|
|
|
|
AGENDA
Ordinary Council Meeting Tuesday, 23 July 2019 |
|
|
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary Meeting of Murray River Council will be held on: |
|
|
Date: |
Tuesday, 23 July 2019 |
|
Time: |
6:00PM |
|
Location: |
Tatalia Room 3 Rich River Golf Club 24 Lane, MOAMA |
|
Des Bilske General Manager |
|
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
4 Conflict of Interests Declarations
5.1 Confirmation of Minutes from the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 25 June 2019
9 Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission
10 General Manager’s Report & Supplementary Matters
10.1 Dissolution of Central Murray County Council
10.2 Njernda Aboriginal Corporation - Request to wave charges
10.3 Growing Local Economies Fund Application - Murray Plains Meat Cooperative
10.4 Council's Resolution Tracker
11 Director Corporate Services Report & Supplementary Matters
11.1 Corporate Services Update
11.2 Financial Statements & Investments as at 30 June 2019
11.3 Draft Audit & Risk Committee Minutes - 29 May 2019
11.4 Adoption of Compliance Management Policy
11.5 MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL FRAUD POLICY
12 Director Engineering Report & Supplementary Matters
12.1 Major Projects Progress Report
13 Director Planning & Environment Report & Supplementary Matters
13.1 Environmental Services Report
13.3 Development Application 10.2017.245.1 (DA 245/17)
17.1 INFOCOUNCIL - Confidential items Resolution Tracker
17.2 Economic Development & Tourism Monthly Report
17.3 Request for Tender - C1911 Construction of Moama Recreation Reserve Sports Pavilion
17.4 Request for Tender - C1916 Construction of Barham Coummuity Hub
17.5 Request for Tender - C1917 Refurbishment Moama Administration Building
1 Acknowledgement of Country
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
File Number: -
Author: Rosemarie Lewandowski, Administration Officer Project
Authoriser: Des Bilske, General Manager
|
1. That the minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of Murray River Council held on 21 May 2019 be confirmed as a true and correct record. 2. That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Murray River Council held on 25 June 2019 be confirmed as a true and correct record.
|
Discussion
Murray River Council held an Extraordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday 21 May 2019, commencing at 6:09pm in Tatalia Room 3, Upper Level, Rich River Golf Club, 24 Lane, Moama
Murray River Council held its Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday 25 June 2019, commencing at 6:00pm in the Tatalia Room, Upper Level, Rich River Golf Club, 24 Lane, Moama.
A copy of both draft minutes are attached for ratification by Council at this meeting.
1. Minutes
of Extraordinary Meeting of Council 21 May 2019 - DRAFT ⇩ 
2. Minutes
of Ordinary Meeting of Council 25 June 2019 - DRAFT ⇩
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
10 General Manager’s Report & Supplementary Matters
File Number: -
Author: Rosemarie Lewandowski, Administration Officer Project
Authoriser: Des Bilske, General Manager
|
That Council receive and note the contents of the Proclamation dated 26th day of June 2019 declaring that on and from the beginning of 1 July 2019 Central Murray County Council is dissolved with its functions and operations in the local government areas of Berrigan, Edward River and Murray River subsumed by Berrigan Shire Council, Edward River Council and Murray River Council respectively in line with the provisions in the Schedule - Item (1) attached.
|
Background
The Central Murray County Council (CMCC) was formed in 1978 with the following members:
§ Berrigan Shire Council;
§ Conargo Shire Council;
§ Deniliquin Council;
§ Murray Shire Council; and
§ Windouran Shire Council
The CMCC trades under the name of Central Murray County Council Noxious Weeds. Its current function is to perform, on behalf of the member councils, the local control authority responsibilities under the Biosecurity Act 2015 No 24, which in 2018 replaced the Noxious Weeds Act 1993.
In 2001, Conargo Shire Council and Windouran Shire Council amalgamated and left four members of the CMCC. In 2016, Conargo Shire Council and Deniliquin Council merged to form Edward River Council; and Murray Shire Council and Wakool Shire Council merged to form Murray River Council. Wakool Shire Council were never a part of the CMCC. These mergers reduced the number of members of the CMCC to three.
It is now proposed to disband the CMCC and transfer the noxious weeds function and responsibilities back to the individual councils, namely Murray River Council, Edward River Council and Berrigan Shire Council.
The Local Government (Council Amalgamations) Proclamation 2016 advised the following in respect of county councils:
To avoid doubt, the constitution and operation of a county council, as existing immediately before the amalgamation day, is not affected by any changes to councils or council area affected by this Proclamation.
This proclamation created anomalies in service provision across the Murray River Council area, as only a portion of the local government area was previously served by the CMCC.
Murray River Council is the proponent for the dissolution of the CMCC with a target date of 30 June 2019. The proposal has the support of the CMCC.
As per the resolution of Murray River Council from its Extraordinary Meeting of 24 October 2018, Murray River Council has agreed to undertake any administrative work that is required to be attended to effect the dissolution after the CMCC is dissolved.
Discussion
Murray River Council proposed under section 358 of the Local Government Act 1993 that Central Murray County Council be dissolved and that its assets, liabilities and staff be distributed amongst its constituent councils.
After carefully considering the proposal and noting that no submissions were received during the public consultation period, the Hon Shelley Hancock MP Minister for Local Government recommended to the Governor that the proposal be implemented on and from 1 July 2019.
Accordingly, the Governor issued a proclamation on 26 June 2019 to this effect.
Update on assets and staff
· Murray River Council has advertised for a Weeds Management Officer as no staff were being transferred to MRC.
· Arrangements are being made to transfer the agreed assets which will include:
three (3) Utilities, one (1) of which is a Land cruiser and two (2) Ford Rangers which will take the spray equipment.
· Tilley handler with attachments.
· Other items as listed in dissolution proposal.
Strategic Implications
5 - Strategic Theme 5: Leadership and Governance
5.1 - An effective, efficient and progressive Council that provides leadership to the community
5.1.1 - Council decision making takes into account the needs and priorities of our local communities and the longer term social, cultural, economic and environmental viability and sustainability of our region
Budgetary Implications
The new Assets will become part of MRC’s Asset Register.
Weeds management Officers will be employed as provided for in the 2019/2020 budget..
Policy Implications
Nil.
Legislative Implications
Local Government Act 1993.
Risk Analysis
· What can happen?
Type here
· How can it happen?
Type here
· What are the consequences of the event happening?
Type here
· What is the likelihood of the event happening?
Type here
· Adequacy of existing controls?
Type here
· Treatment options to mitigate the risk?
Type here
Conclusion
All weed services will now be undertaken by each individual council. The councils will maintain the required standard of weed services and meet their legal obligations. This will be enabled through the transfer of assets and staff from the CMCC on dissolution. The aim is to deliver the most efficient weed services possible and to facilitate the transfer of operations and provide continuity of service to ratepayers.
1. Dissolution
of Central Murray County Council Proclamation 26 June 2019 ⇩
2. Letter
confirming dissolution of Central Murray County Council - 26 June 2019 ⇩
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
File Number: -
Author: John Harvie, Manager Economic Development & Tourism
Authoriser: Des Bilske, General Manager
|
That Council; 1. Waive fees and charges associated with the use of the Moama Recreation Reserve and that the fees and charges be funded from the MRC Event Fund. 2. Congratulate Njernda Aboriginal Corporation on hosting on hosting the annual VACSAL Junior Football and Netball Carnival.
|
Background
Each year Njernda Aboriginal Corporation host the VACSAL Junior Football & Netball Carnival at the Moama Recreation Reserve.
Discussion
This year the, two day, state event is expected to attract up to 500 participating children plus parents and other family members and provide economic input to Echuca Moama.
Njernda Aboriginal Corporation has asked if council would consider waiving the fees and charges associated with the use of the Moama Recreation Reserve, approximately $1000, for this event.
The event falls outside of the window of opportunity to apply for a grant through MRC’s Community Grants Program.
The Funds could come from council’s event fund which currently has $50,000 of un-allocated funds.
Strategic Implications
3 - Strategic Theme 3: Social Wellbeing
3.1 - Enable community access to services, programs and facilities to support and enhance health, wellbeing, and community safety
3.1.5 - Plan for, provide, maintain, improve, and encourage access to sporting facilities, recreational grounds, parks and gardens, natural bushlands to create active and passive environments for enjoyment of residents and visitors
Budgetary Implications
Funds are currently available in the event fund.
Policy Implications
Nil.
Legislative Implications
Risk Analysis
· What can happen?
The event does not proceed.
· How can it happen?
Weather or other unforeseen circumstances.
· What are the consequences of the event happening?
The funds may be used in preparing for the cancelled event.
· What is the likelihood of the event happening?
Low
· Adequacy of existing controls?
Adequate
· Treatment options to mitigate the risk?
Manage the risk
Conclusion
The VACSAL Junior Football and Netball Carnival is an important event in the local and regional aboriginal sporting calendar and should be supported.
1. Application
to hire Moama Recreation Reserve ⇩ 
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
File Number: -
Author: John Harvie, Manager Economic Development & Tourism
Authoriser: Des Bilske, General Manager
|
That Council endorse the actions of the Manager of Economic Development and Tourism in providing assistance to Murray Plains Meat Cooperative to enable development of an expression of interest seeking funding through the ‘Growing Local Economies’ Program.
|
Background
Murray Plains Meat Cooperative is located in Barham and is currently working on a project to build a modular multi species micro-abattoir to service southern NSW pork, lamb, beef, goat and poultry "paddock to plate'' producers.
The need to build such a facility has been created because of the random closures of abattoirs at Gunbower, Pyramid Hill, Deniliquin and Echuca, forcing local growers and butchers to travel afar to get livestock processed. This increased travel has resulted in poorer quality product and significantly increased costs which eventually will result in market failure.
Discussion
In discussions with NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet – Regional Development officers, an opportunity arose to submit an expression of interest to the ‘Growing Local Economies Program seeking funding to enable the project to proceed.
Council’s Economic Development and Tourism team provided assistance to Murray Plains Meat Cooperative to enable completion and lodgement of an expression of interest within a ten day window of opportunity.
A grant writer was hired at a cost of $2000 + GST which will be funded from the Economic Development budget.
This project was deemed important for a number of reasons that met objectives contained in the Community Strategic Plan;
1. To help local producers remain viable and to prevent market failure.
2. At little cost to council, seek $1,750,000 of funding to build a micro abattoir at Barham.
3. Maintain current job number and increase local employment opportunities, particularly in the 18 – 25 age group.
The expression of interest has been lodged and offers will be made by the end of 2019.
Strategic Implications
4 - Strategic Theme 4: Economic Growth
4.1 - Encourage and support economic development across a range of sectors
4.1.3 - Identify new opportunities and actively encourage investment in agriculture, agribusiness, value added manufacturing, alternate and renewable energy, health, wellbeing, aged care, and education
Budgetary Implications
Funds used to develop the expression of interest were allocated from the 2019/20 Economic Development budget.
Policy Implications
Nil.
Legislative Implications
Risk Analysis
· What can happen?
Nil
· How can it happen?
Nil
· What are the consequences of the event happening?
Nil
· What is the likelihood of the event happening?
Nil
· Adequacy of existing controls?
Nil
· Treatment options to mitigate the risk?
Nil
Conclusion
The local meat and poultry industry, consisting of 19 businesses, provides significant employment opportunities in Barham and district. Any action council can take to preserve existing employment and create further employment opportunities, will help meat councils target of sustainable communities.
1. Expression of Interest - Barham Micro Abattoir - Confidential
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
File Number: -
Author: Rosemarie Lewandowski, Administration Officer Project
Authoriser: Des Bilske, General Manager
|
That Council receives and notes the status of previous resolutions of Council on both manual and INFOCOUNCIL Resolution tracker reports. |
Background
The Council Resolutions Tracker has been prepared to allow Councillors to review the status of their decisions (resolutions) at Council Meetings.
The manual Tracker comprises two (2) lists – ‘active’ and ‘completed’ and includes all resolutions from the previous meetings of the Council that require action. The resolutions that are reported by Council’s officers as complete will drop off the ‘active’ list and be captured on the ‘completed’ list.
The Resolutions Tracker from INFOCOUNCIL is attached along with the previous manually generated Tracker which will be archived once all resolutions on it have been completed.
Discussion
For Council information.
Strategic Implications
5 - Strategic Theme 5: Leadership and Governance
5.1 - An effective, efficient and progressive Council that provides leadership to the community
5.1.1 - Council decision making takes into account the needs and priorities of our local communities and the longer term social, cultural, economic and environmental viability and sustainability of our region
Budgetary Implications
Nil.
Policy Implications
Nil.
Legislative Implications
Nil.
Risk Analysis
· What can happen?
Directors and or staff do not follow up on the resolutions.
· How can it happen?
Resolutions being overlooked or misplaced
· What
are the consequences of the event happening?
Resolutions not being completed in a timely manner
· What
is the likelihood of the event happening?
Low
· Adequacy of existing controls?
Executive assistant and Admin assistant email the resolutions to Council Officers for actioning. EA and AA follow up with reminders to Council Officers for completion of resolutions.
· Treatment options to mitigate the risk?
Due diligence undertaken by administration and Council Officers
Conclusion
The Council Resolutions Tracker has been prepared to allow Councillors to review the status of their decisions (resolutions). The Tracker was introduced in September 2018 and includes all resolutions made by Council after that period that require action. The resolutions that are reported by Council’s officers as complete will drop off the manual ‘active’ list and be captured on the ‘completed’ list.
The INFOCOUNCIL list will contain active actions. These lists will be provided for every Council Meeting.
1. INFOCOUNCIL
Resolution Tracker July 2019 ⇩
2. MANUAL
Resolution Tracker July 2019 ⇩
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
11 Director Corporate Services Report & Supplementary Matters
File Number: -
Author: Ross Mallett, Director Corporate Services
Authoriser: Des Bilske, General Manager
Discussion
WH&S
Total incidents for the period - 190
- 1st quarter – 50
- 2nd quarter – 48
- 3rd quarter – 49
- 4th quarter – 43
Total Injuries to Employees – 40 – Significant improvement over the 12 month period
- Requiring Treatment – 12
- First Aid /No Treatment – 28
Total Damage to Council Vehicles – 57
- Impact with Wildlife – 11
- Windscreens – 21 (fully claimable on Insurance)
- Other - 25
Finance
Budget process was completed at the June Council meeting and efforts are now being focussed on rolling out the budget reporting process across council.
Internal Auditors have completed 2 of 3 internal audit projects with reports subject to review and discussion with council management. The final project report is expected shortly. While it is disappointing that the reports were not available earlier the final reports will be considered at a special briefing of the Audit Committee on 14 August.
The external auditors visited council over the week commencing 8 July to conduct the interim audit. The visit went well and results of the audit are expected by end of July.
The revaluation of transport assets has been largely completed and the report will be presented to council management in July.
ICT
The ICT strategy was finalised by outside provider Hitech during the month and the key recommendations are expected to be implemented over the next 6 months. A copy of the report will be considered by the audit committee at its next meeting in August.
Risk
The Audit and Risk Committee reviewed the latest version of council’s Risk Register at its meeting in May 2019.
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
File Number: -
Author: Abbas Mehr, Financial Accountant
Authoriser: Ross Mallett, Director Corporate Services
|
1. That the Officer’s report on Council’s Financial Statements, Bank Reconciliations and Investments as at 30th June 2019 be received and noted
2. That the report detailing Council’s cashbook balance of $61,093,302.29 as at 30th June 2019 is received.
3. That the report detailing Council’s investment balance of $59,600,174.09 as at 30th June 2019 is received |
Background
Shown below are the Financial Statements, Bank Reconciliations and Investments for the period ending 30th June 2019.
Discussion
REPORT - BANK RECONCILIATION
Shown below are the Financial Statements, Bank Reconciliations and Investments for the period ending 30th June 2019.
INTERIM STATEMENT OF BANK BALANCES AS AT 30th JUNE 2019 OF COUNCIL’S COMBINED ACCOUNTS
INTERIM INTERNAL CASHBOOK BALANCES
OVERDRAFT LIMITS: Bank Overdraft - $650,000.00.
I hereby certify that the cashbook of the various funds of Council has been reconciled, with the appropriate Pass Sheets as at 30th June 2019.
Ross Mallett
Responsible Accounting Officer
REPORT - INVESTMENTS AS AT 30th JUNE 2019
As required by Section 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, the details of Council’s surplus funds invested, totalling $59,600,174.09 are listed below:
,
Investments Continues Next Page
Strategic Implications
5 - Strategic Theme 5: Leadership and Governance
5.1 - An effective, efficient and progressive Council that provides leadership to the community
5.1.2 - Council acts in a financially responsible manner to ensure delivery of safe and sustainable services to the community
Budgetary Implications
Current low interest rates may reduce the expected interest revenue.
Policy Implications
Investments have been made in accordance with the Council Investment Policy which was adopted on the 17th October 2017.
Legislative Implications
Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Regulation 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005, Trustees Act 1925 Section 14.
Risk Analysis
· What can happen?
Imprudent use of council’s financial resources
· How can it happen?
Not following investment rules, policies or mandates
· What are the consequences of the event happening?
Potential loss of financial resources
· What is the likelihood of the event happening?
Low
· Adequacy of existing controls?
Good
· Treatment options to mitigate the risk?
Responsible management of financial resources invested in accordance with Council’s investment policies and mandate.
Conclusion
Murray River Council’s liquidity is in a satisfactory position at 30th June 2019.
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
File Number: -
Author: Ross Mallett, Director Corporate Services
Authoriser: Des Bilske, General Manager
Discussion
Attached for council’s information are draft minutes of the meeting held on 29 May 2019. The minutes are due for confirmation by the Audit & Risk Committee at its next meeting in August 2019.
1. Draft
Audit & Risk Committee Minutes- 29 May 2019 ⇩ 
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
File Number: -
Author: Sandra Gordon, Manager Risk
Authoriser: Ross Mallett, Director Corporate Services
|
That Council adopts the Compliance Management Policy and it is placed in the Policy Register.
|
Background
It was resolved at the Ordinary Meeting of Council of 28 May 2019 that Council adopt as a draft the Murray River Council Compliance Management Policy and that it be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days to allow for public comment and/or submissions. (Resolution 190519)
Discussion
This policy aims to ensure that Council:
· Is informed of all relevant legislative, industrial and regulatory changes;
· Complies with any relevant legislative, industrial and administrative requirements; and
· Has developed a framework that identifies the responsibilities of all Council officials and facilitates the implementation of robust practices for the effective management of compliance obligations
There have been no submissions received in relation to the advertising of the Compliance Management Policy for public comment.
Strategic Implications
5 - Strategic Theme 5: Leadership and Governance
5.1 - An effective, efficient and progressive Council that provides leadership to the community
5.1.1 - Council decision making takes into account the needs and priorities of our local communities and the longer term social, cultural, economic and environmental viability and sustainability of our region
Budgetary Implications
The adoption of this Policy will have no budgetary implication.
Policy Implications
Existing policies may need to have minor changes to reflect the adoption of this Policy. All future policies will also need to consider this Policy and the Compliance Management Framework that is contained with it.
Legislative Implications
This Policy, the Framework and the Compliance Management Register will assist Murray River Council to meet and manage its legislative obligations. New and/or amended legislation and the implications for Council will be captured.
Risk Analysis
· What can happen?
Previous to this Policy, relevant legislation may not have been complied with.
· How can it happen?
Legislative changes not captured.
· What are the consequences of the event happening?
Non-compliance with could lead to sanctions or legal actions
· What is the likelihood of the event happening?
Unlikely
· Adequacy of existing controls?
Regular reviewing of legislative change will alert Council to changes
· Treatment options to mitigate the risk?
Subscription to Lawlex or similar website that alerts Council to legislative changes
Conclusion
This Policy, when adopted, will allow Council to receive and monitor changes to legislation.
1. Compliance
Management Policy - DRAFT ⇩ 
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
File Number: -
Author: Sandra Gordon, Manager Risk
Authoriser: Ross Mallett, Director Corporate Services
|
That Council adopts the minor amendments to the Murray River Council Fraud Policy. |
Background
The Murray River Council Fraud Policy was adopted by Council at the June Ordinary Council meeting. (Resolution 110619)
Discussion
The Murray River Council Audit & Risk Committee, at its recent meeting, recommended the following minor amendments to the adopted Fraud Policy.
· Clause 5.3.1 to have the words “including transactions involving third parties” added to the end of the clause;
· Clause 5.3.3 to include an additional dot point to cover “the NSW Auditor General”
Strategic Implications
5 - Strategic Theme 5: Leadership and Governance
5.1 - An effective, efficient and progressive Council that provides leadership to the community
5.1.2 - Council acts in a financially responsible manner to ensure delivery of safe and sustainable services to the community
Budgetary Implications
Nil
Policy Implications
Nil.
Legislative Implications
Risk Analysis
· What can happen?
No additional risks result from these minor changes
· How can it happen?
Not applicable
· What are the consequences of the event happening?
· Not applicable
· What is the likelihood of the event happening?
· Not applicable
· Adequacy of existing controls?
· Not applicable
· Treatment options to mitigate the risk?
· Not applicable
Conclusion
Recommended changes do not alter the intent of the previously adopted version of the Fraud Policy.
1. MRC
Policy - Fraud Policy - POL-212.V#1.1 ⇩
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
23 July 2019 |
12 Director Engineering Report & Supplementary Matters
File Number: -
Author: Diane Cottrell, Project Manager
Authoriser: Scott Barber, Director Engineering
purpose
To inform elected members and community of the progress of externally funded “one-off” major projects and grants open applications.
BACKGROUND
The first version of this report provided a snapshot of externally funded projects in progress. Preceding approval to deliver the project there is the funding application stage. This critical stage determines if the project is a “GO” or “NO GO” and determines the opportunity of delivering benefits to our community.
To keep people informed, Council will track the progress of grant funding applications and report to the elected members, community and staff. Following feedback from the General Manager, Council has developed a reporting process with the latest grants open for application.
The grant aspect of the report will evolve as we submit applications for grants currently open. It provides Council with the opportunity to track progress in obtaining grants and provide valuable lessons for ongoing improvement. Included in this report is information on grants open and a “SAMPLE ONLY” of the grant status report for review and feedback.
NB: The grant status report assumes that the projects submitted fit the selection process and eligibility criteria outlined in the funding program guidelines.
CONCLUSION
This is the second evolution of this report and your feedback is welcome and appreciated
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
23 July 2019 |
|
Grants open |
|||||
|
Funding program |
Close |
Awarded |
Funds available |
Grant amounts |
Project types |
|
2018-19 Community Resilience Innovation Program (CRIP) |
MIDDAY |
To be sourced |
To be sourced |
To be sourced |
Projects designed to increase all-hazard disaster preparedness and build community capacity and resilience |
|
Environmental Education Program – Tier 1 (EEP1) |
3PM |
To be sourced |
To be sourced |
up to $60K |
Projects that develop knowledge and skills in protecting and restoring our environment |
|
Environmental Education Program – Tier 2 (EEP2) |
3PM |
To be sourced |
$1M |
From $60,001- $250K |
Projects that develop knowledge and skills in protecting and restoring our environment |
|
Stronger Country Community Fund Round 3 (SCCF3) |
NOON |
Jan 2020 |
$1.55M |
$50K up to $1M $1M+ (25% co-funded) |
Youth related infrastructure and Programs Local Community Infrastructure and Programs |
|
Increasing Resilience
to Climate Change Grants program |
MIDNIGHT |
Dec 2019 |
Total of |
Individual council
projects Multiple councils
regional projects |
Projects that increase resilience and adapt to climate change of identified climate risks and vulnerabilities |
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
23 July 2019 |
|
Grant Status Stronger Country Communities Fund Round 3 (SCCF3) CLOSES 27 September 2019 |
SCCF3 $1.55M |
Youth Projects 4 Community Projects 1 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Status On track Stage in progress Request $50,000 |
Status On track Stage in progress Request $50,000 |
Status On track Stage submitted Request $200,000 |
Status On track Stage submitted Request $250,000 |
Status On track Stage completed Request $1,000,000 |
|
Comments: This is a SAMPLE ONLY of the Grant Status Report, which after funding is awarded will form the basis of the Program Status Report |
||||
|
Program Status – Stronger Communities Fund Round 1 (SCF1) |
SCF1 $9,000,000 MRC $399,789 |
Projects 9
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Status On track Stage Procurement Budget $3,965,600 SCF1 Actual $$ 3% |
Status On track Stage Construction Budget $2,000,000 SCF1 Actual $$ 5% |
Merran Creek Bridge
Stage Closure Budget $525,000 SCF1 $342,000 MRC Actual $$ 91% |
Status On track Stage Construction Budget $650,000 SCF1 Actual $$ 2% |
Mathoura Rec Reserve
Stage Closure Budget $541,420 SCF1 $44,436 MRC Actual $$ 100% |
|
Barham Rec Reserve
Stage Defect rectification Budget $407,000 SCF1 Actual $$ 89% |
Status Rescheduled Stage Planning/Approvals Budget $410,812 SCF1 $13,353 MRC Actual $$ 3% |
Moulamein South Rec Reserve
Stage Closure Budget $360,812 SCF1 Actual $$ 100% |
Status Complete Stage Closure Budget $200,000 SCF1 Actual $$ 97% |
|
|
Comments: 5 Projects complete and undergoing closeout process.
3 projects on track. Exception: Moulamein Pre-school – trees removed, site preparation work commenced and planning application in progress. Defect rectification: Barham Recreation Reserve Skate Park has a minor drainage defect, which the contractor will fix – scope and date to be confirmed. |
||||
|
Program Status – Stronger Communities Fund Round 2 (SCF2) |
SCF2 $4,095,000 |
Projects 7 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
MRC Culture / Bus Excellence F/work / Enterprise System
Stage Start-up Budget $1,500,000 SCF2 Actual $$ 0.0% |
Status On track Stage Start-up Budget $1,195,000 SCF2 Actual $$ 0.0% |
Moama Business Park Upgrade Water Pressure Pump
Stage Procurement Budget $500,000 SCF2 Actual $$ 0.0% |
Moama Council New Office
Stage Construction Budget $250,000 SCF2 Actual $$ 0.0% |
Barham Bridge Road Access
Stage Construction Budget $250,000 SCF2 Actual $$ 0.0% |
|
|
Moama Recreation Reserve
Stage Construction Budget $200,000 SCF2 Actual $$ 0.0% |
Tooleybuc Rec Reserve
Stage Construction Budget $200,000 SCF2 Actual $$ 0.0% |
Comments: 2 projects in early stages and on track. |
|||
|
Program Status – Stronger Country Communities Fund Round 1 (SCCF1) |
SCCF1 $2,049,463 MRC $54,891 |
Projects 7
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Barham Pontoon
Stage Construction Budget $505,000 SCCF1 Actual $$ 4% |
Tooleybuc Pontoon
Stage Construction Budget $505,000 SCCF1 Actual $$ 4% |
Moama Rec Reserve Zone 4
Stage Closure Budget $384,294 SCCF1 Actual $$ 71% |
Murray Downs Path Stage 1
Stage Closure Budget $80,960 SCCF1 Actual $$ 69% |
Tooleybuc Rec Reserve
Stage Closure Budget $120,206 SCCF1 $40,794 MRC Actual $$ 85% |
|
|
Moulamein Swimming Pool
Stage Closure/defect Budget $133,975 SCCF1 $14,097 MRC Actual $$ 97% |
Barham, Bunnaloo, Koraleigh, Mathoura, Wakool Courts
Stage Closure Budget $320,028 SCCF1 Actual $$ 96% |
Comments: 5 projects complete and undergoing close out process.
|
|||
|
Program Status – Stronger Country Communities Fund Round 2 (SCCF2) |
SCCF2 $2,624,555
|
Projects 7
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Barham Community Hub
Stage Procurement Budget $828,411 SCCF2 Actual $$ 6% |
Moama Rec Reserve Zone 2
Stage Procurement Budget $736,411 SCCF2 Actual $$ 20% |
Moama Rec Reserve Zone 3
Stage Procurement Budget $266,1025 SCCF2 Actual $$ 1% |
Moulamein Sth Rec Reserve
Stage Procurement Budget $347,310 SCCF2 Actual $$ 0% |
Murray Downs
Stage Procurement Budget $174,023 SCCF2 Actual $$ 31% |
|
Tooleybuc Mensforth Park
Stage Procurement Budget $117,023 SCCF2 Actual $$ 3% |
Playgrounds
Stage Procurement Budget $255,473 SCCF2 Actual $$ 0% |
Comments: All projects on track and nearing construction phase.
|
||
|
Program Status – Regional Growth Fund (Our Region our Rivers) (RGF1) 50/50 funding with MRC/SCF1/SCCF1&2 |
RGF1 $2,007,696 Various $2,049,463 |
Projects 5
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Moama Foreshore
Stage Design and approval Budget $751,271 RGF1 $751,271 MRC Actual $$ 12% |
Tooleybuc Foreshore
Stage Design and approval Budget $630,000 RGF1 $630,000 SCF1 Actual $$ 12% |
Murray Downs Foreshore
Stage Design and approval Budget $117,925 RGF1 $117,925 SCCF1/2 Actual $$ 12% |
Barham Riverside Park
Stage Scope Budget $371,000 RGF1 $371,000 SCF1 Actual $$ 16% |
Mathoura Picnic Point
Stage Construction Budget $137,500 RGF1 $137,500 SCF1 Actual $$ 33% |
|
Comments: Moama, Tooleybuc and Murray Downs Foreshore Developments are in design
phase. |
||||
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
This is our second Major Projects Progress Report in this format and we welcome your feedback for ongoing improvement.
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
13 Director Planning & Environment Report & Supplementary Matters
File Number: -
Author: David Wilkinson, Relieving Director Planning & Environment
Authoriser: Des Bilske, General Manager
Discussion
This report details the activities of Environmental Services from 1 June to 30 June 2019.
1. Applications
Determined under Delegated Authority from 1 June to 30 June 2019 ⇩ 
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
13.2 Planning Proposal to amend Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011 - PP_2016_MRIVE_006_01 - Creation of Heritage Conservation Area, Chanter Street, Moama
File Number: -
Author: Christopher O'Brien, Town Planner
Authoriser: David Wilkinson, Relieving Director Planning & Environment
Applicant: Murray River Council
Owner: Various
Proposal: Creation of Heritage Conservation Area
Location: Old Moama Precinct, Chanter Street MOAMA NSW 2731
|
That: 1. Council proceed with the Planning Proposal and send the Planning Proposal to the NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO) requesting Parliamentary Counsel’s opinion and drafting of a new Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Murray LEP 2011), in accordance with Planning Proposal PP_2016_MRIV_006_01; 2. Once PCO Opinion is received, the General Manager exercise the Minister’s functions under Section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and make (signs) the new Murray LEP 2011 (as per previously issued NSW DPE Gateway Determination); 3. Council forward the new Murray LEP 2011 to NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for gazettal and online notification on the NSW Legislation Website. |
Background
The idea of creating a Heritage Conservation Area within the Old Moama Precinct of Chanter Street was initially raised by ‘The Friends of Old Moama’ Committee, a local community group committed to the protection of Moama’s heritage and who were concerned about proposed developments within this historic precinct of Moama. The matter was presented to the former Murray Shire Council on a number of previous occasions, which is relevant to this report. The relevant Council Meeting Agenda’s and Minutes (Council Resolutions), which detail the proposed Heritage Conservation Area and reasons for creating such, are attached for your reference.
At Murray River Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 15 November 2016, Council resolved that the subject ‘Planning Proposal’ be submitted to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) with a request for Gateway Determination to amend the Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Murray LEP 2011). The subject planning proposal seeks to create a Heritage Conservation Area within the ‘Old Moama Precinct’, Chanter Street MOAMA NSW 2731. A copy of the planning proposal is attached as Appendix Planning proposal.
Council submitted the Planning Proposal to DPE on Tuesday 29 November 2016 requesting a Gateway Determination be made. Council received a Gateway Determination from DPE dated 19 December 2016, attached as Appendix Gateway.
Discussion
In accordance with the Gateway Determination, the Planning Proposal was referred to relevant authorities for comment. The proposal was also placed on community consultation. A total of three (3) public submissions were received during the original formal community consultation period. At the request of the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) dated 3 February 2017, a ‘further detailed heritage study’ was required to be completed to support the Planning Proposal. Council’s Heritage Advisor completed this work, which was received on 23 August 2018. The proposal was then required to be re-advertised to the public and re-notified to relevant agencies. An additional public submission was then received, which was in support of the Planning Proposal. All authorities which responded to the referral of the Planning Proposal have supported the creation of a Heritage Conservation Area.
Subject Site
The subject land forming part of this planning proposal is Lot 2 DP 1190071, Lot 11 DP 802815, Lot 7 Section 18 DP 758686, Lot 8 Section 18 DP 758686, Lot 9 Section 18 DP 758686, Lot 10 Section 18 DP 758686, Lot 20 DP 262658, Lot 21 DP 262658, Lot 2 DP 1179236 (Unmatched lot), Lot 3 DP 577291, Lot 22 DP 262658, Lot 23 DP 262658, Lot 24 DP 262658, Lot 25 DP 262658, Lot 2 DP 1113444, Lot 1 DP 1113444, Lot 7006 DP 1123157, Lot 7019 DP 1123285, Lot 7020 DP 1123285, Lot 236 DP 751152, Lot 242 DP 751152, Lot 7021 DP 1123285, and Lot 1 Section 1 DP 758686, located along Chanter Street, MOAMA NSW 2731. The Road Reserve of Chanter Street (between Lot 7006 DP 1123157 and Victoria Street), and Victoria Street (between Council Street and the Murray River), and land forming part of the Moama Town Flood Levee, also forms part of the subject land.
The subject land is zoned E3 Environmental Management, and directly adjoins the main channel of the Murray River, which is zoned W2 Recreational Waterways located to the south. The entire subject land is mapped as Murray REP2 Riverine Land and Flood Prone Land, whilst the majority of the subject land is mapped as Bush Fire Prone Land.
Part of the subject land is mapped as Wetlands, and Terrestrial Biodiversity (Native Vegetation). The subject land is not mapped as an Urban Release Area, Contaminated Land or land containing Mining Resources. The Murray River is classed as a Watercourse under the Murray LEP 2011, along with being mapped as Key Fish Habitat (Aquatic Biodiversity).
The following parcels of land which form the subject land contain items of environmental heritage significance, as outlined in Schedule 5 of the Murray LEP 2011:
· Lot 2 DP 1190071, 54 Chanter Street, Moama – Item I7 ‘Former river captain’s cottage’ (Incorrectly labelled Lot 4, Section 18, DP 758686 in Murray LEP 2011);
· Lot 9 Section 18 DP 758686, 60 Chanter Street, Moama – Item I14 ‘Former Moama Telegraph Station’ Incorrectly labelled Lot 8, Section 18, DP 758686 in Murray LEP 2011);
· Lot 3 DP 577291, 72 Chanter Street, Moama – Item I8 ‘Residence’;
· Lot 1 Section 1 DP 758686, 100 Chanter Street, Moama – Item I13 ‘Portal entry (former Maiden’s Inn Hotel); and
· Lot 7021 DP 1123285, Chanter Street, Moama – Item I29 ‘Maiden’s Punt’.
The land subject to the planning proposal comprises a number of private individual allotments, owned by various private parties, along with Council owning the Old Telegraph Station, Captains Cottage, and Maiden’s Punt. Land which directly adjoins the Murray River is heavily vegetated with native vegetation, whilst numerous allotments along the north of Chanter Street are currently vacant. Chanter Street is currently sealed and is a public road. Victoria Street between Chanter Street and the Murray River is not formed.
Proposal
The planning proposal is to create a Local Significance Heritage Conservation Area within the subject land (located within the Old Moama Precinct in Chanter Street, Moama). This is required in order to continue to promote the importance of heritage conservation within the Council and further protect existing heritage items within the locality for current and future generations to enjoy.
Statutory Assessment Process
Not applicable. This report relates to the Planning Proposal (Strategic Planning process).
Town Planning Assessment
TIMELINE
The below table provides an overview of the timeline with respect to the creation and assessment of the planning proposal.
|
Council resolved to support Planning Proposal and send to DPE for Gateway Determination |
15 November 2016 |
|
Planning Proposal sent to DPE requesting Gateway Determination |
29 November 2016 |
|
Gateway Determination received from DPE |
19 December 2016 |
|
Referral to relevant agencies in accordance with Gateway Determination conditions |
9 January 2017 |
|
Original Community Consultation |
9 January 2017 – 13 February 2017 |
|
NSW OEH Heritage Division Response received requesting additional information – ‘further detailed heritage study’ to support PP, attached as Request for Heritage Study |
3 February 2017 |
|
NSW OEH (Environment Office) response received |
8 February 2017 |
|
Forwarding of PP to Council’s Heritage Advisor to complete further detailed heritage study requested by OEH |
24 February 2017 |
|
Additional information requested by Council’s Heritage Advisor |
26 April 2017 |
|
Additional information forwarded to Council’s Heritage Advisor to complete Heritage Report |
9 May 2017 |
|
Request from Council to DPE for extension of time (Request to amend Gateway Determination) |
4 September 2017 |
|
Amended Gateway Determination received from DPE (extension of time granted, Council also required to re-advertise the PP to the public and refer to relevant agencies once Heritage Report completed) |
18 September 2017 |
|
Draft Heritage Report received from Council’s Heritage Advisor |
13 August 2018 |
|
Final Heritage Report received from Council’s Heritage Advisor, attached as Heritage Report |
23 August 2018 |
|
Request from Council to DPE for additional extension of time (Request to amend Gateway Determination) |
30 August 2018 |
|
Additional extension of time granted |
5 September 2018 |
|
Re-referral to relevant agencies in accordance with amended Gateway Determination conditions |
28 November 2018 |
|
Additional Community Consultation as a result of additional requirement from DPE |
30 November 2018 – 7 January 2019 |
|
Final NSW OEH (Environment Office) response received |
6 December 2018 |
|
Final NSW OEH Heritage Division response received |
21 December 2018 |
SUBMISSIONS:
The below table provides an overview of responses received from relevant agencies.
Agencies
|
Agency |
Response |
|
NSW DPE |
Gateway Determination received 19/12/2016. Amended Gateway Determination received 18/9/2017 (extension of time granted, requirement for Council to re-advertise the PP to the public and refer to relevant agencies once Heritage Report completed) Additional extension of time granted 5/9/2018 |
|
NSW Crown Lands |
No response received. |
|
Moama Local Aboriginal Land Council |
No response received. |
|
Cummeragunja Local Aboriginal Land Council |
No response received. |
|
NSW OEH – Heritage Division |
Original response received 3/2/2017 requesting additional information – ‘further detailed heritage study’ to support the planning proposal. Final Response received 21/12/2018 outlining Heritage Division supporting of HCA however will not be providing specific comment in this instance. |
|
NSW OEH – Environment Office |
No objections. General comments received 8/2/2017 & 6/12/2018 |
Public Submissions
A total of three (3) public submissions were received during the original formal community consultation period. An additional one (1) public submission was then received during the second formal community consultant period. The public submissions which were received and responses are documented below. Copies of all of the subject public submissions have been attached for reference as Public Submissions.
|
Submission number |
Issue: |
Comment: |
|
1 |
“… I wish to object strongly to the planning proposal at this location.
I believe my property has no heritage significance and importance and therefore object to the heritage conservation area proceeding”. |
Noted.
The submission maker’s property is located at Lots 22-25 DP 262658, which is currently vacant land along Chanter Street, Moama. Lot 22 DP 262658 directly adjoins local item of environmental heritage I8 (Residence (Former Gaol/Police Station)).
The creation of the Heritage Conservation Area is to enhance the existing listing of heritage items within the precinct and to ensure future development within the area does not adversely impact upon the existing heritage items which have survived within the area. As outlined within Council’s Heritage Advisors’ report (completed by Noel Thomson dated August 2018); “The proposed conservation area is intended to strengthen the legislative controls applicable to development to and around items of environmental heritage within the proposed conservation area and formalise the heritage importance of the area known as “Old Moama”. The existing heritage controls within the Murray LEP are considered site specific and may not adequately protect the setting and context of the individual heritage items”.
The creation of the Heritage Conservation Area will strengthen the level of development control within the locality and ensure greater protection is given to avoid unsuitable development. |
|
2 |
“I object to the proposal because there is already a river overlay which prohibits dwellings being built within 100 metres of the river edge which includes the river front half of the proposal and my house.
There are only three places of heritage interest to tourists – only one of which is looked after, 2 of which tourists come to look at.
I think this proposal will devalue my house and reduce the potential development of this street. I understand the desire to retain our heritage. I have lived in and restored a 60 square metre homestead before living here.
I don’t have a problem with heritage listing of the existing 3 heritage buildings (Old Telegraph Station, Captains Cottage and Front Archway of Old Maidens Inn Hotel). But to put the development of any new dwellings into the hands of a heritage advisor with the sole reason to have new buildings comply to old looking buildings is ridiculous and doesn’t work”. |
The submission maker is referring to Clause 7.4 (Development of river front areas) of the Murray LEP 2011.
There are in fact actually xxxxx number of items.
Any alleged devaluing of property is not a planning consideration. The Heritage Conservation Area will not reduce the potential development of the area, but instead will ensure any development is appropriate for the site and adequately addresses the heritage significance of the Old Moama Precinct.
The Heritage Conservation Area does not require all new development to be designed to look like heritage.
|
|
3 |
“It is apparent from reading the Council proposal, Council meeting minutes, the submissions, the Heritage Consultants Report and by inspection of the site that the building at 102 Chanter Street is not a contributory building. It appears to have been constructed in the 1960's or 1970's. The building and the grounds have no architectural or cultural significance.
All of the other buildings, namely the former River Captains Cottage, former Moama Telegraph Station, former gaol and Police Station, former Maidens Inn Hotel (portal entry) and Maidens Punt were constructed in the mid to late 1880's and have obvious historical significance. These sites are separated by four vacant blocks to the west and a major road to the south from 102 Chanter Street.
Correspondingly, the co-op building at 54 Chanter Street is on the same lot as the former River Captains Cottage and is only a matter of metres away and has not been included in the proposed heritage overlay.
The co-op building was built in the same era as the building at 102 Chanter Street, is not a contributory building, but has an infinitely stronger relationship to a significant building.
It is quite obvious that 102 Chanter Street has little relationship to the significant sites, whilst 54 Chanter Street bears a very strong relationship.
The logic of how this proposal was constructed would appear to be questionable given the lack of consistency in approach. It is obvious that 102 Chanter Street should not be included in the proposal” |
102 Chanter Street is included in the Heritage Conservation Area.
Submission maker’s comments are noted.
54 Chanter Street, Moama contains the office of the Moama Local Aboriginal Land Council. This land was left out of the Heritage Conservation Area as adopted by Council at the request of this authority. |
Conclusion
The Planning Proposal is a suitable outcome for the Council. The planning proposal is consistent with the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and will allow for the recognition of this significant area of Moama within Murray River Council. The planning proposal is consistent with the aims of the Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011 and all other Environmental Planning Instruments relevant to the Council. The Planning Proposal has been notified to the public, and submissions received have been considered and addressed appropriately. All conditions of the Gateway Determination have been complied with (it is noted that Council staff are finalising the final LEP Maps in accordance with Condition 5. These maps are to be compliant with DPE’s ‘Standard Technical Requirements for Spatial Datasets and Maps 2015). It is therefore recommended Council proceed with the proposal in accordance with the recommendations at the start of this report.
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
File Number: -
Author: Christopher O'Brien, Town Planner
Authoriser: David Wilkinson, Relieving Director Planning & Environment
Applicant: Planright Surveying
Owner: NSW Crown Lands
Proposal: Water Supply System (Construction of pump pontoon to house 2 pumps), and removal of existing stairway structure
Location: NSW Crown Waterway (Victorian side of Murray River)
Adjacent to River Avenue, ECHUCA VIC 3564
Opposite Lot 268 DP 751152 MOAMA NSW 2731
|
That Development Application (DA) 10.2017.245.1 (DA 245/17) be refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is inconsistent with Clause 7.6 ‘Additional provisions—development on river bed and banks of the Murray and Wakool Rivers’ of the Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011, as the proposed structure is to be located on an outside bend of the Murray River. 2. The proposed development is inconsistent with Chapter 10.3 Pontoons of the Murray Development Control Plan 2012 as the proposed pontoon does not service many properties. 3. The proposed development is inconsistent with Chapter 10.1 Visual amenity of the Murray Development Control Plan 2012 as the proposed pontoon does not protect the visual amenity created by the natural river environment, whilst the proposal is not designed to minimise the visual impact on the natural environment. 4. The proposed development is inconsistent with Clause 10 Specific Principles (Access) of the Murray Regional Environmental Plan No. 2—Riverine Land as the proposal is for private infrastructure on the main channel of the Murray River which seeks to prevent public access. |
Background
N/A
Discussion
N/A
Subject Site
The site subject to this development application is NSW Crown Waterway (Victorian side of Murray River), Adjacent to River Avenue, ECHUCA VIC 3564 and Opposite Lot 268 DP 751152 MOAMA NSW 2731. The site is zoned W2 Recreational Waterways and is mapped as Murray Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Riverine Land, Bush Fire Prone Land, Flood Prone Land, Terrestrial Biodiversity (Native Vegetation), Key Fish Habitat (Aquatic Biodiversity), Wetlands, The site is not mapped as RAMSAR Wetlands, Urban Release Area, mining resources or contaminated land. The Murray River is mapped as a Watercourse under the Murray LEP 2011. The site does not contain any known items of environmental heritage significance.
Figure 1 outlines the subject site.
Figure 1 – Locality and aerial photograph of subject site. Subject site marked by black star. (Photo from Six Maps)
Proposal
The proposed development is for a Water Supply System (Construction of pump pontoon to house 2 pumps), and removal of existing stairway structure. The applicant originally proposed a mooring however this was removed from the applicant due to objections from Government authorities. Please see submitted plans below:
Figure 2 – Site Plan
Figure 3 – Section Plan
Statutory Assessment Process
2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Section 1.3 Objects
Comment: It is considered that the proposed development is not specifically inconsistent with the objects of the Act.
Section 1.7 Application of Part 7 of Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of Fisheries Management Act 1994
Comment: It is considered that the proposed development will not have a significant effect on the terrestrial and aquatic environment, threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats. The proposal is not considered to create any significant adverse environmental impact. It is therefore considered that the proposal is not inconsistent with Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994.
Section 4.14 Consultation and development consent—certain bush fire prone land
Comment: The subject site is mapped as Bush Fire Prone Land however the application is for a water supply system.
Section 4.15 Evaluation
Comment: This report provides the necessary review and evaluation of the development application. See below.
Section 4.46 What is “integrated development”?
Comment: The applicant advised that the application was Integrated Development (with NRAR Water) however NRAR Water advised the application is exempt from the requirements of the Water Management Act 2000.
2.2 Chronology of events and public notification and statutory referral process.
The below table provides an overview of the timeline with respect to the lodgement and assessment of the application.
Application history/timeline
|
Application lodged |
12/5/2017 |
|
DA Panel |
6/6/2017 |
|
Further information requested |
27/6/2017 |
|
Site Inspection |
4/8/2017 |
|
Further information received |
8/9/2017 |
|
Neighbour Notification |
18/9/2017 – 23/10/2017 |
|
Objection from VIC DELWP received |
4/10/2017 |
|
Amended details provided by Applicant to aim to address VIC DELWP concerns |
11/10/2017 |
|
Amended response from VIC DELWP (still objecting to application) |
6/11/2017 |
|
Amended response from VIC DELWP received (consenting to application) |
5/10/2018 |
2.3 Referrals and Owners Consent
|
Internal Referrals |
DA Panel |
|
External Referrals |
Murray REP2 Authorities: · Victorian Dept. of Environment, Land, Water & Planning (DELWP) · Shire of Campaspe · Dept. of Primary Industries (Fisheries) · Environment Protection Authority · Murray Darling Basin Authority · Office of Environment & Heritage · Roads & Maritime Services · Local Land Services (Murray) · Dept. of Industries (Crown Lands) · WaterNSW · GM Water · NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service
Integrated Development Authority: NSW NRAR Water (formally DOI Water |
|
Advertised |
Yes |
|
Public Notification |
The proposed development was notified to adjoining property owners (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Services) in accordance with Murray DCP 2012 Chapter 12 – Notification Policy. |
|
Owners Consent |
NSW Crown Lands provided land owners consent. |
2.4 Contributions
Section 7.11 (formerly Section 94) Development Contributions are not required.
Section 7.12 (formerly Section 94A) Levy Development Contributions are not required.
Section 64 contributions are not required.
Town Planning Assessment
Assessment of the development application has been undertaken in respect to relevant considerations arising from Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as follows:
3.1 Section 4.15 Evaluation
(1) Matters for consideration-general
In determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application:
(a) the provisions of:
(i) any environmental planning instrument, and
(ii) any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Planning Secretary has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved), and
(iii) any development control plan, and
(iiia) any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4, and
(iv) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), and
(v) (Repealed)
that apply to the land to which the development application relates,
(b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,
(c) the suitability of the site for the development,
(d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations,
(e) the public interest.
Matters for consideration
3.2(a) the provisions
3.2(a)(i) Environmental Planning Instruments
3.2(a)(i)a Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Available http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/EPI/2011/682)
Part 1 Preliminary
Clause 1.1 Name of Plan
Comment: Noted.
Clause 1.1AA Commencement
Comment: Noted.
Clause 1.2 Aims of Plan
Comment: It is considered that the proposed development is not specifically inconsistent with the aims of Murray LEP 2011.
Clause 1.3 Land to which Plan applies
Comment: Noted.
Clause 1.4 Definitions
Comment: Noted.
Clause 1.5 Notes
Comment: Noted.
Clause 1.6 Consent authority
Comment: Noted.
Clause 1.7 Maps
Comment: Noted.
Clause 1.8 Repeal of planning instruments applying to land
Comment: Noted.
Clause 1.8A Savings provision relating to development applications
Comment: Noted.
Clause 1.9 Application of SEPPs
Comment: Noted.
Clause 1.9A Suspension
of covenants, agreements and instruments
Comment: For the purpose of enabling development on land in any zone
to be carried out in accordance with this Plan or with a consent granted under
the Act, any agreement, covenant or other similar instrument that restricts the
carrying out of that development does not apply to the extent necessary to
serve that purpose.
Part 2 Permitted or prohibited development
Clause 2.1 Land use zones
Comment: Noted.
Clause 2.2 Zoning of land to which Plan applies
Comment: Noted.
Clause 2.3 Zone objectives and Land Use Table (development permissibility)
Zone: W2 Recreational Waterways
• To protect the ecological, scenic and recreation values of recreational waterways.
• To allow for water-based recreation and related uses.
• To provide for sustainable fishing industries and recreational fishing.
Comment: It is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the objective to protect the scenic values of recreational waterways. The application is for the construction of a pump pontoon for a water supply system. The application is inconsistent with Clause 7.6 of the Murray LEP 2011 and Council’s Development Control Plan 2012 (Chapter 10.3 Pontoons). It is considered there is no demonstrated need to construct a pontoon for private use on the subject site.
Permissibility
Comment: The application seeks permission for the construction of a pump pontoon, which is classed as a ‘water supply system’ within the Murray LEP 2011. This land use is permitted with consent in the W2 Zone.
Under the Murray LEP 2011;
water supply system means any of the following:
(a) a water reticulation system,
(b) a water storage facility,
(c) a water treatment facility,
(d) a building or place that is a combination of any of the things referred to in paragraphs (a)–(c).
Clause 2.4 Unzoned land
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 2.5 Additional permitted uses for particular land
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 2.6 Subdivision—consent requirements
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 2.7 Demolition requires development consent
Comment: The applicant has applied for the removal of the existing stairway structure on site.
Clause 2.8 Temporary use of land
Comment: Not applicable.
Part 3 Exempt and complying development
Clause 3.1 Exempt Development
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 3.2 Complying Development
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 3.3 Environmentally sensitive areas excluded
Comment: Noted.
Part 4 Principal development standards
Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 4.1AA Minimum subdivision lot size for community title schemes
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 4.1A Minimum subdivision lot size for strata plan schemes in certain rural, residential and environmental zones
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 4.1B Minimum subdivision lot sizes for certain split zones
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 4.2 Rural Subdivision
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 4.2A Erection of dwelling houses on land in certain rural and environmental protection zones
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 4.2B Rural workers’ dwellings
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 4.2C Exceptions to minimum lot sizes for certain rural subdivisions
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 4.2D Boundary adjustments in Zones RU1 and E3
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 4.3 Height of buildings
[Not adopted]
Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio
[Not adopted]
Clause 4.5 Calculation of floor space ratio and site area
[Not adopted]
Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards
(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:
a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,
b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.
Comment: The objectives of the clause are noted.
(2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.
Comment: Noted. The Applicant has applied to utilise this Clause to vary the development standard stipulated in Clause 7.6(4)(a) of the Murray LEP 2011. Clause 7.6(4)(a) is not expressly excluded from the operation of Clause 4.6. A copy of the Applicant’s objection is attached.
(3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:
a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and
b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.
Comment: The Applicant has submitted a written request to vary Clause 7.6(4)(a) of the Murray LEP 2011. Clause 7.6(4)(a) states:
“…(4) Development consent must not be granted for the erection of a structure on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied of the following:
(a) that the proposed structure will not be located on an outside bend of the Murray or Wakool River,
The Applicant has stated that compliance with this development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance. The applicant’s application to vary development standard outlines that the.
The application is for a water supply system, in the form of two pumps for private use (one for stock and domestic and one for irrigation purposes of a private residence). There has been no submitted information provided which outlines why a pontoon is required for such pumps in this instance instead of suction pumps from the top of the river bank. It is also noted that the proposed pontoon is substantially larger than the existing stairs on the bank, whilst the application does not comply with the Murray DCP 2012 (Chapter 10.3 Pontoons). The submitted application to vary development standard outlines that the proposal is for the replacement of a lawfully erected structure, however no proof of approval has been provided to support this claim.
It is noted that the objective of the W2 zone to protect the ecological, scenic and recreation values of recreational waterways is not achieved by the subject proposal. Having regard to all relevant criteria and matters, it is considered there are insufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard in this instance and the application should not be supported.
(4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:
(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:
(i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and
(ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and
(b) the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.
Comment: It is considered that the Application to vary the development standard set out in Clause 7.6(4)(a) of the Murray LEP 2011 does not adequately address the required matters and the application should not be supported.
The objectives of Clause 7.6 of the Murray LEP 2011 are:
(a) to manage and maintain the quality of water in the Murray and Wakool Rivers,
(b) to protect the environmental values and scenic amenity and cultural heritage of those rivers,
(c) to protect the stability of the bed and banks of those rivers,
(d) to limit the impact of structures in or near those rivers on natural riverine processes and navigability of those rivers.
The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with one of the objectives of Clause 7.6. The proposal does not protect the scenic amenity of the Murray River (due to proposing a substantial pontoon structure on the outside bend of the River), whilst it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the zone objective to protect the scenic values of recreational waterways. It is noted that Murray River Council has received assumed concurrence in accordance with Planning Circular PS 18-003.
(5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Secretary must consider:
(a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and
(b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and
(c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Secretary before granting concurrence.
Comment: Noted.
(6) Development consent must not be granted under this clause for a subdivision of land in Zone RU1 Primary Production, Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU3 Forestry, Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, Zone RU6 Transition, Zone R5 Large Lot Residential, Zone E2 Environmental Conservation, Zone E3 Environmental Management or Zone E4 Environmental Living if:
(a) the subdivision will result in 2 or more lots of less than the minimum area specified for such lots by a development standard, or
(b) the subdivision will result in at least one lot that is less than 90% of the minimum area specified for such a lot by a development standard.
Comment: Not applicable. The application does not seek consent for subdivision.
(7) After determining a development application made pursuant to this clause, the consent authority must keep a record of its assessment of the factors required to be addressed in the applicant’s written request referred to in subclause (3).
Comment: Noted. The required record will be updated.
(8) This clause does not allow development consent to be granted for development that would contravene any of the following:
(a) a development standard for complying development,
(b) a development standard that arises, under the regulations under the Act, in connection with a commitment set out in a BASIX certificate for a building to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 applies or for the land on which such a building is situated,
(c) clause 5.4,
(ca)clause 6.1 or 6.2.
Comment: Noted.
The ‘five part test’
To assist in the assessment of applications to vary a development standard, NSW Department of Planning and Environment has released a Guideline entitled “Varying development standards: A Guide”. This document details that applications:
“…may also address matters set out in the ‘five part test’ established by the NSW Land and Environment Court. Councils may choose to not only use the principles of Clause 4.6 and SEPP1 but also this five part test. Court cases dealing with applications to vary development standards resulted in the Land and Environment Court setting out a five part test for consent authorities to consider when assessing an application to vary a standard to determine whether the objection to the development standards is well founded:
1. the objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding noncompliance with the standard;
Comment: As previously discussed, the subject Application is inconsistent with the development standard set out in Clause 7.6(4)(a) of the Murray LEP 2011.
The objectives of Clause 7.6 of the Murray LEP 2011 are:
(a) to manage and maintain the quality of water in the Murray and Wakool Rivers,
(b) to protect the environmental values and scenic amenity and cultural heritage of those rivers,
(c) to protect the stability of the bed and banks of those rivers,
(d) to limit the impact of structures in or near those rivers on natural riverine processes and navigability of those rivers.
The objectives of the standard are not achieved and therefore it is considered the application should not be supported.
2. the underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is unnecessary;
Comment: The underlying objective or purpose of the particular standard is indeed relevant to the development and therefore compliance is necessary. The application does not comply with Clause 7.6(4)(a) and should not be supported.
3. the underlying object of purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable;
Comment: It is considered that compliance is necessary. The underlying object of purpose would not be defeated or thwarted if compliance was upheld.
4. the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable;
Comment: The development standard has not been virtually abandoned. There may have been some applications for development on the outside bend of the Murray River assessed on their merits and considered satisfactory, however the subject application is considered inappropriate for the site.
5. the compliance with development standard is unreasonable or inappropriate due to existing use of land and current environmental character of the particular parcel of land. That is, the particular parcel of land should not have been included in the zone.”
Comment: Not applicable. The particular parcel of land has been appropriately included in the zone.
Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions
Clause 5.1 Relevant acquisition authority
Comment: Noted.
Clause 5.2 Classification and reclassification of public land
Comment: Noted.
Clause 5.3 Development near zone boundaries
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 5.4 Controls relating to miscellaneous permissible uses
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 5.5 (Repealed)
Clause 5.6 Architectural roof features
[Not adopted]
Clause 5.7 Development below mean high water mark
[Not applicable]
Clause 5.8 Conversion of fire alarms
Comment: Noted.
Clause 5.9, 5.9AA (Repealed)
Clause 5.10 Heritage conservation
Comment: The site does not contain any known items of Environmental Heritage Significance. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to ensure compliance with the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales.
Clause 5.11 Bush fire hazard reduction
Comment: Noted.
Clause 5.12 Infrastructure development and use of existing buildings of the Crown
Comment: Noted.
Clause 5.13 Eco-tourist facilities
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 5.14 Siding Spring Observatory—maintaining dark sky
[Not adopted]
Clause 5.15 Defence communications facility
[Not adopted]
Part 6 Urban release areas
Comment: Not applicable. The subject site is not mapped as an Urban Release Area.
Clause 6.1 Arrangements for designated State public infrastructure
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 6.2 Public utility infrastructure
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 6.3 Development control plan
Comment: Not applicable.
Clause 6.4 Relationship between Part and remainder of Plan
Comment: Not applicable.
Part 7 Additional local provisions
Clause 7.1 Essential services
Development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the proposed development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required:
|
Subclause |
Comment |
|
(a) the supply of water, |
The application is for a water supply system. |
|
(b) the supply of electricity, |
Electricity is available. |
|
(c) the disposal and management of sewage, |
Not applicable. |
|
(d) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation, |
Not applicable. |
|
(e) suitable road access |
Existing access via Victoria. |
Clause 7.2 Earthworks
Comment: No earthworks are proposed within NSW.
Clause 7.3 Biodiversity protection
Comment: It is considered the proposal is not inconsistent with the requirements of this clause.
Clause 7.4 Development on river front areas
Comment: Not applicable. The subject land is not classed as a river front area (The subject site is zoned W2 Recreational Waterways on the Victorian side of the Murray River).
Clause 7.5 Riparian land and Murray River and other watercourses—general principles
(1) The objective of this clause is to protect and maintain the following:
(a) water quality within the Murray and Wakool Rivers and other watercourses,
(b) the stability of the bed and banks of those rivers and other watercourses,
(c) aquatic riparian habitats,
(d) ecological processes within those rivers and other watercourses and riparian areas.
Comment: It is considered that the proposed development is not specifically inconsistent with these objectives. The proposed development is not of a nature or scale to impact upon the migration of the Murray River, or effect water quality. The proposed development will cause some bank disturbance, however no native vegetation is proposed to be removed.
(2) This clause applies to land:
(a) identified as “Riparian Land and Waterways” on the Watercourse Map, and
(b) situated within 40 metres of the top of the bank of a watercourse (being a watercourse situated on land referred to in paragraph (a)).
Comment: This clause is applicable.
(3) Before determining a development application to carry out development on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must consider whether or not the development:
(a) is likely to cause any adverse impact on the following:
(i) the water quality and flows within a watercourse,
(ii) aquatic and riparian species, habitats and ecosystems,
(iii) the stability of the bed, shore and banks of a watercourse,
(iv) the free passage of fish and other aquatic organisms within or along a watercourse,
(v) any future rehabilitation of a watercourse and riparian areas, and
(b) will increase water extraction from a watercourse.
Comment: The proposed development is not considered to pose any significant adverse impact to water quality or flows, flora or fauna, bed or bank stability, the free passage of fish and other aquatic organisms, or any future rehabilitation of a watercourse and riparian areas.
(4) Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:
(a) the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any significant adverse environmental impact, or
(b) if that impact cannot be avoided by adopting feasible alternatives—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or
(c) if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact.
Comment: The proposed development is inconsistent with Clause 7.6(4)(a) regarding development on an outside bend of the Murray River, therefore it is considered that the proposal is not appropriately sited.
Clause 7.6 Additional provisions—development on river bed and banks of the Murray and Wakool Rivers
(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:
(a) to manage and maintain the quality of water in the Murray and Wakool Rivers,
(b) to protect the environmental values and scenic amenity and cultural heritage of those rivers,
(c) to protect the stability of the bed and banks of those rivers,
(d) to limit the impact of structures in or near those rivers on natural riverine processes and navigability of those rivers.
Comment: It is considered that the proposed development is inconsistent
with one of the objectives of Clause 7.6. The proposal does not protect the
scenic amenity of the Murray River (due to proposing a substantial pontoon
structure on the outside bend of the River).
(2) This clause applies to land comprising the bed of the Murray or
Wakool River and up to the top of the bank of that River.
Comment: The Application is subject to this Clause as it is located on land comprising the bed of the Murray River up to the top of the bank.
(3) Development consent must not be granted to any development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied of the following:
(a) that the development is likely to contribute to achieving the objectives of the zone in which the land is located,
(b) that the development will not increase erosion,
(c) that the development is not likely to cause an adverse effect on riverine habitat or flora or fauna habitats,
(d) that the development will not cause an adverse effect on drainage or flow patterns.
Comment: It is considered that the proposed development is unlikely to contribute to achieving the objectives of the zone in which the land is located (W2 Recreational Waterways Zone, as per previously outlined). The proposed development is unlikely to have any significant adverse impact on erosion, drainage or flow patterns, and will not result in the removal or adversely affect riverine habitat.
(4) Development consent must not be granted for the erection of a structure on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied of the following:
(a) that the proposed structure will not be located on an outside bend of the Murray or Wakool River,
(b) that the appearance of the proposed structure, from both that River and any adjacent land, will be compatible with the surrounding area,
(c) that the development does not involve, and will not result in, the erection of more than one mooring per lot or per lots owned by the same owner or owners.
Comment: The proposed development is located on an outside bend of the river. The Applicant has therefore submitted an Application to Vary a Development Standard as previously discussed. It is considered that the subject submitted Application is inconsistent with the objectives of the Clause and should not be supported in this instance (as previously outlined). The appearance of the proposed development from the River and any adjacent land is considered to be not specifically incompatible with the surrounding area. The Applicant originally applied for a mooring on the site, however this part of the application was withdrawn due to objections being received from relevant Government authorities.
(5) This clause is in addition to clause 7.5 and prevails to the extent of any inconsistency with that clause.
Comment: Noted.
Clause 7.7 Wetlands
Comment: It is considered that the proposed development is not inconsistent with the requirements of this clause.
Clause 7.8 Flood planning
Comment: It is considered that the proposed development is not specifically inconsistent with the requirements of this clause.
Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses
Comment: Not applicable.
Schedule 2 Exempt development
Comment: Not applicable.
Schedule 3 Complying development
Comment: Not applicable.
Schedule 4 Classification and reclassification of public land
Comment: Noted.
Schedule 5 Environmental heritage
Comment: Noted.
3.2(a)(i)b Murray Regional Environmental Plan No. 2—Riverine Land
Comment: The subject site is mapped as Murray Regional Environmental Plan 2 – Riverine Land.
Part 1 Introduction
Clause 1 Name of plan
Comment: Noted.
Clause 2 Aims of the plan
Comment: The proposed development is considered to be not specifically consistent with the aims of this plan. The construction of a large pontoon on the outside bend of the Murray River for private use does not conserve and enhance the riverine environment of the River Murray for the benefit of all users.
Clause 3 Objectives of the plan
Comment: The proposal has been assessed against all relevant criteria and it is considered important to not support the application in this instance. The proposal is located on the outside bend of the Murray River which is specifically inconsistent with the Murray LEP 2011 and thus considered to have the potential to adverse effect the riverine environment. It is also noted that approving the proposed development is unlikely to conserve and promote the better management of the natural and cultural heritage values of the riverine environment of the River Murray.
Clause 4 Where the plan applies
Comment: Noted.
Clause 5 How this plan affects other plans
Comment: Noted.
Part 2 Planning principles
Clause 6 Definitions
Comment: Noted.
Clause 7 Notes
Comment: Noted.
Clause 8 When planning principles should be applied
Comment: Noted.
Clause 9 General principles
Comment: The aims, objectives and planning principles of this plan have been considered in the assessment of this Development Application. It is considered that the proposal should not be supported due to non-compliance with sections of the Murray LEP 2011 and Murray DCP 2012. No relevant River Management Plan applies in this instance. It is noted that the cumulative impact to the River Murray and downstream areas is predicted to be minimal.
Clause 10 Specific principles
When this Part applies, the following must be taken into account:
Access
* The waterway and much of the foreshore of the River Murray is a public resource. Alienation or obstruction of this resource by or for private purposes should not be supported.
* Development along the main channel of the River Murray should be for public purposes. Moorings in the main channel should be for the purposes of short stay occupation only.
* Human and stock access to the River Murray should be managed to minimise the adverse impacts of uncontrolled access on the stability of the bank and vegetation growth.
Comment: The proposed development is inconsistent with this clause. The development application is to be utilised privately by the Applicant. The submitted plans show a lockable gate with ‘private access only’ sign to form part of the proposal. The proposed development location can be classified as the main channel of the River Murray.
Bank disturbance
* Disturbance to the shape of the bank and riparian vegetation should be kept to a minimum in any development of riverfront land.
Comment: It is considered that the proposal should not be supported in order to limit disturbance to the bank.
Flooding
* Where land is subject to inundation by floodwater:
(a) the benefits to riverine ecosystems of periodic flooding,
(b) the hazard risks involved in developing that land,
(c) the redistributive effect of the proposed development on floodwater,
(b) the availability of other suitable land in the locality not liable to flooding,
(c) the availability of flood free access for essential facilities and services,
(d) the pollution threat represented by any development in the event of a flood,
(e) the cumulative effect of the proposed development on the behaviour of floodwater, and
(f) the cost of providing emergency services and replacing infrastructure in the event of a flood.
* Flood mitigation works constructed to protect new urban development should be designed and maintained to meet the technical specifications of the Department of Water Resources.
Comment: The nature of the proposed development is unlikely to pose any significant adverse impact to the periodic flooding which may occur on the site, or to the behaviour of flood waters. The proposed development is not intended for permanent human habitation and will not increase the risk of life or property, or increase the cost of providing emergency services to the site in the event of a flood. The proposed development does not present a pollution threat as there is no waste or sewer connected, and no parts which could potentially form floating debris in the event of a flood. No flood mitigation works are proposed as part of the development.
Land degradation
* Development should seek to avoid land degradation processes such as erosion, native vegetation decline, pollution of ground or surface water, groundwater accession, salination and soil acidity, and adverse effects on the quality of terrestrial and aquatic habitats.
Comment: The proposal is not inconsistent with these requirements.
Landscape
* Measures should be taken to protect and enhance the riverine landscape by maintaining native vegetation along the riverbank and adjacent land, rehabilitating degraded sites and stabilising and revegetating riverbanks with appropriate species.
Comment: The proposal is not inconsistent with these requirements.
River related uses
* Only development which has a demonstrated, essential relationship with the river Murray should be located in or on land adjacent to the River Murray. Other development should be set well back from the bank of the River Murray.
* Development which would intensify the use of riverside land should provide public access to the foreshore.
Comment: The Application is for a Water Supply System and therefore is reliant on the Murray River.
Settlement
* New or expanding settlements (including rural-residential subdivision, tourism and recreational development) should be located:
(a) on flood free land,
(b) close to existing services and facilities, and
(c) on land that does not compromise the potential of prime crop and pasture land to produce food or fibre.
Comment: Not applicable.
Water quality
All decisions affecting the use or management of riverine land should seek to reduce pollution caused by salts and nutrients entering the River Murray and otherwise improve the quality of water in the River Murray.
Comment: Noted.
Wetlands
* Wetlands are a natural resource which have ecological, recreational, economic, flood storage and nutrient and pollutant filtering values.
Land use and management decisions affecting wetlands should:
(a) provide for a hydrological regime appropriate for the maintenance or restoration of the productive capacity of the wetland,
(b) consider the potential impact of surrounding land uses and incorporate measures such as a vegetated buffer which mitigate against any adverse effects,
(c) control human and animal access, and
(d) conserve native plants and animals.
Comment: The proposal is not inconsistent with these requirements.
Part 3 Planning requirements and consultation
Clause 11 Consultation—who consults and procedure for consultation
Comment: Noted.
Clause 12 General provisions for consultation
Comment: Noted.
Clause 13 Planning Control and Consultation Table
Comment: The Application was referred in accordance with the requirements of bank and/or bed work.
Clause 14 Building setbacks—special provisions
(1) Application
This clause deals with matters which are to be taken into consideration when:
(a) a consent authority determines a development application, or
(b) a public authority or person proposes to carry out development for which development consent is not required but which has the potential to adversely affect the riverine environment of the River Murray.
Comment: This clause is applicable under (1)(a).
(2) Building setback
All buildings outside land zoned for urban purposes under a local environmental
plan should be set well back from the bank of the River Murray. The only
exceptions are buildings dependent on a location adjacent to the River Murray.
Comment: The proposed development is dependent on its location adjacent to the River Murray, however the proposed development is not of a nature and scale which is considered appropriate. The siting of the proposed development is considered inappropriate, due to being located on the outside bend of the Murray River.
(3) Objectives
of building setback
The objectives of siting buildings away from the River Murray are to:
• maintain and improve water quality,
• minimise hazard risk and the redistributive effect on floodwater associated with the erection of buildings on the floodplain,
• protect the scenic landscape of the riverine corridor,
• improve bank stability, and
• conserve wildlife habitat.
Comment: The proposed development has the potential to impact upon the scenic landscape of the riverine corridor, and it is considered a less imposing water supply system could be constructed to achieve the same result.
(4) Matters to
be considered
When determining the location of a building in relation to the River Murray, in
addition to the planning principles the following specific matters should also
be considered:
(a) Effluent disposal
(i) it is generally unsuitable to locate septic tanks:
• on flood liable land,
• where the watertable is within 2 metres of the surface,
• in close proximity to a sensitive natural environment,
• if seasonably low evapotranspiration is common, or
• on soils of low permeability,
(ii) septic tanks should only be installed on suitable (ie permeable) soils with absorption areas located as far as possible from the River Murray or other drainage lines,
(iii) in circumstances where septic tanks are unsuitable, package sewage treatment plants or humus closet (dry toilet) systems should be preferred,
(iv) excess stormwater should, where possible, be disposed of on-site away from any septic absorption area.
Comment: The proposed development does not create any additional effluent disposal.
(b) Landscaping
The visual impact of buildings in the riverine landscape can be lessened by the
planting of a variety of appropriate vegetation species. This practice has
other advantages in stabilising unstable or eroding banks and providing both
habitat for wildlife and a trap for silt, nutrients and other substances which
may otherwise enter the river and lead to a deterioration of water quality.
Comment: Noted.
Dictionary
Comment: Noted.
3.2(a)(i)c State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008
Comment: The proposed development cannot be classed as exempt or complying development as it does not meet all of the development requirements.
3.2(a)(i)d State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
Comment: Not required.
3.2(a)(i)e State Environmental Planning Policy No 44—Koala Habitat Protection
Comment: The subject land is not considered to be core koala habitat or potential core koala habitat.
3.2(a)(i)f State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land
Comment: The subject land is not considered to be contaminated or likely to be contaminated and is not listed on Council’s Contaminated Land Register. In accordance with Clause 7 of SEPP 55, Council is satisfied that, the land is suitable in its current state for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out.
3.2(a)(i)g State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017
Comment: The proposed development is not inconsistent with this Policy.
3.2(a)(i)h State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007
Comment: Not applicable.
3.2(a)(i)i State Environmental Planning Policy (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions) 2007
Comment: Not applicable.
3.2(a)(i)j State Environmental Planning Policy No 64—Advertising and Signage
Comment: Not applicable.
3.2(a)(i)k State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011
Comment: Not applicable.
3.2(a)(i)l State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards
Comment: Not applicable.
3.2(a)(i)m State Environmental Planning Policy No 21—Caravan Parks
Comment: Not applicable.
3.2(a)(i)n State Environmental Planning Policy No 30—Intensive Agriculture
Comment: Not applicable.
3.2(a)(i)o State Environmental Planning Policy No 33—Hazardous and Offensive Development
Comment: Not applicable.
3.2(a)(i)p State Environmental Planning Policy No 36—Manufactured Home Estates
Comment: Not applicable.
3.2(a)(i)q State Environmental Planning Policy No 52—Farm Dams and Other Works in Land and Water Management Plan Areas
Comment: Not applicable.
3.2(a)(i)r State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008
Comment: The proposed development is not inconsistent with this Policy.
3.2(a)(i)s State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017
Comment: Not applicable.
3.2(a)(ii) Proposed instruments
Comment: Draft Murray LEP 2011 applies. The same non-compliance with Clause 7.6 remains.
3.2(a)(iii) Any development control plan
Comment: Murray Development Control Plan 2012: Amendment 5 dated 2/2/2016 applies to the proposal. Chapters 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are relevant. Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are not applicable.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Comment: Noted.
Chapter 2 Residential Development
Comment: Not applicable.
Chapter 3 Industrial Development
Comment: Not applicable.
Chapter 4 Commercial Development
Comment: Not applicable.
Chapter 5 Tourist Accommodation
Comment: Not applicable.
Chapter 6 Strategic Land Use Plan
Comment: The proposed development is not inconsistent with the SLUP.
Chapter 7 Subdivision
Comment: Not applicable.
Chapter 8 Urban Release Areas
Comment: Not applicable.
Chapter 9 Vegetation Removal
Comment: No vegetation is proposed to be removed.
Chapter 10 Watercourses & Riparian Land
10.1 Visual Amenity
Objectives
· To protect the visual amenity created by the natural river environment.
· To avoid works and structures that have a detrimental visual impact.
Controls
· All structures and buildings are to be designed to minimise the visual impact on the natural environment.
· Buildings and structures are to utilise building materials and colours that blend with the natural environment. Bright or reflective colours (unless necessary for safety reasons) and materials will not be supported by Council.
· Landscaping of native riparian vegetation is be used to soften visual amenity impacts but not used as a substitute for appropriate siting of buildings and structures in the river environment.
Comment: The proposed development is inconsistent with this subchapter. The construction of a new private pontoon on the Murray River does not protect the visual amenity created by the natural river environment, whilst the proposal is not designed to minimise the visual impact on the natural environment.
10.2 Boat ramps
Comment: No boat ramp is proposed.
10.3 Pontoons and walkways
Objectives
· To restrict floating pontoons, walkways and jetties on Rivers in (former) Murray Shire.
· To preserve the riverine environment from unsightly, artificial structures that have a detrimental affect on the ecological river system.
· To ensure river structures do not impact on river traffic safety.
Comment: The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the subchapter. An additional floating pontoon is proposed, as the site currently contains only a steel stairway on the riverbank. The Application is for an unsightly artificial structure.
Controls
· Pontoons, walkways and jetties for private recreational use are not permitted.
Comment: Not applicable.
· Pontoons and walkways will be assessed on their merits where they are fundamental and ancillary to large scale tourist developments.
Comment: Not applicable.
· Pontoons and walkways may still be permissible within private waterways/marinas and to provide safe access to approved mooring sites.
Comment: Not applicable.
· Pontoons and walkways for the placing of a water pumps will only be considered in exceptional circumstances where the pump is substantial and will service many properties.
Comment: The proposed development is inconsistent with this control. The applicant has not provided any documentation to outline the proposed new pontoon will service many properties.
· Walkways and landings are to be hinged to the high bank of the waterway and floating so they can rise and fall with the water levels.
Comment: Noted.
· All works involving soil or vegetation disturbance shall be undertaken with adequate measures to prevent soil erosion and the entry of sediments into the adjacent waterway.
Comment: Noted.
· Pontoons and walkways are to be fitted with reflective markers for the purposes of river navigation.
Comment: Noted.
10.4 Retaining walls
Comment: No retaining walls are proposed.
10.5 Stairs
Comment: No stairs are proposed.
10.6 Moorings
Comment: No moorings are proposed. The application originally included a private mooring however was removed from the application due to objections received by Government authorities.
10.7 Liability & public safety
Comment: Noted.
10.8 Landscaping
Comment: Noted.
10.9 Unauthorised structures
Comment: Noted.
Chapter 11 Flood Prone Land
Comment: The subject site is mapped as Flood Prone Land under the Murray LEP 2011, and is located within Flood Planning Area 2 (FPA2) under the Murray DCP 2012. The proposed development is not being used for human habitation. Due to the size and nature of the proposed development, impacts to flooding and the behaviour of floodwaters is predicted to be minimal. No native vegetation is proposed to be removed. The proposed development is unlikely to increase risk to life and property and will not be utilised for a habitable purpose, the proposed development is deemed compatible with the flood hazard of the land and is unlikely to cause any social or economic cost to the community in the event of a flood.
Chapter 12 Notification Policy
Comment: The application was notified to adjoining property owners (being NSW National Parks and Wildlife Services in this instance) in accordance with Council’s Policy.
3.2(a)(iiia) Any Planning Agreements
Comment: No planning agreements apply.
3.2(a)(iv) The regulations
Comment: The regulations have been considered in the assessment of this application. It is considered that the application is not inconsistent with the objectives of the regulations.
3.3(b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality.
Environmental Impacts
Natural Environment
The proposed development is unlikely to adversely impact upon the natural environment.
Built Environment
The proposed development has the potential to adversely impact upon the built environment through the construction of an additional pontoon on the main channel of the Murray River.
Social Impacts
The proposed development is unlikely to create any adverse social impact.
Economic Impacts
The proposed development is unlikely to create any adverse economic impact.
Additional considerations:
· Traffic and Parking: No issues identified.
· Noise: No issues identified.
· Amenity: Unsatisfactory. The proposal has the potential to adversely impact upon the natural amenity of the riverine environment.
· Waste: Not applicable.
· Non-Aboriginal Heritage: Not applicable. The site is not subject to any heritage conservation provisions.
· Aboriginal Cultural Heritage: No known items identified on the subject land. In any event statutory requirements would trigger contingency measures if any cultural heritage was subsequently identified.
· Bushfire Hazard: The subject land is located within an area identified as being bushfire prone. The application however is for a Water Supply System, therefore no issues identified.
· Water Quality & Stormwater: No issues identified.
· Soils, soil erosion: No issues identified.
· Flora & Fauna: Satisfactory. No areas of critical habitat are affected by the proposal. No native vegetation on site will be impacted upon.
· Utilities: Satisfactory.
· Signage: Not applicable.
· Safety, security & crime prevention: Not applicable.
3.4(c) The suitability of the site for the development
Comment: The subject site is considered unsuitable for the proposed development. The site is classed as an outside bend of the Murray River. The application proposes a pump pontoon on the subject site, it is considered there are other more suitable alternatives to achieve a water supply system for the proponent.
3.5(d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations,
|
Agency |
Response |
|
NRAR Water (Formally DOI Water) |
No objections, exempt from requirements of Water Management Act 2000. |
|
Victorian Dept. of Environment, Land, Water & Planning (DELWP) |
No objections subject to conditions. VIC DELWP originally objected to the mooring component of the application, therefore the applicant removed this part of the application. |
|
Shire of Campaspe |
No objections, comments received. |
|
DPI Fisheries |
No objections subject to conditions. |
|
Environment Protection Authority |
No objections subject to conditions. |
|
Murray Darling Basin Authority |
No objections. |
|
Office of Environment & Heritage |
No objections, comments received. |
|
Roads & Maritime Services |
No objections subject to conditions. |
|
Local Land Services (Murray) |
No response received. |
|
NSW Crown Lands |
No objections subject to conditions (Land Owners consent provided). |
|
WaterNSW |
No objections. |
|
GM Water |
No response. |
|
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service |
No response. |
Public Submissions
No public submissions were received.
3.6(e) The public interest.
The public’s interest has been taken into consideration in the assessment of this development application. The proposal does not comply with the Murray LEP 2011 or Murray DCP 2012 and it is important Council provides quality decision making which is consistent with its adopted policies in order to uphold the public interest.
Conclusion
The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and is considered to be unsatisfactory. The proposed development is inconsistent with the Murray LEP 2011 and Murray DCP 2012 and has the potential to provide development which will adversely impact upon the riverine environment. It is therefore recommended that development consent be refused with the reasons for refusal outlined above.
1. Application
to Vary Development Standard ⇩ 
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
File Number: -
Author: Rosemarie Lewandowski, Administration Officer Project
Authoriser: Des Bilske, General Manager
DISCUSSION
01/07: Local Government NSW Weekly
Indices of General Circulars dated 18, 21 & 27 June, 2 & 12 July 2019 have been forwarded to Councillors and senior staff via email.
Media Release for 28 June has been circulated to all Councillors and senior staff via email.
02/07: Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) News
Newsletters dated 28 June, 4 July, 5 July and 12 July have been forwarded to Councillors and senior staff via email.
03/07: Office of Local Government
June 2019 newsletter has been forwarded to Councillors and senior staff via email.
Circular 19-15/15 July 2019/A647408 has been forwarded to Councillors and senior staff via email.
04/07 RAMJO Board meeting Minutes
Forwarding Minutes of the meeting of the Board of the Riverina and Murray Joint Organisation, held in the Ian Gilbert Room of the Murrumbidgee Council on Wednesday 8 May 2019 at 10:00am. Attachment 1.
05/07 Regional Development Australia Murray – Funding opportunities
Newsletter informing communities, businesses & industries within the Murray region of the latest Government, Business and Philanthropic programs available. This item has been forwarded to Councillors and senior staff by email.
Attachment 2.
06/07 Regional Development Australia Murray – News
RDA Murray newsletter has been forwarded to Councillors and senior staff via email.
1. RAMJO
Board meeting minutes 8 May 2019 - Attachment 1. ⇩ 
2. Regional
Development Australia Murray informing of grant availability - Attachment 2 ⇩
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
File Number: -
Author: Rosemarie Lewandowski, Administration Officer Project
Authoriser: Des Bilske, General Manager
|
That the Sundry Delegates Reports of the Mayor and Councillors be received by the Council and reasonable out of pocket expenses be met by Council. |
Discussion
The Mayor, Councillor CR Bilkey reported on his attendance at the following meetings and functions:
· 25 June: Pre briefing prior to Ordinary Meeting of Council
· 25 June: Ordinary Meeting of Council - Moama
The Deputy Mayor, Councillor GS Campbell reported on her attendance at the following meetings and functions:
· 25 June: Pre briefing prior to Ordinary Meeting of Council
· 25 June: Ordinary Meeting of Council - Moama
· 27 June: Echuca Moama Accommodation AGM
· 09 July: Lions meeting
· 13 July: Echuca Moama Rotary Change over dinner
· 23 July: Pre briefing prior to Ordinary Meeting of Council
· 23 July: Ordinary Meeting of Council - Moama
Councillor A Aquino reported on his attendance at the following meetings and functions:
· No attendance at meetings or functions reported
Councillor NF Cohen reported on her attendance at the following meetings and functions:
· 25 June: Leave – Ordinary Meeting of Council – Moama
· 9 July: Moama Recreation reserve meeting
· 10 July: Meeting with General Manager - Moama
· 23 July: Pre briefing prior to Ordinary Meeting of Council
· 23 July: Ordinary Meeting of Council - Moama
Councillor A Crowe reported on her attendance at the following meetings and functions:
· No attendance at meetings or functions reported
Councillor NH Gorey reported on his attendance at the following meetings and functions:
· No attendance at meetings or functions reported
Councillor AM Mathers reported on his attendance at the following meetings and functions:
4 July: Barham Community Safety meeting.
9 July: MRSG Board meeting, all day at Deniliquin.
17 July: Deniliquin meeting re environmental watering projects for this season
23 July: Pre Council Briefing & Ordinary Meeting
23 July: Ordinary Meeting of Council
Councillor TE Weyrich reported on his attendance at the following meetings and functions:
· 25 June: Ordinary Meeting of Council - Moama
Councillor GW Wise reported on his attendance at the following meetings and functions:
· 9 July: Moama Recreation reserve meeting
· 23 July: pre briefing prior to Ordinary Meeting of council
· 23 July: Ordinary Meeting of Council - Moama
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
|
MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
|
