Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

24 March 2020

Program Status – Stronger Communities Fund Round 1 (SCF1)

SCF1 $9,000,000

MRC $419,606

Projects 9

Program Health

Program Trend

Actual Spend / Budget

At Risk Projects

Last Updated

Moama Rec Reserve
Pavilion Zone 1
Stage 1

Status On track

Stage Construction

Budget $3,965,600 SCF1

Actual $$ 48%

Barham Rec Reserve
Multi-functional Pavilion Stages 1 & 2

Status On track

Stage Construction

Budget $2,000,000 SCF1

Actual $$ 70%

Merran Creek Bridge
Moulamein Swan Hill Road

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $525,000 SCF1

$342,000 MRC

Actual $$ 100%

Tooleybuc Mensforth Park
Upgrade

Status On track

Stage Construction

Budget $650,000 SCF1

$300,000 RGF1

Actual $$ 85%

Mathoura Rec Reserve
Pavilion Ext, Kitchen & Bar

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $541,420 SCF1

$44,436 MRC

Actual $$ 100%

Barham Rec Reserve
Skate Park

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $407,000 SCF1

Actual $$ 100%

Moulamein Pre-School

Status On track

Stage Construction

Budget $410,812 SCF1

$13,353 MRC

Actual $$ 71%

Moulamein South Rec Reserve
Upgrade

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $360,812 SCF1

Actual $$ 100%

Mathoura Picnic Point Reserve
Improvements

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $200,000 SCF1

Actual $$ 100%

Comments:

Moama Recreation Reserve Pavilion Stage 1: Block work complete, glazing installed, stormwater connected, internal linings, and external cladding and fire services commenced. Variation for grandstand approved. Current practical completion of Buildings A & B 22 May 2020 and grandstand mid-late July 2020.
Barham Recreation Reserve Pavilion Stages 1 & 2: Fit out in progress, joinery complete and scheduled for installation in June. Trades running ahead of schedule.
Tooleybuc Mensforth Park: Defect rectification in progress.
Moulamein Pre-School Stage 1: New building occupied by pre-school, with final builders clean in progress, decals to glass and fence and gate to north west corner to be installed. Works on old building in progress and scheduled to complete end of March 2020. Work in progress to consolidate titles prior to project completion date

NB: The actual spend against budget is showing a negative figure following a review of this funding stream. The previous figure was an average of the total % spend of this budget.

Program Status – Stronger Communities Fund Round 2 (SCF2)

SCF2 $4,095,000
MRC $32,157

Projects 7

Program Health

Program Trend

Actual Spend / Budget

At Risk Projects

Last Updated

MRC Culture / Bus Excellence F/work / Enterprise System

Status On track

Stage Delivery

Budget $1,500,000 SCF2

Actual $$ 5%

Moama Business Park Expansion
Status Watching brief

Stage Start-up

Budget $1,195,000 SCF2

Actual $$ 0.0%

Moama Business Park Upgrade Water Pressure Pump

Status On track

Stage Design

Budget $500,000 SCF2

Actual $$ 8%

Moama Council New Office
Car Park Upgrade

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $250,000 SCF2

Actual $$ 98%

Barham Bridge Road Access

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $250,000 SCF2

$32,157 MRC

Actual $$ 100%

Moama Recreation Reserve
Road Sealing and Drainage

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $200,000 SCF2

Actual $$ 95%

Tooleybuc Rec Reserve
Irrigation System Upgrade

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $200,000 SCF2

Actual $$ 82%

Comments:

MRC Organisational Cultural Assessment: Culture Action Planning workshop(s) scheduled and underway. Business excellence: planning day and initial training scheduled.
Enterprise System: tender activities scheduled and underway.
Moama Business Park Pump Upgrade: On track to complete end of June 2020. Planning, documentation and supplier selection completed. Construction to commence w/c 9 March 2020.

Exceptions:
Moama Business Park expansion: Alternative scoping in progress – variation to be submitted to funding body

NB: The actual spend against budget is showing a negative figure following a review of this funding stream. The previous figure was an average of the total % spend of this budget.

Program Status – Stronger Country Communities Fund Round 1 (SCCF1)

SCCF1 $2,049,463

MRC $54,891

RGF1 $530,000

Projects 7

Program Health

Program Trend

Actual Spend /Budget

At Risk Projects

Last updated

Barham Pontoon

Status Under investigation

Stage Construction

Budget $505,000 SCCF1
$200,000 RGF1

Actual $$ 68% (of SCCF1 fund)

Tooleybuc Pontoon

Status On track

Stage Construction

Budget $505,000 SCCF1

$330,000 RGF1

Actual $$ 100% (of SCCF1 fund)

Moama Rec Reserve Zone 4
Lights/Criterion Track/L’scape

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $384,294 SCCF1

Actual $$ 73%

Murray Downs Path Stage 1

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $80,960 SCCF1

Actual $$ 96%

Tooleybuc Rec Reserve
Amenities Building

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $120,206 SCCF1

$40,794 MRC

Actual $$ 138%

Moulamein Swimming Pool
Reline

Status Complete

Stage Closure/defect

Budget $133,975 SCCF1

$14,097 MRC

Actual $$ 114%

Barham, Bunnaloo, Koraleigh, Mathoura, Wakool Courts

Status           Complete
Stage                Closure
Budget              $320,028    SCCF1

Actual $$ 92%

Comments:

Barham Pontoon: Redesign of new gangway in progress. Next steps is to review design to ensure issues identified in investigation have been addressed before commencing fabrication. Anticipated completion date end of May 2020.
Tooleybuc Pontoon: the SCCF1 fund acquitted. Remaining works reported under RGF1 funding.
Exceptions:

The actual $ to budget of 110% will adjust following the variation approval process with the funding bodies.

Program Status – Stronger Country Communities Fund Round 2 (SCCF2)

SCCF2 $2,624,555

Projects 7

Program Health

Program Trend

Actual Spend / Budget

At Risk Projects

Last updated

Barham Community Hub

Status On track

Stage Construction

Budget $828,411 SCCF2

Actual $$ 64%

Moama Rec Reserve Zone 2
Lighting/car park/Eddy Oval

Status On track

Stage Construction

Budget $736,411 SCCF2

Actual $$ 95%

Moama Rec Reserve Zone 3
Off leash area

Status On track

Stage Construction

Budget $266,1025 SCCF2

Actual $$ 55%

Moulamein South Rec Reserve
Resurface/lights/shed/courts

Status On track

Stage Construction

Budget $347,310 SCCF2

Actual $$ 54%

Murray Downs
Exercise track/equipment

Status Complete

Stage Defect stage

Budget $174,023 SCCF2

Actual $$ 68%

Tooleybuc Mensforth Park
Footpath and Lighting

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $117,023 SCCF2

Actual $$ 75%

Playgrounds

Status Complete

Stage Defect stage

Budget $255,473 SCCF2

Actual $$ 83%

Comments:

Barham Community Hub: Fit-off to power and a/c units complete, power connected. Next steps - minor painting, floor covering and external paving works. Practical completion by 20 March 2020.
Moama Recreation Reserve Zone 2: Light defects acknowledged and rectification arranged. Landscaping and concreting in progress and soccer goals purchased. Zone 3: Off Leash area: On track - external fencing and gravel pathways complete. Irrigation and mounds installed. Lawn area complete. Concrete pad structures installed, civil works complete, feature furniture and soft landscaping in progress.
Moulamein South Recreation Reserve: Tennis court complete and operational, remaining works in progress and due to complete end of May 2020 a month behind schedule with time extensions requested.

Program Status – Regional Growth Fund (Our Region our Rivers)

(RGF1) 50/50 funding with MRC/SCF1/SCCF1&2

RGF1 $2,007,696

MRC $751,271

Projects 6

Program Health

Program Trend

Actual Spend /Budget

At Risk Projects

Last updated

Moama Foreshore
Development

Horseshoe Lagoon, Beach Amenities Block and Riverside Retaining Wall

Status On track

Stage Design and approval

Budget $751,271 RGF1

$751,271 MRC

Actual $$ 0%

Tooleybuc Foreshore
Development

Mensforth Park

Status On track

Stage Design and approval

Budget $300,000 RGF1

Actual $$ 0%

Murray Downs Foreshore
Development

Riverbank Park

Status On track

Stage Design and approval

Budget $117,925 RGF1

Actual $$ 0%

Barham Riverside Park
Development

Status On track

Stage Scope

Budget $171,000 RGF1

Actual $$ 0%

Mathoura Picnic Point
Development (footbridges)

Status On track

Stage Construction

Budget $137,500 RGF1
$137,500 SCF1

Actual $$ 50%

Tooleybuc Foreshore
Development

Pontoon

Status On track

Stage Design and approval

Budget $330,000 RGF1

$505,000 SCCF1 acquitted

Actual $$ 38%

Comments:

Moama Foreshore: Beach amenities progressing to RFQ on detailed design and supply of toilet block. At preliminary design stage with Horseshoe Lagoon and Riverside Retaining Wall with further works scheduled for FY2020-2021
Tooleybuc Mensforth Park: Draft concept received for MRC review - proceeding to community consultation on final design
Murray Downs Foreshore: concept plan received, next steps is to conduct community consultation to verify plan meets community expectation.
Barham Riverside Park: RMS Riverside Park design received. Survey of site for back erosion protection and stabilisation in progress, RFQ design of bank stabilisation close on 12/03/2020 Next steps to appoint architect to undertake design
Mathoura Picnic Point: next steps to develop scope of works for footpath and appoint contractor
Tooleybuc Pontoon: Septic tank design received. Application for power connection in progress. Next steps installation of services
Actual $$ spent against budget are based on RGF1 budget value of these projects. After acquitting the relevant co-joining fund, the project will be reported in this section

MRC – Moama Office Refurbishment MRC – Smart Water Meter Replacement Program					MRC $4,600,000	Projects 2
Program Health	Program Trend		Actual Spend /Budget		At Risk Projects	Last updated

Moama HQ Refurbishment Status On track Stage Construction Budget $1,500,000 MRC Variation $200,000 Approved Actual $$ 97%		Water Meter Replacement Program Stage 1 Status On track Stage Construction Budget $2,900,000 MRC Actual $$ 22%		Comments: Water Meter Replacement Program Stage 1: Receiver installation in progress. MiWater system configured and training scheduled for May 2020 following commencement of meter installation. Meter installation commences 17 March 2020. On track – no major issues or delays

RMS-AESP – Aboriginal Engineering Safety Program 26322 – P.0042132				RMS-AESP $105,760	Projects 1
Program Health	Program Trend		Actual Spend /Budget	At Risk Projects	Last updated

Moama – Barmah Road Pedestrian Facility – Cummergunja Aboriginal Community Status On track Stage Construction Budget $105,760 RMS-AESP Actual $$ 35%		Comments: Completed install of all columns of the retaining wall. Next steps is to install timber sleepers week commencing 9 Mar 2020 followed by preparation and backfilling of pedestrian footpath, handrail and concreting. Aim is to complete works by end of March 2020. NB: Council has received $358,558 funding under the 2020/21 NSW Safer Roads Program for Stage 2 of this project to extend the pedestrian facility from the Barham Bridge to the community itself. Works will commence on Stage 2 in the new financial year.

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

24 March 2020

8.3.3 Request for Tender C2001 - Construction of Picnic Point Boat Ramp and Associated Works

File Number: -

Author: Onisimo Mukodi, Manager Design, Capital Works & Projects

Authoriser: Scott Barber, Director Engineering

Recommendation

That the Council:

1. Awards Contract Number C2001 for Construction of Picnic Point Boat Ramp and Associated Works to Tenderer 3 for the sum of $385,000 excluding GST conditional upon Council securing additional funding of $150,000 from Boating Now Round 2, or alternatively Boating Now Round 3.

2. Approves the allocation of $150,000 from uncommitted funds as a back-up should Council not secure additional grant funding under the Boating Now Program.

Background

The existing Picnic Point boat ramp’s width, length and orientation in relation to the river are not compliant with design standards. Council secured a grant of $76,024 under Boating Now Round 1 and $150,000 under Boating Now Round 2 for the Picnic Point boat ramp upgrade. Subsequently, the Boating Now Program approved an additional $123,976 increasing the total grant to $350,000. All the funding from the Boating Now Program did not require a co-contribution from Council. Council has an obligation under the Funding Deed to deliver the Picnic Point Boat Ramp Project by 30 June 2020.

Council appointed Haskoning DHV, a firm of engineering consultants to undertake the design, review of environmental factors and construction specification for the boat ramp. The scope included the design for the upgrade of the Picnic Point beach to the north of the existing boat ramp, which is not discussed in this report.

Discussion

Upon completion of the designs and documentation, Council sought tenders from suitably qualified and experienced contractors for a construct-only contract for the picnic point boat ramp upgrade works based on Australian Standard AS4000 standard format contract. The request for tenders for C2001 – Construction of Picnic Point Boat Ramp and Associated Work was advertised the Sydney Morning Herald on 21/01/2020 and the circulations of the Melbourne Age Newspaper, the Koondrook Barham Bridge Newspaper, the Echuca Riverine Herald and the Deniliquin Pastoral Times and the tender documents were uploaded on the internet tender portal Tenderlink. Prospective tenderers downloaded the tender documents from Tenderlink. At the close of the tender period, tenders were submitted electronically into the Council’s electronic tender box on Tenderlink. Six confirming tenders and one alternative tender were received as listed below (prices exclude GST). Two late tenders, not listed here, were not considered.

As per Council request at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 25 February 2020, the tenderers are de-identified within this report to Council.

i. Tenderer 1 $336,371.91

ii. Tenderer 2 $368,500.00

iii. Tenderer 3 $385,000.00

iv. Tenderer 4 $598,762.61

v. Tenderer 5 (Option 1) $608,849.90

vi. Tenderer 5(Option 2) $626,804.10

The conforming tenders were evaluated using a weighted attribute method based on the evaluation criteria recorded in the Tender Evaluation Plan and included in the Request for Tender document.

At the conclusion of the tender evaluation meeting, the tender evaluation panel was satisfied that Tenderer 3, the preferred tenderer, had satisfied the mandatory work health and safety requirements and has the resources, experience and capacity to undertake the works. Tenderer 3 was evaluated as offering the best value for money. The considerations by the tender evaluation panel are discussed in detail in the Tender Evaluation Report and Tender Evaluation Scoresheet attached to this report.

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

Picnic Point boat ramp project has funding of $226,024 allocated through Council budget process. The $226,024 is wholly funded through the Boating Now Program (Round 1 $76,024, Round 2 $150,000). Transport for NSW Maritime Infrastructure Programs approved an additional funding of $123,976, increasing the total grant to $350,000. As may be noted here, the history of the grant funding for the Picnic Point boat ramp goes back a few years. Funding was carried over past successive years.

Having taken into consideration the cumulative cost to date, the proposed construction contract commitment of $385,000.00, and other costs necessary to deliver the project, it is projected that the project will require additional funding of $150,000. Council has not allocated its own funding for this project.

At the time of writing this report, Council has approached Transport for NSW Maritime Infrastructure Programs seeking a top up grant of $150,000 from savings it may have from other projects under the current Boating Now Round 2 which is due to wind up on 30 June 2020. Should top up funding not be available within the current Round 2, Council may have to default and surrender any grant funds not spend from the $350,000 approved funding and defer the upgrade Picnic Point boat ramp to sometime in the future when it can access funds for the project. Ironically, such a scenario may have a negative effect on Council’s reputation and potentially jeopardise Council’s chances of securing funding under the Boating Now Program in future.

It is also worth noting here that the Picnic Point Boat Ramp Project has been shortlisted for the formal application stage of the Boating Now Round 3 Program for additional funding. However, Council’s grant application may potentially face complications should the scenario noted above eventuate.

In view of factors highlighted above, it is appropriate that Council allocates $150,000 from uncommitted funds, as back-up plan, so that it can honour its obligations to deliver the project.

Policy Implications

Murray River Council Procurement Policy (POL205).

Legislative Implications

Nil.

Risk Analysis

· What can happen?

Construction risk, sediment control, collapse of sheet piling.

· How can it happen?

Water contamination, flooding of boat ramp works.

· What are the consequences of the event happening?

Injury, loss of life, property damage.

Council’s reputation being tarnished.

Council being issued with fines.

· What is the likelihood of the event happening?

Moderate.

· Adequacy of existing controls?

Site environmental management plan addressing requirements of the statement of environmental factors and construction specification. Include sediment control plans and fisheries permit for the works.

· Treatment options to mitigate the risk?

Measures noted above will be included in the Contract and the Specification.

Conclusion

It is appropriate that:

Council awards for Construction of Picnic Point Boat Ramp and Associated Works to Tenderer 3 for the sum of $385,000 excluding GST conditional upon securing additional funding of $150,000 from Boating Now Round 2, or alternatively Boating Now Round 3.

Council allocate $150,000 of uncommitted funds as a back-up plan should it not secure additional grant funding under the Boating Now Program.

Attachments

1. C2001Construction of Picnic Point Boat Ramp and Associated Works - Tender Evaluation Report - Tenderers de-identified - Confidential

2. C2001Construction of Picnic Point Boat Ramp and Associated Works - Tender Evaluation Evaluation Scoresheet - Tenderers de-identified - Confidential

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

24 March 2020

8.4.3 Murray River Council Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement

File Number: -

Author: Llyan Smith, Senior Town Planner

Authoriser: David Wilkinson, Director Planning, Waste & Regulatory Services

Recommendation

That the Council:

1. Provide approval of the Draft Murray River Council Local Strategic Planning Statement.

2. Proceed to public consultation for the Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement in accordance with the Communication and Engagement Plan, as attached to this report.

Background

In March 2018, amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EP&A Act) introduced a new requirement for all NSW local councils to prepare and make a Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS). Section 3.9 of the EP&A Act requires that the LSPS include or identify the following:

· the basis for strategic planning in the area, having regard to economic, social and environmental matters

· the planning priorities for the area that are consistent with any strategic plan applying to the area and (subject to any such strategic plan) any applicable community strategic plan under section 402 of the Local Government Act 1993

· the actions required for achieving those planning priorities

· the basis on which the Council is to monitor and report on the implementation of those actions.

The broad planning priorities and outcomes described in the Murray River Council LSPS will influence Council’s detailed planning controls and will guide future changes to Council’s Local Environmental Plan (LEP), Development Control Plan (DCP) and other plans which implement the actions in the LSPS. The LSPS is to be endorsed by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment and must be finalised and approved by June 30 2020.

The LSPS is intended to be a living document and should be revised on an ongoing, as-needs-basis so that the plan remains responsive, relevant and local. To this end, it is intended that the statement will be updated upon completion of the various actions identified throughout the document. Revisions to the LSPS may also be required in response to significant changes within the LGA, for example, the growth of emerging industries, significant population changes, and increased investment into infrastructure and services.

Council will monitor and report on progress of the LSPS priorities, actions and outcomes in an annual report. This will inform adjustments to the LSPS to ensure local planning policy is effective, responsive and delivering on local community aspirations. A comprehensive review will be undertaken in 2026, if not earlier.

Community feedback will be regularly sought. It is anticipated that this consultation will identify continuous improvement opportunities and will ensure that the LSPS continues to reflect the community’s social and economic needs as well as their vision of the future desired state of the local area.

Council will monitor, review and report on its LSPS to ensure that it’s planning priorities are being achieved, using the existing Integrated Planning & Reporting framework (IP&R) in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

Discussion

The Murray River Council LSPS sets out the 20-year vision for land use planning in Murray River Council, outlining how growth and change will be managed to encourage economic growth, and maintain the high levels of environmental amenity, liveability and landscape quality that characterises our area. It identifies the special characteristics that contribute to Murray River Council’s local identity and recognises the shared community values to be maintained and enhanced.

This Statement identifies nine (9) Planning Priorities to achieve the Council’s vision for the area, together with actions and the means for monitoring and reporting on the delivery of the actions. It is consistent with the NSW Government’s strategies and plans for land use planning in the Riverina Murray - the Riverina Murray Region Plan and the Murray Regional Economic Development Strategy – and is aligned with the Murray River Council Community Strategic Plan 2018-2028. Planning staff held targeted forums in early October 2019 which sought preliminary feedback regarding key issues effecting planning and land use in Murray River Council. This feedback has been used in conjunction with the aforementioned regional and local strategic plans to shape the draft LSPS.

The priorities of the LSPS have been formed to achieve three (3) key outcomes relating to our economy, liveability, and environment. Table 1 below outlines the key themes and priorities driving the LSPS:

THEME 1 A robust, growing and innovative economy	Priority 1 – Grow, strengthen and sustain agriculture
	Priority 2 –Grow and strengthen Tourism
	Priority 3 – Create an ‘open for business’ identity
THEME 2 Liveable, connected communities with social capital	Priority 4 - Housing growth, supply, and density
	Priority 5 – Recreation and open space
	Priority 6 - Servicing and utility infrastructure
THEME 3 Environment, heritage and climate change	Priority 7 – Identify and protect environmental values
	Priority 8- Celebration of culture and heritage
	Priority 9 - Climate change and natural hazards

The projected timeline for completion of the LSPS and associated Local Environmental Plan is set out below:

· LEP Review and Health Check - Completed October 2019

· Draft ‘Vision’ LSPS chapter- Completed and heard at October 2019 Council meeting

· Completed draft LSPS –December 2019 Council meeting (confidential)

· Draft LSPS available to public - March 2020 Council meeting

· Exhibition of Draft LSPS seeking community feedback – from late March 2020 to approximately mid-May 2020 (minimum of 28 calendar days)

· Post exhibition review - Review of submissions –May 2020

· Finalise LSPS– end of May 2020

· Submission of LSPS to DPIE for endorsement – end of May 2020

· Adoption of Final LSPS document – As soon as practicable, however by the end of June 2020

LEP Amendment:

· Planning Proposal Preparation - Planning Proposal to amend LEP and DCP to achieve the actions and planning priorities in the LSPS - June to August 2020

· Planning Proposal submitted for Gateway Determination – end of August 2020

· Draft LEP on Exhibition - to be determined based on Gateway issued by Department of Planning, Environment and Industry.

While Council aims to work as closely as possible to this timeframe, due to the nature of the project, there may be some unanticipated delays associated with the delivery of the LSPS and new LEP.

The LSPS is operated as a high level strategic document and would ideally be shaped by existing local level strategic plans. Council unfortunately has very few current strategic plans and therefore the draft LSPS advocates for investigations and studies to be actioned as part of the various Priorities to ensure the directions of the document are well informed and tested for feasibility. There are statements and recommendations within the LSPS which effect land which Council does not own and as part of these local level investigations and strategies, engagement with specific landholders, and the wider community will be carried out prior to any changes to applicable land uses and zonings. Council has created a Draft Community Engagement Strategy for the exhibition of the LSPS which encompasses engagement with all of Council internal departments, Government agencies, and the wider community. This is aimed at ensuring a well-rounded cross section of feedback from multiple sources.

A series of community drop-in sessions are planned to be held during the consultation period in a number of locations throughout our area. The number of sessions, together with the specific localities which will host the drop-in sessions are yet to be determined. Specific locations, dates and times of these sessions will be communicated to the general public via a number of media platforms, as soon as practicable.

It is noted that the draft LSPS presented here is the ‘words’ only. Mapping will be created to accompany and supplement the LSPS, however has not been completed at this time. This mapping will be created and utilised as part of the community consultation and will be incorporated into the final adopted LSPS. The document will also be provided to a graphic designer to finalise the format and aesthetic of the final LSPS.

Strategic Implications

1 - Strategic Theme 1: Built/Physical Environment

1.1 - Improve and maintain our built town environments

1.1.1 - Support each township to develop their unique character

Budgetary Implications

The draft LSPS recommends a number of studies and actions to be undertaken to inform the strategic directions and priorities. Examples of such strategic investment include (but are not limited to):

· The development of a Riverfront Land Strategy to inform the future land use of the riverfront (moorings, housing, and tourism);

· The development of Housing Strategies to inform the growth of our towns;

· Investigations to inform rural land use and in particular, changes to land uses to enable growth, sustainability, and resilience of our agricultural sector;

· Potential investment into new multi-purpose facilities to attract large scale sporting and recreation events to our Council area;

· Biodiversity investigation to inform updated mapping;

· Climate Change Risk Assessment.

The LSPS also recommends that Council revitalise the Meninya Street area of Moama to fill the gap in the current fine dining market, and to attract new commercial investment from retail stores via the creation of a piazza style retail precinct along the northern section of Meninya Street. These projects will springboard off the Moama/Echuca bridge upgrade (and the associated Meninya Street Master Plan) and will require investment from Council. The aspirations of the LSPS proposed to be driven and funded by Council will require considered discussion regarding the allocation of budget and potential utilisation of funding allocated to Council as part of the amalgamation process (to be discussed and confirmed)

Policy Implications

Murray River Council Economic Development Assistance Policy (POL600).

Murray River Council Events Policy (POL402).

Legislative Implications

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

Local Government Act 1993.

Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011

Wakool Local Environmental Plan 2013

Risk Analysis

· What can happen?

If Council fails to adopt a LSPS by June 30 2020 Council will not meet the requirements of the EP& A Act.

· How can it happen?

Council delays action on the LSPS and fails to meet the stipulated deadlines.

· What are the consequences of the event happening?

Council will be in breach of the EP&A Act and the Department of Planning, Industry and Investment will create an LSPS on our behalf.

· What is the likelihood of the event happening?

Low.

· Adequacy of existing controls?

Council is working towards the deadlines in place, in close partnership with the Department of Planning, Industry and Investment. The controls are deemed adequate

· Treatment options to mitigate the risk?

Council support the resolution to adopt the draft LSPS and move the process forward towards public consultation.

Conclusion

The Local Strategic Planning Statement is a 20 year strategic planning document informing the physical growth and development of Murray River Council. The draft LSPS captures priorities and actions to deliver positive economic, social and environmental outcomes for Murray River Council and endorsement by Councillors will enable the draft to be placed on public exhibition for comment. It is recommended that Council provide in principle support for the draft Murray River Council Local Strategic Planning Statement to enable staff to continue their work towards delivery of the final document within the short timelines for completion set out under the EP&A Act.

Attachments

1. Murray River Council DRAFT Local Strategic Planning Statement (under separate cover)

2. LSPS Communications and Engagement Plan ⇩

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

24 March 2020

8.4.4 Planning Proposal - Rezoning of Land adjoining Cygnet Lane, Murray Downs from RU1 Primary Production to IN1 General Industrial

File Number: -

Author: Christopher O'Brien, Senior Town Planner

Authoriser: David Wilkinson, Director Planning, Waste & Regulatory Services

Recommendation

That:

1. The Officer’s report on the Planning Proposal for the rezoning of land adjoining Cygnet Lane, Murray Downs from RU1 Primary Production to IN1 General Industrial be received and noted by the Council.

2. The submitted Planning Proposal be amended to also include the most southern part of Lot 16 DP 835451 located between the end of Cygnet Lane, Murray Downs and Lot 11 DP 748011.

3. The Planning Proposal be sent to NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for a ‘Gateway Determination’ in accordance with Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

4. Council’s staff complete all actions, as outlined in the Gateway Determination.

5. Once all required actions outlined in the Gateway Determination are completed, 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 Local Environmental Plan (LEP).

6. Once Parliamentary Counsel’s Opinion is received, Council’s General Manager exercise the Minister’s functions under Section 3.36 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and make (signs) the new LEP (if delegation received within the Gateway Determination).

7. Council forward the new LEP to DPIE for gazettal and online notification on the NSW Legislation Website.

Background

The process for preparing and amending a Local Environmental Plan (LEP) is stipulated in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the ‘Act’) and covered within the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) document entitled: ‘A guide to preparing local environmental plans’, available: https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/-/media/Files/DPE/Other/guide-to-preparing-local-environmental-plans-2019-07.pdf?la=en.

The plan making process normally involves the following key components:

· The preparation of a Planning Proposal

· The issuing of a Gateway determination

· Community and other consultation on the Planning Proposal (as required)

· Finalising the Planning Proposal

· Drafting of the LEP (plan)

· Making the plan

· Notifying the LEP on the NSW Legislation website

A Planning Proposal is a document that explains the intended effect of the proposed LEP and provides the justification for making it. The DPIE document ‘A guide to preparing planning proposals’ provides detailed advice on the preparation of a Planning Proposal, available: https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/-/media/Files/DPE/Guidelines/guide-to-preparing-planning-proposals-2019-02-05.pdf.

Discussion

Habitat Planning has supplied Council with a Planning Proposal pertaining to Lot 11 DP 748011. The Planning Proposal seeks a Resolution of Council to send the Planning Proposal to DPIE for a ‘Gateway Determination’, in order to amend the Wakool LEP 2013 via rezoning of the subject land from RU1 Primary Production to IN1 General Industrial. Due to the location of Lot 11 DP 748011, it is also considered necessary to include part of the adjoining Lot 16 DP 835451 to be rezoned. The Planning Proposal also seeks to amend the Minimum Lot Size provisions affecting the land from 500 Hectares to no Minimum Lot Size provisions. As a result, the Land Zoning Map LZN_005B and Lot Size Map LSZ_005B of the Wakool LEP 2013 would require amendment. A copy of the submitted Planning Proposal is attached.

Subject land

The subject land forming part of the submitted Planning Proposal is Lot 11 DP 748011, located at the end of Cygnet Lane, Murray Downs NSW 2734. The land is zoned RU1 Primary Production and is mapped as Murray REP2 Riverine Land. The minimum lot size provisions affecting the land is 500 hectares. The land is not mapped as Flood Prone Land, Bush Fire Prone Land, Wetlands, Terrestrial Biodiversity (Native Vegetation), Urban Release Area, Contaminated Land or Mining Resources. There are no known items of environmental heritage significance located on the subject land, whilst the land is located within the Wamba Wamba Local Aboriginal Land Council area.

Figure 1 outlines Lot 11 DP 748011 (Source: https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/)

The land adjoining Lot 11 DP 748011 which is to also form part of the Planning Proposal is Lot 16 DP 835451, known as 51 Swan Hill Road Murray Downs NSW 2734. This land is zoned RU1 Primary Production and is mapped as Murray REP2 Riverine Land. The minimum lot size provisions affecting the land is 500 hectares. The land is not mapped as Flood Prone Land, Bush Fire Prone Land, Wetlands, Terrestrial Biodiversity (Native Vegetation), Urban Release Area, Contaminated Land or Mining Resources. There are no known items of environmental heritage significance located on the subject land, whilst the land is located within the Wamba Wamba Local Aboriginal Land Council area.

Figure 2 outlines entirety of Lot 16 DP 835451 (Source: https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/)

Figure 3: Relevant part of Lot 16 DP 835451 indicated by black star (Source: https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/)

Assessment of Planning Proposal submitted to Murray River Council (Relevant Planning Authority) in accordance with NSW Planning and Environment document entitled ‘Planning Proposals – A guide to preparing planning proposals’

Part 1 - Objectives or Intended Outcomes

Comment: This section of the planning proposal requires the Applicant to provide a short, concise statement setting out the objectives and intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal. The Applicant has advised that the intended outcome of the Planning Proposal is to rezone the subject land from RU1 to IN1 to facilitate industrial development. The Applicant is considered to have provided a suitable statement in response to this Part. See submitted Planning Proposal for further information.

Part 2 - Explanation of Provisions

Comment: This section of the planning proposal is required to demonstrate how the objectives or intended outcomes are proposed to be achieved. The Applicant is considered to have provided a suitable statement in response to this Part. See submitted Planning Proposal for further information.

Part 3 – Justification

Section A – Need for the planning proposal

Q1. Is the planning proposal a result of an endorsed local strategic planning statement, strategic study or report?

Comment: The Applicant has advised that the planning proposal is not a result of any strategic study or report, but instead ‘in recognition of a lack of supply of industrial zoned land within Murray Downs and the wider Wakool and Swan Hill areas’. It is considered that the Applicant has satisfactory addressed Question 1.

Q2. Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way?

Comment: The Applicant has advised that the planning proposal is the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes. It is considered that the Applicant has satisfactory addressed Question 2.

Section B – Relationship to strategic planning framework

Q3. Will the planning proposal give effect to the objectives and actions of the applicable regional, or district plan or strategy (including any exhibited draft plans or strategies)?

Comment: The Riverina Murray Regional Plan was released by the NSW Government in April 2017 and is applicable. The applicant has advised that the Planning Proposal is consistent with the plan. See the submitted Planning Proposal for more information. It is also noted that the planning proposal is not inconsistent with Council’s Community Strategic Plan. The planning proposal is considered to have suitably addressed the requirements of Question 3.

Strategic Merit

Comment: Throughout the various sections of the Planning Proposal, the Applicant has suitably demonstrated the strategic merit of the planning proposal. The proposal is not inconsistent with the draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (to be heard at Council’s March 2020 Meeting). It is also noted that relevant sections of the Planning Proposal also demonstrate compliance with the relevant Section 9.1 Directions and the suitability of the subject land for the proposal based on a variety of issues including its close proximity to existing, infrastructure, and environmental features. The planning proposal is considered not incompatible with the surrounding land uses, the natural environment, existing uses, approved uses and the future use of land near the planning proposal. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements.

Q4. Will the planning proposal give effect to a council’s endorsed local strategic planning statement, or another endorsed local strategy or strategic plan?

Comment: Council is currently working towards producing an endorsed Local Strategic Planning Statement, with the draft Murray River Council Local Strategic Planning Statement to be discussed at today’s Council meeting. The submitted planning proposal is generally consistent with this draft document.

Q5. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable State Environmental Planning Policies?

Comment: As detailed in the submitted planning proposal, the Applicant has stated that the subject proposal is not inconsistent with all applicable State Environmental Planning Policies. Please see submitted planning proposal for more information.

Q6. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s. 9.1 directions)?

Comment: As detailed in the submitted planning proposal, the Applicant has stated that the subject proposal is consistent, or justifiably inconsistent with the relevant Directions. Please see the submitted planning proposal for more information.

Section C – Environmental, social and economic impact

Q7. Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal?

Comment: The Applicant has advised that the proposal is unlikely to have any adverse effects on the items listed above. Due to the nature of the proposal, Council staff concur with this initial assessment. Any future development of the subject land will be subject to a merit based development application assessment against Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act 1979 and all other relevant legislation. See comments provided by the Applicant for further information. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements of Question 7.

Q8. Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the planning proposal and how are they proposed to be managed?

Comment: The Applicant has noted that there is unlikely to be significant environmental effects because of the planning proposal. Any subsequent Development Application which will be required can be appropriately assessed and conditioned to protect the amenity of the area. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements of Question 8.

Q9. Has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?

Comment: The Applicant has provided assessment against net community benefit considerations. The Applicant has stated that the ‘rezoning will support business development and economic growth and will increase the current lack of supply of industrial zoned land within the shire within close proximity to the nearby Swan Hill’. See comments provided by the Applicant for further information. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements of Question 9.

Section D – State and Commonwealth interests

Q10. Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal?

Comment: The Applicant has advised that there is adequate public infrastructure available to support the planning proposal. Council staff concur with this initial assessment. Any upgrades to infrastructure required (including legal road connection) because of the proposal will be required to be paid by the proponent. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements of Question 10.

Q11. What are the views of state and Commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with the Gateway determination?

Comment: No consultation has been undertaken at this early stage. It is noted that relevant State and Commonwealth authorities will be consulted in accordance with Section 3.34 (2)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment 1979 as a result of the Gateway determination.

Part 4 – Mapping

Comment: The applicant has provided draft mapping relevant to the planning proposal (see attached submitted planning proposal), which is considered suitable for this stage of the process. The mapping will be required to be amended to also include the relevant part of Lot 16 DP 835451. Formal amendments to the affected Zoning and minimum lot size mapping will be undertaken should the planning proposal be successful.

Part 5 – Community Consultation

Comment: The Applicant believes the subject proposal cannot be classed as low impact under this heading, and therefore the exhibition period of the proposal will required to be for 28 days. It is noted that the consultation requirements are to be dictated by any Gateway determination, however it is considered the Applicant has suitably addressed the assessment requirements of Part 5.

Part 6 – Project timeline

Comment: The Applicant has submitted a draft Project Timeline, and it is considered that the subject planning proposal can be appropriately progressed in an efficient manner subject to Council staffing resources. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements of Part 6.

Strategic Implications

4 - Strategic Theme 4: Economic Growth

4.1 - Encourage and support economic development across a range of sectors

4.1.2 - Support the local business sector to grow, adapt and respond to new opportunities

Budgetary Implications

At the time of writing the proponent had not paid the required relevant fees. The required relevant fees will be required to be paid prior to the final sign off of the Planning Proposal to ensure Council’s budget is not adversely affected. Director of Planning, Waste and Regulatory Compliance will determine the appropriate fees in accordance with Murray River Council’s delegations document.

Policy Implications

Wakool Development Control Plan 2013 (No changes required however).

Legislative Implications

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

Wakool Local Environmental Plan 2013

Risk Analysis

· What can happen?

If additional land is not rezoned within Murray Downs, new businesses may be unable to operate within the town.

· How can it happen?

The rezoning is not completed and businesses move elsewhere.

· What are the consequences of the event happening?

Businesses may move to adjoining Council areas (i.e. Swan Hill Rural City Council).

· What is the likelihood of the event happening?

Low.

· Adequacy of existing controls?

Rezoning of the land will ensure General Industrial businesses can further expand/commence within Murray Downs.

· Treatment options to mitigate the risk?

Council support the recommendations to approve the Planning Proposal.

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 extension of the Murray Downs Industrial Estate. The planning proposal is not inconsistent with the aims of the Wakool Local Environmental Plan 2013 and all other Environmental Planning Instruments relevant to the Council. The Planning Proposal will be notified to the public, and any submissions received will be considered and addressed appropriately. All conditions of the Gateway Determination will be complied with. It is therefore recommended Council proceed with the Planning Proposal in accordance with the recommendations at the start of this report.

Attachments

1. Submitted Planning Proposal by Habitat Planning (under separate cover)

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

24 March 2020

8.4.6 Development Application 10.2020.38.1 - 4 Lot Subdivision

File Number: -

Author: Christopher O'Brien, Senior Town Planner

Authoriser: David Wilkinson, Director Planning, Waste & Regulatory Services

Applicant: Planright Surveying

Owner: K S & J A Mellody

Proposal: 4 Lot Subdivision for Primary Production purposes

Location: 113 Perricoota Forest Road, Moama NSW 2731

Recommendation

1. That the Officer’s report on Development Application 10.2020.38.1 – 4 Lot Subdivision be received and noted by the Council.

2. That Development Application 10.2020.38.1 for a 4 Lot Subdivision be granted Deferred Commencement development consent in accordance with Section 4.16 (3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, subject to the conditions outlined at the end of the report.

Background

The Application seeks permission (via a new application) for a 4 lot subdivision for primary production purposes of the subject site (No Dwellings). The subject site of the proposed development is Lot 1 DP 1212243, Lot 2 DP 1164260, Lot 5 DP 751155, & Lot 2 DP 52120, located at 113 Perricoota Forest Road, Moama.

Development Application (DA) 10.2019.131.1 for a similar application (4 lot subdivision (boundary realignment) of the subject site was refused by Council under Delegated Authority on 12 September 2019. The applicant subsequently requested a Review of Determination. The Council at its Ordinary Meeting held 17 December 2019 ultimately resolved to uphold the original refusal decision. The applicant has therefore lodged a new application, which seeks to create a 4 lot subdivision via boundary realignment, solely for the purposes of primary production.

The subject application was notified to various Government agencies, which have provided comments where applicable and recommended conditions of consent, and have been included as part of this assessment. The application was also notified to adjoining property owners and was advertised. A number of public submissions were received which are discussed in this report.

It is considered that the proposed development is generally consistent with the Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Murray LEP 2011), the Murray Development Control Plan 2012 (Murray DCP 2012), and other relevant planning instruments associated with the site.

The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and is deemed consistent with the requirements subject to appropriate conditions. Subject to a modification to the design to avoid subdivision of river front area land, the proposal is considered appropriate for the location, will respect the riverine environment (subject to conditions), and does not significantly adversely impact upon the existing amenity and neighbourhood character of the area.

It is therefore recommended that the proposed development be granted Deferred Commencement development consent subject to appropriate Deferred Commencement conditions of consent as detailed at the end of this report and a restrictive covenant in relation to excluding dwellings, Tourism facilities etc. so it can only be used for agricultural purposes.

Discussion

Please see below assessment report outlining the subject application and assessment against Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Subject Site

The subject land is situated at 113 Perricoota Forest Road and comprises 4 separate allotments identified as being Lot 1 DP1212243 (15.35ha), Lot 2 DP1164260 (124.4ha), Lot 5 DP751155 (129.5ha), & Lot 2 DP 52120 (24.17ha). The subject land is an irregularly shaped holding with a total area of 290.4ha.

The property has frontage to the Perricoota Forest Road along the northern boundaries of the two smaller lots, namely Lot 1 DP 1212243 & Lot 2 DP 52120, while along the southern boundaries of the two larger lots the property has frontage to the Murray River.

Lot 5 DP751155 currently contains a dwelling and associated outbuildings while Lot 2 DP 1164260 has a number of farm sheds situated on the land.

Proposal

The proposed development is a 4 Lot Subdivision of the land. The applicant has stated the proposed subdivision is for primary production purposes. Please see below figures for more information.

Figure 1: Plan of existing conditions

Figure 2: Proposed subdivision 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 inconsistent with the objects of the Act, subject to appropriate conditions of consent being imposed.

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 site is mapped as Bush Fire Prone Land. The application was referred to NSW RFS with no formal response received as of 10 March 2020.

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: It is considered that the proposal is not classed as Integrated Development with NSW RFS as the proposal seeks to create allotments within the RU1 Primary Production zone with restrictive covenants imposed on the lots outlining residential accommodation, and tourist and visitor accommodation, is prohibited from occurring on the land.

2.2 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 1.2 Aims of Plan

Comment: The proposed development is not specifically inconsistent with the aims of Murray LEP 2011. The application will be appropriately conditioned to ensure compliance with the aim to ‘identify, protect, conserve and enhance Murray’s natural assets’, due to the submitted plans being inconsistent with Clause 7.4 of the Murray LEP 2011.

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 2.3 Zone objectives and Land Use Table (development permissibility)

Zone: RU1 Primary Production

§ To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

§ To encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and systems appropriate for the area.

§ To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands.

§ To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

Comment: It is considered that the proposed development is not inconsistent with the objectives of the RU1 Primary Production zone of the Murray LEP 2011.

Clause 2.6 Subdivision—consent requirements

Comment: Noted. Consent has been applied for.

Part 3 Exempt and complying development

Comment: Not applicable.

Part 4 Principal development standards

Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size

Comment: Not applicable. Clause 4.2 ‘Rural Subdivision’ to be used in this instance.

Clause 4.2 Rural Subdivision

(1) The objective of this clause is to provide flexibility in the application of standards for subdivision in rural zones to allow land owners a greater chance to achieve the objectives for development in the relevant zone.

Comment: The applicant has proposed to utilise this clause to facilitate the proposed development.

(2) This clause applies to the following rural zones—

(a) Zone RU1 Primary Production,

(b) Zone RU2 Rural Landscape,

(baa) Zone RU3 Forestry,

(c) Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots,

(d) Zone RU6 Transition.

Note.

When this Plan was made, it did not include Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots or Zone RU6 Transition.

Comment: This clause is applicable.

(3) Land in a zone to which this clause applies may, with development consent, be subdivided for the purpose of primary production to create a lot of a size that is less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

Comment: Three of the proposed allotments are below the minimum lot size provisions affecting the site. The applicant however has stated that the proposed subdivision is for the purposes of primary production, therefore this clause can be utilised.

(4) However, such a lot cannot be created if an existing dwelling would, as the result of the subdivision, be situated on the lot.

Comment: An existing dwelling is located on proposed lot 2, however this lot is above the minimum lot size requirements affecting the land, therefore is not inconsistent.

(5) A dwelling cannot be erected on such a lot.

Note.

A dwelling includes a rural worker’s dwelling (see definition of that term in the Dictionary).

Comment: Any consent issued will be appropriately conditioned to ensure compliance with this requirement.

Clause 4.2C Exceptions to minimum lot sizes for certain rural subdivisions

Comment: Not applicable. Clause 4.2 has been utilised.

Clause 4.2D Boundary adjustments in Zones RU1 and E3

Comment: Not applicable. Clause 4.2 has been utilised.

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

Comment: Not applicable.

Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions

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. Any consent issued will contain the standard OEH condition regarding protection of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.

Clause 5.10 Subdivision of, or dwellings on, land in certain rural, residential or environment protection zones

Comment: This clause is not applicable as the proposal subdivision is not for the purposes of a dwelling.

Part 6 Urban release areas

Comment: Not applicable. The subject site is not mapped as an Urban Release Area.

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 applicant has stated the supply of water will be via treated water from tanks and raw water from the Murray River.
(b) the supply of electricity,	The existing dwelling is connected to electricity.
(c) the disposal and management of sewage,	The existing dwelling is connected to a septic tank.
(d) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,	No additional stormwater is to be created.
(e) suitable road access	Access to the proposed lots available from Perricoota Forest Road. Existing access to the property.

Clause 7.2 Earthworks

Comment: No earthworks are proposed.

Clause 7.3 Biodiversity protection

Comment: Part of the subject site is covered by Council’s biodiversity mapping. The proposed development was referred to the Biodiversity and Conservation Division of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment and no objections were raised. Given the nature of the development it can be concluded that the proposed subdivision of the land would be unlikely to have any adverse impact on the condition, ecological value and significance of the fauna and flora on the land. Existing habitat elements on site will not be detrimentally affected by the proposed development.

Clause 7.4 Development on river front areas

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows—

(a) to support natural riverine processes, including the migration of the Murray and Wakool Rivers’ channels,

(b) to protect and improve the bed and bank stability of those rivers,

(c) to maintain and improve the water quality of those rivers,

(d) to protect the amenity, scenic landscape values and cultural heritage of those rivers and to protect public access to their riverine corridors,

(e) to conserve and protect the riverine corridors of those rivers, including wildlife habitat.

Comment: The subject land contains land classed as a river front area. It is considered that the proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives of the clause subject to an appropriate condition being placed on any consent issued prohibiting subdivision of the river front area.

(2) Despite any other provision of this Plan, development consent may only be granted to development on land in a river front area for the following purposes—

(a) boat building and repair facilities, boat launching ramps, boat sheds, charter and tourism boating facilities or marinas,

(b) the extension or alteration of an existing building that is wholly or partly in the river front area, but only if the extension or alteration is to be located no closer to the river bank than the existing building,

(c) environmental protection works,

(d) extensive agriculture and intensive plant agriculture,

(e) environmental facilities and recreation areas,

(f) water recreation structures.

Comment: The proposal as submitted is prohibited under the terms of Clause 7.4 of the MLEP as it relates to a type of development (i.e. “subdivision”) that is not specifically provided for under cl.7.4(2). It is noted however that any consent issued will include an appropriate condition of consent requiring an amendment to the design to avoid subdivision of the river front area portion of the subject site. This is to also comply with the comments received from NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

(3) Development consent must not be granted under subclause (2) unless the consent authority is satisfied of the following—

(a) that the appearance of the development, from both the river concerned and the river front area, will be compatible with the surrounding area,

(b) that the development is not likely to cause environmental harm, including (but not limited to) the following—

(i) pollution or siltation of the river concerned,

(ii) any adverse effect on surrounding uses, riverine habitat, wetland areas or flora or fauna habitats,

(iii) any adverse effect on drainage patterns,

(c) that the development is likely to cause only minimal visual disturbance to the existing landscape,

(d) that continuous public access, and opportunities to provide continuous public access, along the river front and to the river concerned are not likely to be compromised,

(e) that any historic, scientific, cultural, social archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic significance of the land on which the development is to be carried out and of surrounding land is to be maintained.

Comment: The application is not inconsistent with the requirements of this subclause subject to appropriate conditions being placed on any consent issued.

Clause 7.5 Riparian land and Murray River and other watercourses—general principles

Comment: The proposal relates to riparian land including land along the bank of the Murray River as well as land within 40 metres of the top of the bank of a watercourse. However as there are no works proposed it is concluded that the development outcome will be consistent with relevant Clause objectives including protecting and maintaining the stability of the bed and banks of watercourses.

Further the proposed development will not adversely affect water quality, riparian vegetation, the passage of fish.

Clause 7.6 Additional provisions—development on river bed and banks of the Murray and Wakool Rivers

Comment: Not applicable.

Clause 7.7 Wetlands

Comment: Part of the subject site is mapped as wetlands. Any consent issued will be appropriately conditioned to ensure the protection of the wetlands area, in accordance with the requirements of NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

Clause 7.8 Flood planning

Comment: Part of the subject site is mapped as flood prone land. As no physical development is proposed, and any consent issued will include conditions prohibiting residential and tourist type development on site, it is considered the proposal is not inconsistent with the requirements of the clause.

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 2 Aims of the plan

Comment: It is considered the proposal is not inconsistent with the requirements of the clause, subject to appropriate conditions being place on any consent issued.

Clause 3 Objectives of the plan

Comment: It is considered the proposal is not inconsistent with the requirements of the clause, subject to appropriate conditions being place on any consent issued.

Part 2 Planning principles

Clause 9 General principles

Comment: It is considered that the application is not specifically inconsistent with the general principles.

Clause 10 Specific principles

Comment: It is considered that the application is not specifically inconsistent with the specific principles.

Part 3 Planning requirements and consultation

Clause 13 Planning Control and Consultation Table

Comment: The Application was referred in accordance with the requirements of wetlands subdivision.

Clause 14 Building setbacks—special provisions

Comment: Noted. No building works proposed.

3.2(a)(i)c State Environmental Planning Policy No 21—Caravan Parks

Comment: Not applicable.

3.2(a)(i)d State Environmental Planning Policy No 33—Hazardous and Offensive Development

Comment: Not applicable.

3.2(a)(i)e State Environmental Planning Policy No 36—Manufactured Home Estates

Comment: Not applicable.

3.2(a)(i)f 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)g 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)h State Environmental Planning Policy No 64—Advertising and Signage

Comment: Not applicable.

3.2(a)(i)i State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

Comment: Not applicable.

3.2(a)(i)j State Environmental Planning Policy No 70—Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes)

Comment: Not applicable.

3.2(a)(i)k State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Comment: Not applicable.

3.2(a)(i)l State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

Comment: Not required.

3.2(a)(i)m State Environmental Planning Policy (Concurrences) 2018

Comment: Not applicable.

3.2(a)(i)n State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017

Comment: Not applicable.

3.2(a)(i)o 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)p State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004

Comment: Not applicable.

3.2(a)(i)p State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Comment: Not applicable.

3.2(a)(i)q State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007

Comment: Not applicable.

3.2(a)(i)r State Environmental Planning Policy (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions) 2007

Comment: Not applicable.

3.2(a)(i)s State Environmental Planning Policy (Primary Production and Rural Development) 2019

Comment: The proposed development is not inconsistent with this Policy.

3.2(a)(i)t State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011

Comment: Not applicable.

3.2(a)(i)u State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005

Comment: Not applicable.

3.2(a)(i)v State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017

Comment: Not applicable.

3.2(a)(ii) Proposed instruments

Comment: Draft Murray LEP 2011 applies, however does not specifically affect the subject site.

3.2(a)(iii) Any development control plan

Comment: Murray Development Control Plan 2012 to the proposal.

Chapter 7 Subdivision

Comment: The proposal is not inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter. The majority of the controls outlined in this chapter relate to residential subdivisions and therefore are not applicable.

Chapter 9 Vegetation Removal

Comment: No vegetation is proposed to be removed.

Chapter 10 Watercourses & Riparian Land

Comment: Noted.

Chapter 11 Flood Prone Land

Comment: The subject land is mapped as Flood Prone Land. It is noted that no issues in respect of flooding were raised as a consequence of MREP2 referral of the proposal. It is also noted that the application does not propose the construction of any structures. It is therefore considered that the proposal is unlikely to impact upon the existing flow of flood water on that land or adjoining land.

Chapter 12 Notification Policy

Comment: The application was notified to adjoining property owners in accordance with this Chapter.

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 will be appropriately conditions to ensure the natural environment is not adversely impacted upon.

Built Environment

The proposed development is unlikely to adversely impact upon the built environment.

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.

· Traffic and Parking: No issues identified.

· Noise: It is considered that the proposed development will not produce any significant adverse noise impacts.

· Amenity: The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the immediate locality.

· 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. NSW RFS did not object to the granting of consent.

· Water Quality & Stormwater: Satisfactory.

· Soils, soil erosion: Satisfactory.

· 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: Subject to appropriate conditions of consent (prohibiting subdivision of river front area land), the subject site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

3.5(d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations,

Agency	Response
NSW Rural Fire Service	No formal response received.
Dept. of Industries (Crown Lands)	No Objections. No conditions were imposed.
NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment - Biodiversity and Conservation Division	No Objections subject to conditions.
Murray Darling Basin Authority	No comments received as of 10/3/2020.
NSW Environment Protection Authority	No Objections. No conditions were imposed.
NSW Dept. of Primary Industries (Fisheries)	No Objections. Comments received.
Shire of Campaspe	No Objections. No conditions were imposed.
NSW Department of Planning & Environment – Planning Division	Comments received which included that ‘Council must consider and impose relevant conditions that relate to subdivision design, the retention or planting of a vegetated buffer and fencing to exclude stock or vermin as prescribed by the MREP2’. Any consent will therefore be appropriately conditioned.
Natural Resources Access Regulator	No comments received as of 10/3/2020.
WaterNSW	No objections.
Victorian Department of Planning, Environment, Land and Water	No comments received as of 10/3/2020.
Department of Primary Industries - Agriculture	Comments received. See below: “The NSW Department of Primary Industries Agriculture provides advice to consent authorities about the protection and growth of agricultural industries and the resources upon which these industries depend to provide economic growth.

The Department supports Council position that dwelling entitlements are prohibited on the proposed Lots as the land does not meet the minimum lot size criteria.

Although the proposal asserts there will be no significant impacts on the area’s agricultural resources, DPI Agriculture, in principle, does not agree with further fragmentation of Lots in the Rural Zone”.

Public Submissions

A number of public submissions were received. The submissions all objected to the application. In summary matters raised include:

- Similar application has recently already been refused.

- Non-compliance with minimum lot size provisions.

- The application is not related to agriculture but rather preparing a property with river frontage for sale.

- The proposal will lead to added pressure for housing on the new 40ha vacant lots.

- Access issues including a lack of all-weather access to each lot.

- Concerns regarding flooding.

- Impact to natural environment

- Existing problems associated with land management including weed control will be exacerbated.

The issues raised by the objectors have been duly considered and taken into consideration as part of the assessment. It is considered that subject to appropriate conditions being placed on any consent, the application is unlikely to adversely impact upon the locality and can be approved.

3.6(e) The public interest.

The public interest is served through the detailed assessment of this application under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Environmental Planning Instruments, Development Control Plan and policies. It is considered that the proposal is not inconsistent with the public interest subject to conditions being placed on any consent issued.

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 satisfactory subject to appropriate conditions being included with any consent issued. This is to ensure the proposed development is consistent with the requirements of Clause 7.4 ‘Development on River Front Areas’ of the Murray LEP 2011. It is therefore recommended that development consent be granted subject to appropriate conditions listed below.

Conditions:

A. Conditions Prescribed by the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000

Clause 98: Compliance with Building Code of Australia and insurance requirements under the Home Building Act 1989

Clause 98A: Erection of signs

Clause 98B: Notification of Home Building Act 1989 requirements

Clause 98C: Conditions relating to entertainment venues

Clause 98D: Conditions relating to maximum capacity signage

Clause 98E: Conditions relating to shoring and adequacy of adjoining property

Please refer to the NSW State legislation for full text of the clauses under Division 8A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. This can be accessed at http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au.

B. Planning conditions

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4.16(3) OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 THIS IS A ‘DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT’ CONSENT SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF CONSENT

D1. River Front Area

An amended subdivision plan must be submitted to and approved by Council, which adheres to Clause 7.4 of Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011 (i.e. the land within 100m of the main channel of the Murray River must be contained within one allotment to avoid subdivision of river front area which is prohibited development). The submitted plan must be to the satisfaction of Council.

Reason: To ensure the development complies with Clause 7.4 of the Murray LEP 2011 and to comply with the requirements of NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

D2. Revegetation Plan

A Revegetation Plan must be prepared, submitted to and approved by Council. This plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person to the satisfaction of Council. The submitted plan must detail the use of locally native species, including a range of plant life forms, such as trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers.

The plan must outline revegetation of all river front area land contained within the subject site, and within 100m of land abutting ‘Sheepwash Lagoon’.

Once approved, the proponent is responsible for the funding and completion of required planting in accordance with the approved plan. Revegetation planting must be completed in accordance with the approved plan prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate.

Note: Under the Murray LEP 2011;

river front area means—

(a) in Zone RU5 Village, Zone R1 General Residential, Zone R2 Low Density Residential, Zone R5 Large Lot Residential, Zone SP3 Tourism and Zone B2 Local Centre—the land within 40m of the top of the bank of the Murray or Wakool River, or

(b) in Zone RU1 Primary Production, Zone RU3 Forestry and Zone E3 Environmental Management—the land within 100m of the top of the bank of the Murray or Wakool River.

Reason: To ensure the development complies with Murray REP2 and to comply with NSW DPIE recommendations.

General Conditions that must be fulfilled

1. Approved plans

The subdivision must be carried out in accordance with the plan as approved by the above Deferred Commencement Condition except where Council has been notified and consented to any amendments.

All conditions of consent must be fulfilled to the standard of Council and at the expense of the proponent.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out as assessed.

2. Engineering Guidelines for Subdivisions and Development Standards

The proponent must comply with Council’s Engineering Guidelines for Subdivisions and Development Standards in conjunction with the advice from Council’s Engineering Department.

Reason: To ensure that the subdivision is carried out in accordance with Council’s Subdivision Development Requirements.

3. Water supply work, sewerage work and stormwater drainage work

Water supply work or sewerage work that is plumbing and drainage work within the meaning of the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2011 must comply with that Act and the regulations under that Act. Any water supply work or sewerage work that is not plumbing and drainage work under that Act, and any stormwater drainage work, must comply with the Plumbing Code of Australia.

Reason: Council and Statutory requirement of Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

4. Protection of native vegetation

There must be no clearing of native vegetation (including within Council’s road reserve).

Reason: To comply with the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

5. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

If any Aboriginal object is discovered and/or harmed in, or under the land, while undertaking the proposed development activities, the proponent must:

o Not further harm the object;

o Immediately cease all work at the particular location;

o Secure the area so as to avoid further harm to the Aboriginal object;

o Notify NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment - Biodiversity and Conservation Division as soon as practical on 131 555, providing any details of the Aboriginal object and its location; and

o Not recommence any work at the particular location unless authorised in writing by NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment - Biodiversity and Conservation Division.

In the event that skeletal remains are unexpectedly encountered during the activity, work must stop immediately, the area secured to prevent unauthorised access and NSW Police and NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment - Biodiversity and Conservation Division contacted.

All reasonable precautions must be taken to prevent damage to Aboriginal objects.

For more information please refer to the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment - Biodiversity and Conservation Division) document entitled: Due diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales, available: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/cultureheritage/ddcop/10798ddcop.pdf.

Reason: To protect Aboriginal heritage.

6. No pollution of waterways

The proponent must take all necessary precautions and implement measures to prevent pollution of waterways during the proposed works.

Reason: To accord with the requirements of NSW Environmental Protection Authority.

7. Government Authorities

The proponent must comply with all conditions and requirements outlined in any NSW Rural Fire Services, Murray-Darling Basin Authority, or Natural Resources Access Regulator correspondence received after 10 March 2020 and before the application is determined by Council.

Reason: To ensure Government authorities conditions of consent are included with this consent.

Conditions that must be fulfilled prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate

8. Subdivision Certificate Application

The submission of formal subdivision plans (with layout as required by Condition D1.) and an application for Subdivision Certificate including the applicable fees must be made with Council. The fee will be charged in accordance with the fee schedule applicable at the time the application for Subdivision Certificate is lodged with Council. Easements must be shown over all services and covenants as required by the conditions of consent incorporated into the appropriate instruments. Four (4) copies of the formal subdivision plans, Administration Sheet and 88B Instrument Sheet must be provided to Council. All four (4) copies of the Administration Sheet and 88B Instrument Sheet must contain original signatures. Executed copies will not be accepted. A completed copy of Council’s checklist outlining all conditions have been met must be submitted with the application for a Subdivision Certificate. The Subdivision Certificate is not released prior to all applicable conditions of consent for this development being complied with to the satisfaction of Council.

Reason: To comply with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

9. Water Supply Easement

A water supply easement from the Murray River to proposed lots 3 and 4 must be registered. The easement must be a maximum of 1m in width and for water supply purposes only. This must be shown on the formal subdivision plans prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate.

Reason: To ensure the allotments created for primary production purposes have access to water supply.

10. Rural Address Numbers

An individual Rural Address Number (RAN) must be assigned to each allotment. The fee required for the sign, post & installation for any new RAN required will be charged in accordance with the fee schedule applicable at the time the application for Subdivision Certificate is lodged and payable to Council prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate. Please contact Council’s Engineering Department for more detail.

Reason: To ensure the lots are able to be identified.

11. Vegetation buffer

Revegetation works and buffer plantings must be completed to the satisfaction of Council in accordance with the approved plan. A rural style fence must also be constructed along the length of the vegetated buffer to exclude stock.

Reason: To ensure the development complies with Murray Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Riverine Land.

12. Restrictive Covenant

The Applicant must submit a copy of an instrument prepared in accordance with the Conveyancing Act 1919, with the application for a Subdivision Certificate for Council’s endorsement. The instrument must contain the following:

· A restrictive covenant on Proposed Lots 1, 3 and 4 outlining that the land may only be used for extensive agriculture purposes.

· The covenant must also specifically state that any form of residential accommodation (including but not limited to dwelling houses, dwellings, rural workers’ dwellings, manufactured homes, moveable dwellings, relocatable dwellings), and any form of tourist and visitor accommodation or caravan parks/camping grounds, is prohibited on site. The restrictive covenant must benefit Murray River Council, and the wording of the Restrictive Covenant must be to the satisfaction of Council.

Note: Under the Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011:

extensive agriculture means any of the following—

(a) the production of crops or fodder (including irrigated pasture and fodder crops) for commercial purposes,

(b) the grazing of livestock (other than pigs and poultry) for commercial purposes on living grasses and other plants on the land as their primary source of dietary requirements, and any supplementary or emergency feeding, or temporary agistment or housing for weaning, dipping, tagging or similar husbandry purposes, of the livestock,

(c) bee keeping,

(d) a dairy (pasture-based) where the animals generally feed by grazing on living grasses and other plants on the land as their primary source of dietary requirements, and any supplementary or emergency feeding, or temporary agistment or housing for weaning, dipping, tagging or similar husbandry purposes, of the animals.

residential accommodation means a building or place used predominantly as a place of residence, and includes any of the following—

(a) attached dwellings,

(b) boarding houses,

(c) dual occupancies,

(d) dwelling houses,

(e) group homes,

(f) hostels,

(g) multi dwelling housing,

(h) residential flat buildings,

(i) rural workers’ dwellings,

(j) secondary dwellings,

(k) semi-detached dwellings,

(l) seniors housing,

(m) shop top housing,

but does not include tourist and visitor accommodation or caravan parks.

tourist and visitor accommodation means a building or place that provides temporary or short-term accommodation on a commercial basis, and includes any of the following—

(a) backpackers’ accommodation,

(b) bed and breakfast accommodation,

(c) farm stay accommodation,

(d) hotel or motel accommodation,

(e) serviced apartments,

but does not include—

(f) camping grounds, or

(g) caravan parks, or

(h) eco-tourist facilities.

Reason: To ensure that a copy of a Restrictive Covenant is provided to Council for review and endorsement in order to ensure compliance with Clause 4.2 ‘Rural Subdivision’ of the Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011 and that the development proceeds as per submitted.

13. Primary production use

Prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate, the Proponent must provide evidence to the satisfaction of Council that Proposed Lots 1, 3 and 4 have been established with extensive agriculture practices as outlined in the submitted application.

It is noted there must be no clearing of native vegetation in order to accommodate agricultural activities other than that approved by NSW Murray Local Land Services or in accordance with the provisions of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

Reason: To suitably satisfy Council that the agricultural basis for subdivision consent has been commenced.

14. Access

Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate a formed driveway access to Council specifications must be provided to each allotment. A separate application must be made to Council’s Engineering Department for approval to construct any driveway access.

Reason: To protect Council assets and to ensure compliance with the Roads Act 1993 which requires the road authority to give permission for an activity within the road reserve.

Advice to applicant

The land subject to this consent may have restrictive covenants applying to it. It is the responsibility of the owner and builder to ensure that covenants are adhered to. Council does not enforce or regulate covenants and therefore accepts no responsibility for checking the compliance of building design with such covenants.

Reason: To advise of the details of Clause 1.9A of the Murray LEP 2011.

It is noted that it is the responsibility of the Applicant to ensure that the development is consistent with the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW OEH) document entitled: Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales, available: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/cultureheritage/ddcop/10798ddcop.pdf.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects.

Underground assets may exist in the area that is subject to the application. In the interests of health and safety and in order to protect damage to third party assets please contact Dial Before You Dig at www.1100.com.au or telephone on 1100 before excavating or erecting structures. If alterations are required to the configuration, size, form or design of the development upon contacting the Dial Before You Dig service, an amendment to the development consent (or a new development application) may be necessary.

Individuals owe asset owners a duty of care that must be observed when working in the vicinity of plant or assets on the relevant property via contacting the Dial Before You Dig service in advance of any construction or planning activities.

Reason: To protect underground assets.

It is the responsibility of the applicant to check, understand and seek assistance where needed so as to ensure full compliance with the conditions of this Development Consent. Please contact Murray River Council on 1300 087 004 or admin@murrayriver.nsw.gov.au if there is any difficulty in understanding or complying with any of the above conditions

Reason: To ensure the Applicant is aware of their obligations.

The development must be in accordance with the relevant provisions and Regulations of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the Fisheries Management Act 1994, the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, and all other applicable legislation.

Reason: To comply with relevant legislation.

The proponent should be aware that under Section 120 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 it is an offence to pollute waters.

Reason: To comply with NSW EPA requirements.

It is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA). Note: Compliance with the Building Code of Australia does not necessarily meet the requirements of the DDA. You are advised to seek advice from the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (phone (02) 9284 9600) in respect of your application.

Reason: To comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

The landowner should be aware, that any extraction and use of water from the Murray River, must be done so in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000.

Reason: To advise of WaterNSW requirements.

The proponent needs to be aware that the MDBA has responsibility to regulate the River Murray and cannot guarantee water levels. As part of river operations, variation in river and weir pool levels, both up and downstream, may become more pronounced, and average levels may significantly change.

Reason: To advise of MDBA requirements.

Attachments

1. Public Submission 1 ⇩

2. Public Submission 2 ⇩


AGENDA Ordinary Council Meeting Tuesday, 24 March 2020
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary Meeting of Murray River Council will be held on:
Date:	Tuesday, 24 March 2020
Time:	6:00PM
Location:	Council Chambers Moama Administration Office 52 Perricoota Road, Moama
Des Bilske General Manager

Stage	SCF1	SCF2	SCCF1	SCCF2	RGF1	MRC	TOTAL
Number of projects	9	7	7	7	5	2	37
Start-up		1					3%
Scoping							0%
Design		1			4	1	16%
Planning							0%
Procurement							0%
Construction	4	1	1	4	1	1	32%
Complete	5	4	6	3			49%
Summary
% in progress	45%	43%	14%	57%	100%	100%
% complete	55%	57%	86%	43%	0%	0%
Variation to budget of the 18 completed projects
% under budget	80%	75%	83%	100%	n/a	n/a
% over budget*	20%	25%	17%	0%	n/a	n/a