pavement defects on Wentworth Drive and Burreburry Close.

Rehabilitation

Works were completed on the program of road rehabilitation in the Glenroi area including McNeilly Avenue, Maxwell Avenue, Churchill Avenue and Caroline Street.

Road Upgrading

Clergate Road

Works continued on laying over 1000m of new drainage lines along the new road alignment and Farrell Road. Service relocations were undertaken and new pavement construction commenced. Farrell Road pavement adjacent to the worksite has been rehabilitated and sealed and preliminary pavement works completed to the intersection of Clergate Road enabling the intersection to be reopened.

Burrendong Way

Council staff took on this project after the former contractor engaged to carry out the works went into receivership. Pavement works are progressing and the temporary traffic signals are no longer being utilised.

Pinnacle Road

Council’s contractor undertook pavement repairs and widening on Pinnacle Road for a 1.8km section south of Shiralee Road. Council staff have noted issues with the quality of the final product which has been raised with the contractor and payment for these works withheld pending resolution.

North Orange Bypass

Works were completed between The Escort Way and Molong Road with the application of the final wearing surface of hot mix asphalt.

Further works to rehabilitate the pavement on the bypass from Icely Road through to the Bathurst Road were completed and sealed.

Council’s contractor is currently inlaying hot mix on the section of the bypass between Astill Drive and Ophir Road.

Ophir Road

A hot mix asphalt surface has now been applied at the intersection with the Resource Recovery Centre following the recent road pavement rehabilitation works.

New Works

Waratahs Link Road

Street lights have been installed and commissioned by Essential Energy. Footpath construction is now complete and the road can be opened.

Other works

Wentworth and Kenna Street realignment

Council crews are nearing completion of the realignment project at this intersection.

CONCRETE AND DRAINAGE

New Works

Footpaths and Cycleways

New footpaths were constructed on Gardiner Road and Franklin Road between Hill Street and Anson Street.

A precast concrete footbridge was placed on Ploughmans Lane over Ploughmans Creek to facilitate a future footpath connection to residential areas west of the Northern Distributor Road intersection. A section of the concrete path that will suit a future cycleway link along Ploughmans Lane was poured to provide part of the eastern link to the footbridge. The RMS have now approved a pedestrian facility to safely cross the Escort Way which includes concrete blister islands.

The RMS has also indicated that there are opportunities to apply for fully funded shared paths along the Escort Way in the future. In light of this information and the future plan to construct a large roundabout at the Escort Way/Ploughmans Lane intersection, large sections of the completed path on the Escort Way will be formed from compacted decomposed granite.

Traffic Facilities

Works have begun on the pedestrian blister treatment at Sale and Warrendine Streets under the National Blackspot Program.

Hot mix asphalt overlays were placed at the intersections of:

· Sale and March Streets

· Moulder and Sale Streets

· Prince and Clinton Streets

Council’s contractor completed the first half of the pavement for a concrete roundabout at the Woodward and Moulder Streets intersection. Works will now switch to the eastern side of the intersection resulting in the closure of both Moulder Street approaches for a short period of time.

WATER MAINTENANCE

New Water Services

· Dean Drive

· Kirkwood Drive

· 168 Dalton Street - 32mm service

Water Service Renewals

· 4 The Overflow

· 83 Margaret Street

Construction

· Council is nearing completion of the Nile Street Water main replacement. Currently services are being relocated and water main decommissioning is being completed.

· Council staff are currently assisting with the water main realignment at the Moulder and Woodward Street roundabout with the water main works completed for the western side of the roundabout.

· Works on Clergate Road are nearing completion with 150m of pipe to be installed.

· The hydrant and valve program is continuing with Council staff working in Narrambla, south east Orange and the eastern parts of the City.

Category	July 2015 – June 2016	April 2017
Leaking meters	515
Faulty meters (incorrect readings)	216	3
No supply	45	1
Water pressure complaints	26	5
Meter box/lid replacements	105	2
Water quality	32	7
Service break	8	2
Service leak	62	1
Main break	92	5
Main leak	231	22
Valve leak	14	2
Hydrant leak	52	3
Total Water Requests	1398	53

WATER STORAGE

Water Storage Levels

Location	Date	Level Below Spillway (mm)	% of Capacity
Suma Park Dam	19 May 2017	2083	82.54%
Spring Creek Dam	19 May 2017	277	93.68%
Gosling Creek Dam	19 May 2017	476	86.42%
Lake Canobolas	19 May 2017	17	99.49%

Water Quality

Water samples are collected as a component of the Orange City Council’s Drinking Water Quality Monitoring Program which forms part of the NSW Health requirements. Samples are collected regularly and sent to a National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) accredited laboratory for analysis. Samples collected in April 2017 complied with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, 2011.

Blue-green algae concentrations in Suma Park Dam have remained at low levels since last reported in Current Works. Actions, including ongoing monitoring, continue to be implemented in accordance with Council’s Algae Management Plan. There have been no taste or odour water quality complaints since blue-green algae counts increased in early December 2016.

Recycled water managed by Council is operated through implementation of Council’s Recycled Water Management System, which includes consideration of treated effluent and the dual water scheme in Ploughmans Valley/North Orange.

Water Consumption

Average daily water consumption during the week ending 18 May 2017 was 159 litres per person per day.

SEWER MAINTENANCE

Category	July 2015 – June 2016	April 2017
Sewer blockages	357	35
Odour	9	2
Overflows	196	5
Total Sewer Requests	562	32

Sewer Reconstructions

· 104 Moulder Street

· 51 National Avenue.

Construction

· 168 Dalton Street - sewer junction

· 152 Moulder Street - new sewer manhole

· Works are nearing completion on the sewer relining with works expected to be completed by the 30 June 2017

EAST ORANGE CHANNEL – BYNG STREET TO MCLACHLAN STREET

The concrete work has now been completed for the whole section of channel. Backfilling the top of the walls with topsoil and fencing replacement are now in progress and full restoration of the contractor’s work area is expected to be completed by the end of May. The emergency repair work and completion of the channel construction has taken Leed Engineering and Construction just over 14 weeks.

250 PEISLEY STREET DEMOLITION

Works are essentially complete, with a final trim of the site to be undertaken prior to temporary fencing being removed.

NARRAMBLA STAGE 8

Final land shaping continues as excess material becomes available from the Clergate Road upgrade. Surveyors have been engaged to delineate boundaries and complete the survey plan. Following receipt of these items a subdivision certificate will be obtained.

CENTRAL TABLELANDS REGIONAL WATER SECURITY PROJECT – Orange To Carcoar Pipeline

The project is on track from a cost perspective and it is expected to be complete well before 30 June 2018. To date pipework has concentrated in the Orange City Council area. Pipe construction is expected to commence in the Central Tablelands Water area in approximately five weeks time.

A summary of the works completed to date is listed below.

Section 4: Spring Creek Filter to Icely Road Filter

The majority of work within the Orange residential areas are completed with 4,807m of pipework installed, including the under bore at Bathurst Road. Approximately 30m is left to be installed (13%). Road sealing has been finalised for most areas except for sections either side of Bathurst Road. These areas are booked in to be hot-mix sealed for Monday 29 May.

Expected works in the next few weeks, in this section, include connection to the Icely Road Filtration Plant and Spring Creek Tank. Once this is complete, the excavator crew will work from the Spring Creek Filter area, across Gosling Creek and along Shepherd Road, which are all a part of Section 3b.

Section 3b: Orange Airport to Spring Creek Filter

Pipework has been installed in the Airport precinct area with 1,900m installed, including the crossing at Huntley Road near the start of Aerodrome Road. Approximately 6,050m of pipe work is still to be installed.

Section 3a: Orange Airport to Spring Hill Reservoir

Much of this section is complete with approximately 3,600m installed and only about 450m to go. At this stage, no sewer pipe has been installed.

Section 2: Spring Hill Reservoir to Millthorpe Reservoir:

The only work undertaken in this section is the under bore at the Whiley Road/Millthorpe Road intersection. Also, the pipe has been placed into the existing casing under the Spring Hill railway crossing.

170422 - Vermeer - excavating material loading it into tipper

Excavating and loading material

FOREST ROAD RAIL BRIDGE DUPLICATION

The Review of Environmental Factors (REF) for the bridge was placed on public exhibition on 8 April 2017 and closed on 11 May 2017. Four submissions were received. Councillors will be updated on the project at the briefing session on 13 June 2017 and will consider the REF at the Council Meeting on 20 June 2017.

Council is working closely with John Holland Rail and is anticipated that full approval will be granted in June 2017.

The tender for the contract is being developed and is proposed that works will commence in September 2017, with all works will be completed by July 2018.

Aquatic Centre Attendance

	February 2017	March 2017	April 2017
Adult	2,007	890	570
Concession	1,013	640	340
Child	2,739	903	734
Child Under 5	804	296	185
Family	476	72	66
School	2,731	2,963	11
Swipe Entries	3,810	4,037	2,150
Adult Multi Pass	44	38	26
Child/Concession Multi Pass	66	53	34
Carnival Spectators	0	0	0
Fitness Passport	4,646	2,618	1,532
Shower	148	216	125
Non Swimmers	365	266	162
Aqua Aerobics	83	67	35
Total	18,932	13,059	5,970

AIRPORT PASSENGER NUMBERS

Passenger numbers for April 2017 were 4,701 compared with 4,312 during the same month in 2016.

Airport Energy Usage

Energy used at the airport during April 2017 was 20,270 kWh at a cost to Council of $3,796.87.

ENERGY USE

The following information is sourced from E21, Council’s energy software.

Monday 22 May 2017

Infrastructure Policy Committee 6 June 2017

3.2 Further clarification - Hydrants and Valves

TRIM REFERENCE: 2017/807

AUTHOR: Wayne Beatty, Water and Sewerage Strategic Manager

Supplementary comments from Garry Styles, General Manager

EXECUTIVE Summary

The following report is provided in response to queries arising from the Water and Sewerage Manager’s “Update Report – Improved Operating Procedures for valves and Hydrants” that went to the Council meeting of 18 April 2017.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “15.2 Our Environment – Operate, maintain, renew and upgrade water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure assets and services as specified within the Asset Management Plans at agreed levels of service”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That the report on Further Clarification – Hydrants and Valves be acknowledged.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The queries are set out below, together with responses from staff.

Why and for how long was the network closed?

As noted in the report to Council of 21 February 2017, as a result of a leak in the water reticulation network at the McLachlan/Dalton Street roundabout in the middle of 2016 a number of valves adjacent to the roundabout were shut off to stop this leak. However this action also stopped water flowing west along Dalton Street and south along William Street. This resulted in William Street only being fed water from the southern end, at a rate of around 7l/s, not from both ends as would be the case with the valves at McLachlan/Dalton Street open and which supplies around 30l/s. Following the closure of the valves, there were no apparent impacts on flows along William Street, until Saturday 11 February, when the system failed to deliver sufficient water to meet the firefighting requirements of 20l/s.

Is the network now open?

As reported to Council on 18 April 20178, after the fire, valves at the Dalton/McLachlan Street roundabout were kept open so as to maintain adequate flow into William Street. Water staff repaired the leak on Wednesday 22 February 2017. The network in this area is fully functional.

How many valves are in the network?

· 3,851 Stop Valves

· 241 Scour Valves

· 225 Air Valves

· 18 Check Valves

· 13 Pressure Reducing Valves

How many hydrants are in the network?

· 4,590 Hydrants

How many valves in the network are open?

The exact status of every valve in the citywide water reticulation network of 4,348 valves is being established as part of the system review outlined in the previous report to Council in April. Since the William Street fire good progress has been made on this program. Staff have prioritised the program. To date, the very large majority of valves have been found to be satisfactory. What is relevant is that, from an overall perspective, the network functions very effectively, and has done for many years. As with any network of this complexity there is always room for further improvement and additional resources have been provided to achieve this, with the aim of completing this work around the end of the year with the allocation of significant additional resources plus the utilisation of specialised equipment to support this work.

Has liability been admitted?

Council has publicly acknowledged that the water main in William Street did not meet fire-fighting capacity, and that while there was water in the main that met normal usage demands, it was insufficient to meet the demands presented, and was outside what should have been available. This acknowledgement is recognition of the fact of the firefighting supply at the time.

The factual acknowledgement is held to be good practice. Given the fire was lit by another party, together with other complexities of the specific event, the matter of liability or proportional liability is for a proper process to determine. Council’s insurer is aware of the acknowledgement.

Have there been any discussions with the owner?

Council has had had a number of discussions with the owner.

How can we admit liability without the issue coming to Council?

The matter of liability is a matter for a legal/insurance process based on the facts of an incident. The matter of the circumstances of the fire was brought to Council promptly.

Attachments

1 Previous Reports - Hydrants and Valves, D17/31927 ⇩

Infrastructure Policy Committee 6 June 2017

3.3 Security Bonds on Developments for Damage to Council Assets and Road Opening Permits

TRIM REFERENCE: 2017/1009

AUTHOR: Wayne Harris, Manager Engineering Services

EXECUTIVE Summary

Currently Council does not have a policy that requires any new development to provide a security bond as surety against damage to Council assets. Similarly Council does not require a security bond or road opening permit prior to works being undertaken within the road corridor. Following a review of the approach taken by a sample of a number of Councils across NSW, including other regional city Councils, it is apparent that the majority of these Councils have addressed this issue with the implementation of security bonds and road opening permits. It is suggested that Council should also adopt this approach to align with general community expectations and industry practice.

There has been an increased amount of damage being done to Council assets from commercial, industrial and residential developments. Council staff are being called upon to repair items such as drainage pits, kerb and gutter, sewerage pits and water assets as builders and their contractors refuse to accept responsibility for the damage that has been caused as a result of their development. As Council holds no surety is on the development a developer/builder has no incentive to protect Council assets, and Council has limited options in relation to recouping costs incurred due to this damage.

In addition there have been numerous occasions where works have been undertaken within the road reserve without the consent of Council. This includes building contractors as well as residents constructing concrete driveways or other unauthorised works on footpaths. These works can be below appropriate standards required by Council and can create unsafe situations for other road users and the residents themselves.

This unauthorised work creates significant safety risks either during the works or upon completion, particularly where the road reserve is not properly rehabilitated. As well the overall condition of the road asset, and therefore functional life, can be significantly impacted by these unauthorised works. Given Council does not have a policy that requires a permit prior to works commencing, Council officers are restricted in their ability to maintain a quality safe work environment when they do not know when, how and who is carrying out these works

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

Financial Implications

The financial implications are discussed in the body of this report.

Policy and Governance Implications

A new policy needs to be developed and implemented to cover Security Bonds on Developments for Damage to Council Assets and Road Opening Permits.

Recommendation

That the report on Security Bonds on Developments for Damage to Council Assets and Road Opening Permits be acknowledged.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Proposal

Council has the right under Section 138 of the NSW Roads Act 1993 to require consent for any works or activities in a public reserve, public road way or footpath (nature strip). Section 138 of the NSW Roads Act requires that all activities undertaken within Council's road reserve be approved by Council prior to the activities being undertaken. Section 138 approvals could be sought from Council under a road opening permit policy.

If any works in the road reserve are required as part of a development application the Section 138 approval can be conditioned as part of the development consent.

Alternatively, if work is required to be undertaken outside of a development application a road opening permit policy would enable a separate application form and fee to be lodged for assessment and approval prior to any works commencing on site.

Council also has the right under the Local Government Act 1993 Sect 97 to require a developer to provide Council with a monetary security for either or both of the following:

a) Making good any damage that may be caused to any council property as a consequence of doing or not doing anything to which the approval relates,

b) Completing any works (other than works prescribed by the regulations) that may be required in connection with the approval.

Works, the completion of which may be required in connection with an approval, could include water asset remedial work, sewerage asset remedial work, footpaths, kerb and guttering, road works, trunk drainage and environmental controls.

The security bond is to be for such reasonable amount as is determined by the Council and specified in the condition.

The security bond may be provided, at the applicant’s choice, by:

a) Monetary deposit with the Council, or

b) Unconditional Bank Guarantee satisfactory to the Council.

It is proposed any security bond (or part) if repaid to the person who provided it is to be repaid without any interest accrued on the deposit (or part) as a consequence of its investment. Any interest would be used to maintain a low level of administration costs.

The fees from road opening permits and the security bonds would enable Council to employ a Road and Bond Officer to enforce the two policies proposed.

Supporting Information

Council Engineering Department staff contacted eight NSW councils to ascertain their approach to Development Security Bonds and Road Opening Permits. These Councils were:

· Coffs Harbour – Population 73,000

· Wagga Wagga – Population 60,000

· Newcastle – Population 148,000

· Manly – Population 40,000

· Bathurst – Population 42,000

· Dubbo – Population 42,000

· Armidale – Population 30,000

· Tamworth – Population 58,000

The following provides a summary of information relating to security bond and road opening permits for each Council investigated:

Coffs Harbour

Does not require a security bond on development projects.

Requires a road opening permit for works within the road reserve. Initial application fee of $176.00. Value of charge for opening depends on where work is carried out, for how long and number of inspections required.

Wagga Wagga

Requires a security bond for damage to Council assets with an application fee of $55.00 and bond amount varying from $1,000 to $3,000 depending on type of asset.

Requires a road opening permit with an application fee of $95.00 and additional fees for inspections.

Newcastle

Does not require a security bond on development.

Requires a road opening permit. Application fee of $137.00 with inspection fee of $88.00 per inspection for road openings and an application fee of $206.00 and inspection fees of $88.00 for driveway crossings.

Manly

Requires security bond for damage to Council assets based on development value with an application fee up to $1000.

< $5,000	$260
$5,001 - $10,000	$330
$10,001 - $15,000	$430
$15,001 - $25,000	$630
$25,001 - $50,000	$1,300
$50,001 - $100,000	$2,700
$100,001 - $250,000	$5,200
$250,001 - $500,000	$8,100
$500,001 - $1,000,000	$12,200
$1,000,001 - $2,000,000	$15,000
$2,000,001 - $3,000,000	$18,000
$3,000,001 - $4,000,000	$21,000
$4,000,001 - $5,000,000	$24,000
$5,000,001 - $6,000,000	$27,000
$6,000,001 - $7,000,000	$30,000
$7,000,001 and above	$33,000

Requires a road opening permit. Application fee of $226.00 and late fee (additional) $789.00 if work commenced prior to permit being obtained.

Bathurst

Requires security bond for residential developments for kerb and gutter at $503.00 and $1,062.00 for kerb and gutter in commercial industrial or other major developments.

Requires a Land Access and Activity Notice (Road Opening Permit) with an application fee of $95.00 and inspection fees additional.

Dubbo

In the process of implementing a security bond for damage to Council assets.

Requires a road opening permit based on effect of development on the asset. Administration fee for high impact of $277.00 and low impact of $164.00.

Inspection fees of $290.00, road restoration fees and security bonds may be charged where required depending on development.

Armidale

In the process of implementing a security bond for damage to Council assets.

Requires a road opening permit with application fee of $72.00, additional costs for road closures, traffic control, advertising, inspections assessed upon application.

Tamworth

Does not require a security bond on development.

Requires a road opening permit with an application fee of $103.00, road closure fees and inspection fees, charged depending on works.

Selected Council Summary

Security Bond:

Of the eight Councils;

· Three Councils require security bonds from developments to protect Council assets.

· Two Councils are in the process of developing a system of security bonds

· Three Councils do not require security bonds.

The councils use the bond for potential damage to Council’s infrastructure, including the kerb and gutter, road pavement, drainage works and footpaths, during the construction process. Providing no damage has occurred to these assets, the bond will be refunded upon completion of the building works. The bond is based on the value of construction works provided at lodgement of the construction certificate and its payment is a condition of the Development Consent.

Road Opening Permits:

All eight councils require road opening permits.

When a developer, contractor or a member of the public needs to complete works within the road reserve a road opening application is required to be submitted to Council for approval.

Applications may be submitted by persons or entities (or their sub-contractors) to undertake opening activities within Council road reserves using a sub-contractor accredited by Council. Road opening applications are lodged using the prescribed application form and payment of the appropriate application fee in according with Council’s associated policy. Applications are required to be submitted within a time period (usually two weeks) prior to the planned commencement date. Applications submitted for determination closer to the planned commencement attract a higher application fee.

Common reasons for requiring a road opening permit include:

· Service connections (water, electricity, telephone, gas, sewer, etc.);

· Storm water connections;

· Conduit and/or pit installations for public utilities; and

· Construction of driveways.

Applications include:

· Evidence of the sub-contractor’s accreditation;

· Certificate of currency of the sub-contractor’s or applicant’s public liability insurance policy indemnifying Council against any claims, actions resulting from the granting of approval for the activity to the value of at least $10 million.

· If required, a Traffic Control Plan (TCP); and

· Engineering plans, if applicable.

The application becomes a permit when:

· A receipt for the payment of fees for the permit is issued;

· The permit has been signed by the authorised Council Officer; and

· A permit number has been provided by Council.

The applicant must comply with the conditions of road opening permit, the specification applicable to the work involved and complete restoration of effected Council assets as shown or directed by authorised Council Officer.

Orange City Council Existing Situation

As previously noted, currently Orange City Council does not require bonds or road opening permits be obtained. When a development is underway, if a council asset is damaged the onus is on the Council officer to prove that damage done to the asset was by the developer/contractor, in order to direct that remedial work be carried out by the developer/contractor.

Work not requiring development consent can now be carried out in a road reserve without Council knowledge at any time, with Council generally only finding out when a complaint is made by a member of public or when found by a Council officer in passing.

When work is carried out in a road reserve as part of a development consent, some control can be maintained in relation to conditions of approval, however issues of timing, liability and adequate traffic control have occurred in the past.

Council currently has approved an average of 506 development applications per year over the last five years and had an average 240 complying development certificates processed per year over the last five years (note table 1).

cid:image001.png@01D1FED8.0D9A1D90

Table 1

As a result, Council assets can be affected on average over 700 times a year, possibly requiring Council intervention. Even if only 50% of these developments damage or affect Council assets and the average value of work is $1,000.00 the cost to Council, in theory could be in the order of $350,000 a year, should Council in fact need to rectify the damaged asset.

Orange City Council Implementation

Development Security Bond

In order to protect Council assets, such as water, sewer, drainage, kerb and gutter, road pavement and footpaths, during the construction process of a development the use of a bond for potential damage would be an effective tool for Council Officers.

As per other Councils previously reported on, Councils spend significant funds each year on maintaining the city’s assets and it is important that Council has measures in place to ensure they are protected and that Council does not have to bear the cost of repairing damage during a development.

Therefore it is recommended that Council create a Development Security Bond policy for developments. This policy would set an application fee and should take into account real costs to Council for asset damage and also set a bond amount that will ensure that the developer will protect Council assets to allow the bond amount to be refunded at the end of the work.

Assuming an application fee of $150.00 and based on 80% of yearly applications would be judged as requiring a bond (table 1) a yearly total fee income would amount to approximately $84,000.

The below table (Table2) details the proposed sliding scale for the security bond amounts.

Council Asset Security Bond	Application Fee	Inspection Fee
Each Council Asset Security Bond	$150.00	$100.00 (2 off inspections)
Development value less than $50,000	No bond required
Development value $50,001 - $150,000	$1,000.00
Development value $150,001 - $300,000	$1,500.00
Development value $300,001 - $600,000	$2,000.00
Development value $600,001- $1,000,000	$3,000.00
Development value $1,000,001 - $2,000,000	$6,000.00
Development value $2,000,001 - $3,000,000	$9,000.00
Development value $3,000,001 - $4,000,000	$12,000.00
Development value $4,000,001 - $5,000,000	$15,000.00
Development value $5,000,001 - $6,000,000	$18,000.00
Development value $6,000,001 - $7,000,000	$21,000.00
Development value >$7,000,001	$24,000.00

Table 2

Road Opening Permit

A road opening permit is designed to protect the interests of the community and provide direction in meeting Council’s legal responsibilities with regard to road opening and restoration activities within Council’s road reserves.

The road opening permit applies to road opening activities within all road reserves that are under the control and responsibility of Council. This includes roads handed over to Council by developers but excludes roads still in the sub division development phase.

Gas, electricity and telecommunication authorised service providers have exemptions from the NSW Local Government Act, 1993, NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and NSW Roads Act, 1993 relating to road opening permits due to the NSW Electricity Supply Act, 1995, NSW Gas Supply Act, 1996 and the Commonwealth Telecommunications Act, 1997.

It is recommended that Council formulates a road opening procedure with associated fee structure to achieve the following objectives:

1 That all parties (apart from authorised utility service providers) wishing to undertake road openings make application for Council’s permission via an appropriate approval procedure.

2 To promote safety awareness and support risk management practices with regard to all road opening activities.

3 That Council is notified of all road opening proposals to allow the works to be recorded (nature, date, location, etc).

4 That Council is adequately indemnified against potential actions arising from road opening and reinstatement works undertaken by other parties.

5 That road openings are conducted in a co-ordinated and timely manner to minimise inconvenience or disruption to road users.

6 That road reinstatements are inspected as necessary to ensure the work is carried out to Council’s construction standards

7 That road openings are undertaken by suitably qualified or accredited contractors where necessitated by the location/scale/nature of the activity.

8 That the installation of utility services in a roadway or footpath (road verge) has regard for the designated spatial allocation for prescribed services.

9 That existing underground service infrastructure is protected against unauthorised excavation in the road reserve through use of the Dial Before You Dig enquiry service.

To facilitate these objectives the following are required:

· There is adequate reimbursement of costs incurred by Council in processing road opening applications and inspecting road openings and reinstatements undertaken by other parties.

· The policy is to be based on “Guide to Codes and Practices for Streets Openings” (2007, NSW Street Opening Conference).

A road opening permit conservatively placed on 50% of yearly applications (350) with an application fee of $250 and inspection fee of $100 would equate to income in the order of $122,000.

The below table (Table3) details the proposed Road Opening Permit fee amounts.

Road Opening Permit	Application fee	Inspection fee
Per application dwellings, dual occupancy and minor developments	$250.00	$100.00 (2 off inspections)
Per application Industrial, commercial unit & other major developments	$250.00	$150.00 (3 off inspections)
Late fee where work has commenced prior to permit being obtained - application & inspection fees will also need to be paid	$750.00
Per additional inspection		$50.00

Table 3

The fees from road permits and the development security bonds would enable Council to resource a Road and Bond Officer and administrative assistance, to enforce the two policies proposed. Given Council would be implementing the security bond policy, this may result in an increase in repairs to infrastructure and a dedicated works crew may need to be investigated once the extent of rectification works is known. The funding of the works crew would be generated from the security held by Council.

With the development and implementation of the proposed operational policies Council would fall into line with the majority of other councils in the state.

Infrastructure Policy Committee 6 June 2017

3.4 Recreational use of Gosling Creek, Spring Creek and Suma Park Dams

TRIM REFERENCE: 2017/783

AUTHOR: Wayne Beatty, Water and Sewerage Strategic Manager

EXECUTIVE Summary

This report is in response to Council’s resolution (below) and a subsequent Council briefing session held on Tuesday 11 April 2017.

On 3 November 2015 Council resolved:

2.1 Passive Recreation Uses for Spring Creek Dam and Suma Park Dam

TRIM Reference: 2015/2793

RESOLVED - 15/497 Cr J Davis/Cr N Jones

1 That Council investigate passive recreation uses for the Spring Creek Dam and Suma Park Dam.

2 That Council investigate the acquisition of land with direct frontage to Suma Park Dam in the Sporting and Recreational Precinct.

At the briefing session, Council indicated to staff that Gosling Creek Dam be considered for water-based recreational activities for the upcoming 2017/2018 summer season.

The main focus of this report is the introduction of water-based recreational activities on Gosling Creek Dam. Activities proposed for Gosling Creek Dam will, essentially, reflect activities that are currently undertaken at Lake Canobolas.

While Council will pursue the use of both Spring Creek and Suma Park Dams for recreational purposes, it was generally agreed that these water storages could be considered for recreational use in the future – Spring Creek Dam in the first instance followed by Suma Park Dam.

Developing a Plan of Management and an associated Master Plan will address all key considerations, infrastructure, management and operational requirements in order to implement water-based recreational activities on Council’s water storages. These issues are outlined in more detail in the body of this report. In considering these issues, Council should then be able to make informed decisions around any infrastructure and operational requirements going forward.

Whilst these issues do present their challenges, by way of potential resourcing implications, and associated costs, they can be managed now and into the future in order to implement water-based activities onto Gosling Creek Dam.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

Financial Implications

Additional funds and resources will need to be allocated in order to build infrastructure, manage and operate Suma Park Dam, Spring Creek Dam and Gosling Creek Reserve, if both land-based and water-based recreational use is to be permitted.

Policy and Governance Implications

Council will be required to comply with requirements set by the Local Government Act 1993 as well as the Crown Lands Act 1989.

Recommendation

1 That the July 1996 Gosling Creek Reservoir Plan of Management be updated in accordance with the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Crown Lands Act 1989, with the aim of including additional water-based activities such as swimming and non-motorised boating on Gosling Creek Reservoir, as well as additional land-based activities to enable the site to achieve its full recreational potential.

2 That the recreational use of Spring Creek Reservoir and Suma Park Dam be considered by Council after the implementation of recreational use at Gosling Creek Dam.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

GOSLING CREEK RESERVE

Council wishes to expand the range of activities at Gosling Creek Reservoir based on feedback from the community that the site is not being utilised to its full potential. Given its current popularity with users, it proximity to the city and convenient linkages to nearby cycle routes, plus the feedback from the recently held NSW Club Championship Triathlon at Gosling Creek Reservoir, the addition of a limited range of water based activities would add significant community value to this facility. It is proposed to permit the following additional water-based recreational activities on Gosling Creek Dam:

· Swimming

· Non-motorised boating (canoeing, kayaking and sailing)

Gosling Creek Reserve is also currently used for a range of land-based recreational activities, with activities such as camping, hunting and trail bike riding specifically prohibited. While these prohibitions should remain in place it is proposed to explore a range of other permissible activities, such as triathlons, Human Powered Vehicle (HPV) racing and the like which have emerged in recent years as opportunities for the Gosling Creek reserve.

Plan of Management and Master Plan Report

The Gosling Creek Reserve Plan of Management was adopted by Council on 14 July 1996 and is the key management document which outlines what activities are allowed and which are prohibited at the site.

Gosling Creek Reserve is unique in that 30 percent of the reserve comprises Council owned Community Land, being the area of the reserve principally to the south of the actual reservoir; with the remaining 70 percent portion Crown land, which includes the majority of the water body as well as most of the developed areas to the north of the reservoir (see aerial photo). This division reflects the alignment of the original creek prior to the dam wall being constructed.

The Crown Land portion of the reserve was recently gazetted as Public Recreation under Section 121A of the Crown Lands Act, 1989, which now permits activities such as triathlons on the reservoir and surrounding northern land. This also enables Council to use the land for Public Recreation purposes.

The General Community Use land category which applies to the portion of the site owned by Council allows recreational activities to be undertaken on the Reserve. However the existing Plan of Management, which covers the entire site, is more prescriptive on what activities can occur on the site and prohibits activities such as swimming and non-powered boating on both the 70 percent Crown Land portion as well as the 30 percent Council owned portion.

To ensure the entire site can be utilised for recreational activities the Plan of Management requires updating for Gosling Creek Reserve under both the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Crown Lands Act, 1989. The recently revised Crown Lands Act refers to the processes of the Local Government Act when developing Plans of Management.

The Gosling Creek Reserve Master Plan Report was prepared in July 2001. It was subsequently resolved by Council on 21 February 2002:

“That Council adopts and commences the implementation of the preferred (July 2001) Landscape Master Plan.”

This Plan provides more detail on how the Gosling Creek Reserve can be utilised and has guided much of the development of the site since its adoption in 2001. This Plan should be used to inform the update of the Plan of Management so that the two Plans align with each other. The Masterplan can also assist in guiding future development on the site, however consideration should be given to updating this plan, particularly if Dams Safety Committee requirements (see below) dictate the need for changes to be made with the dam wall and associated infrastructure.

Potential issues with increased water-based activities

Council needs to adopt an appropriately diligent assessment of the water quality issues associated with allowing increased recreational use on Gosling creek reservoir. Consideration needs to be given to the National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NHMRC) 2008 Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water. Although not mandatory, following these guidelines ensures recreational water environments are managed as safely as possible.

The NHMRC Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG 2011) is the authoritative document for drinking water management in Australia. It contains information about management of drinking water systems from catchment to consumer. The NHMRC are considering the introduction of additional requirements in a pending guideline review that will be used to determine the appropriate treatment process to address the source water risk. Recreational use of the water body is one of the risk considerations.

The proposed update to the guidelines, discuss ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ catchments. Gosling Creek Dam could be considered to be in the ‘outer’ catchment and as such, the introduction of water-based recreational activities poses less of a risk to source water than our primary and secondary water storages i.e. Suma Park and Spring Creek Dams.

Dam Safety Upgrade Works

Gosling Creek Dam is on the NSW Dams Safety Committee’s (DSC) highest risk dams list. Given the age and condition of the dam wall, it is the DSC’s view ‘that structural failure would likely occur if a 1:100,000 Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood were to overtop the dam’.

Based on this structural uncertainty, the DSC has requested that geotechnical testing be undertaken to confirm the stability of the dam wall. Information from this geotechnical work is essential for any likely subsequent work in assessing remedial options for the dam wall and detail design. This work is scheduled to be undertaken in the 2017/18 financial year.

The outcomes of this investigation work may be a need for upgrade works to be undertaken on the dam wall in the near future, with possible work to upgrade the wall currently identified in the 2022/23 financial year.

IF that were to occur the dam wall itself and the area surrounding the dam wall would need to be a restricted area in regard to any water based activities.

Update of Plan of Management

It is anticipated that the following activities need to occur to enable the necessary changes to the Plan of Management at Gosling Creek reserve:-

· Consent of the Minister (Crown Lands) for draft Plan of Management to be prepared (4 weeks)

· Prepare draft Plan of Management (2 weeks)

· Public exhibition of draft Plan of Management for at least 28 days (4 weeks)

· Assessment of any submissions (2 weeks)

· Post exhibition report to Council meeting (proposed October 2017) that considers all submissions. Council may then adopt and/or amend the draft Plan of Management. Any amendment triggers re-exhibition if the changes are “substantial”. If changes are not substantial, then it can be adopted with a public notice of adoption and the terms of the amended Plan of Management.

· Plan of Management adopted by the Minister (Crown Lands)

· Once the Plan of Management is adopted, Council can then approve the additional recreational activities, subject to the provision of any funding required to enable these activities to be implemented. This could include access/launch points to waterbody (for swimming and boating), signage etc.

Image 1: Aerial image purple hatched area is Crown land the area bounded by the red line and adjoining the hatched area is Council Community Land.

SPRING CREEK RESERVOIR

Plan of Management

Spring Creek Reservoir is owned by Orange City Council and is classified as Community Land. The Plan of Management was adopted by Council on 3 December 2007. This plan specifically provides for the use of the land for “public water supply purposes along with specific provisions to permit the controlled and supervised rowing training and other low impact recreational activities subject to development consents and licensing arrangements”.

If Council was to consider alternate recreational uses for the reservoir, the Plan of Management would need to be updated and an associated Master Plan prepared.

SUMA PARK RESERVOIR

Plan of Management

Suma Park Reservoir is owned by Orange City Council and is classified as Community Land. The land is categorised as Natural Area (with subcategories of Bushland, Watercourse and Wetland) and will require a Plan of Management to be developed and adopted by Council under the Local Government Act, 1993.