Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

28 April 2020

Program Status – Stronger Communities Fund Round 1 (SCF1)

SCF1 $9,000,000

OTHER $703,606

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 $$ 75%

Barham Rec Reserve
Multi-functional Pavilion Stages 1 & 2

Status On track

Stage Construction

Budget $2,000,000 SCF1
$184,000 MRC

$100,000 AFL

Actual $$ 80%

Merran Creek Bridge
Moulamein Swan Hill Road

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $525,000 SCF1

$342,000 MRC

Actual $$ 93%

Tooleybuc Mensforth Park
Upgrade

Status On track

Stage Construction

Budget $650,000 SCF1

$300,000 RGF1

Actual $$ 100% against SCF1
now being reported under RGF1

Mathoura Rec Reserve
Pavilion Ext, Kitchen & Bar

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $541,420 SCF1

$44,436 MRC

Actual $$ 104%

Barham Rec Reserve
Skate Park

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $407,000 SCF1

Actual $$ 93%

Moulamein Pre-School

Status On track

Stage Construction

Budget $410,812 SCF1

$13,353 MRC

Actual $$ 91%

Moulamein South Rec Reserve
Upgrade

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $360,812 SCF1

Actual $$ 81%

Mathoura Picnic Point Reserve
Improvements

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $200,000 SCF1

Actual $$ 88%

Comments: Moama Recreation Reserve Pavilion Stage 1: Internal linings, external cladding, fire services glazing, concrete paving ongoing. Mechanical services in progress. Former clubrooms demolished and external block work on Stage 2 commenced. Current practical completion of Buildings A & B 22 May 2020 grandstand July 2020.
Barham Recreation Reserve Pavilion Stages 1 & 2: Contract completion date 26 July with trades running 2-3 weeks ahead of schedule. Joinery and tiling complete on change room and function room. Car Park scope and costed in progress. Additional funding received. Tooleybuc Mensforth Park: Defect rectification in progress.
Moulamein Pre-School Stage 1: Final building inspection Wed 22 April. NB: underspend on completed projects has been repurposed within this funding stream.

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 Procurement

Budget $500,000 SCF2

Actual $$ 8%

Moama Council New Office
Car Park Upgrade

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $250,000 SCF2

Actual $$ 103%

Barham Bridge Road Access

Status Complete

Stage Closure

Budget $250,000 SCF2

$32,157 MRC

Actual $$ 94%

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 $$ 81%

Comments:

MRC ERP tender released Monday 13 March and closes Tues 5 May. Culture Business Unit debrief and action planning to recommence in July. Process mapping to be scheduled.
Moama Business Park Pump Upgrade: Pressure pump and generator ordered, delivery lead-time 4 weeks with stock in hand. Shed manufacturing contract anticipated to be awarded Tues 21 April with five weeks lead-time to supply. Civil contract to be awarded w/c 27 April.

Exceptions: Moama Business Park expansion: Alternative scope in progress

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)
Remaining works reported under RGF1

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 $$ 104%

Moulamein Swimming Pool
Reline

Status Complete

Stage Closure/defect

Budget $133,975 SCCF1

$14,097 MRC

Actual $$ 104%

Barham, Bunnaloo, Koraleigh, Mathoura, Wakool Courts

Status           Complete
Stage                Closure
Budget             $320,028    SCCF1

Actual $$ 92%

Comments:

Barham Pontoon Council working with the Contractor to reach an appropriate solution. Contractor has appointed SMEC to finalise the design and issue Design Proof Engineering Certificate. Contractor has applied for extension of time to 23 July 2020.
Tooleybuc Pontoon: the SCCF1 fund acquitted. Remaining works reported under RGF1 funding.

NB: Variations completed to repurpose funds from underspends to over spend plus additional works at Tooleybuc Rec Reserve amenities block and Moama Rec Reserve Zone 4.

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 Stage 1

Status On track

Stage Construction

Budget $828,411 SCCF2

Actual $$ 80%

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

Status On track

Stage Construction

Budget $736,411 SCCF2

Actual $$ 98%

Moama Rec Reserve Zone 3
Off leash area

Status On track

Stage Construction

Budget $266,1025 SCCF2

Actual $$ 60%

Moulamein South Rec Reserve
Resurface/lights/shed/courts

Status On track

Stage Construction

Budget $347,310 SCCF2

Actual $$ 80%

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: Cleaning and preparing for external concrete. Extension requested to 21 April 2020 as carpet delayed due to importing under COVID-19. Revised payment layout presented and approved by Council. Window furnishings installed. Asbestos clearance approval received from Safety Systems Pty Ltd. Next steps: practical completion inspection, costings on un-scoped works.
Moama Recreation Reserve Zone 2: Rectification works on light defects to commence in next 3 weeks. Landscaping and concreting in progress. Assess funding allocation to extend scope of works. Zone 3: All civil works complete. Landscaping and soft plantings complete. Furniture installation commenced. Shelters installed. Drinking bubblers installed. Gated entries complete. Progress 95%. Next steps: Expect completion by end of April. Moulamein South Recreation Reserve: Court complete and operational. Shed demolition complete. Lights complete and operational. Replacement shedding/club rooms on order.

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 $$ 3%

Murray Downs Foreshore
Development

Riverbank Park

Status On track

Stage Design and approval

Budget $117,925 RGF1

Actual $$ 2%

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 $$ 70% of RGF1 only

Tooleybuc Foreshore
Development

Pontoon

Status On track

Stage Construction

Budget $330,000 RGF1

$505,000 SCCF1 acquitted

Actual $$ 15% of RGF1 only

Comments:

Moama Foreshore - Horseshoe Lagoon and Riverside Retaining Wall: At preliminary design stage with further works scheduled for FY2020-2021 - no further update. Beach Amenities Block: Removable toilet unit similar to MacLean’s Beach Deniliquin adopted. Inquiries under way for water and sewerage design, and options for toilet block available on the market. Next steps: Sewer and water connection points identified. Appoint electrician to scout for power connection options. Detailed design and RFQ for the supply of the toilet block.
Tooleybuc Mensforth Park: Community consultation on final design delayed due to COVID-19
Murray Downs Foreshore: Community consultation on final design delayed due to COVID-19
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 complete. No progress in application for power connection causing delay. Next steps installation of services. NB: Actual $$ spent against budget is 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 $$ 100%		Water Meter Replacement Program Stage 1 Status On track Stage Construction Budget $2,900,000 MRC Actual $$ 31%		Comments: 2234 x V200HT meters 77% in Mathoura and 65% in Moama. 10 receiver towers installed with a 2^nd tower to be installed to reduce band noise on the outskirts of Moama. MiWater training scheduled for 26-27 May has now been divided into modules to be conducted remotely and recorded for induction and refresher training purposes. On track – no major issues or delays NB: Budget adjustment on Moama HQ showing an over spend and reducing actual spend over both projects.

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 $$ 57%		Comments: Works completed to schedule. Awaiting final invoices before closing out project. NB: Stage 2 of this project to extend the pedestrian facility from the Barham Bridge to the community itself will commence in Sept of the new financial year ($358,558 from the NSW Safer Roads Program).

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

28 April 2020

8.4.2 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 in the report.

Background

The Council, at its Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 24 March 2020, discussed the subject Development Application (DA). Accordingly, the Council resolved the following:

RESOLUTION 210320

That the Council defer consideration of Development Application 10.2020.38.1 for a 4 Lot Subdivision until the interested parties (both for and against the Development Application) can present to the Council on the matter.

Due to the current situation with COVID-19 which prevents the public from attending Council Meetings, all interested parties (both for and against the DA) have since been requested to provide a short 3 minute video outlining their comments in order for the Council to consider. All parties have now had an opportunity to do such, with two submission makers providing a video submission, which will be watched in the Public Forum to be held prior to the Council Meeting.

It is also noted that the proponent has requested Council review/delete Conditions D1 and D2, as discussed at Council’s March 2020 Ordinary Meeting.

After reviewing all relevant legislation, Council is unable to amend Condition D1 which requires an amendment to the design to avoid subdivision of the river front area portion of the subject site, however, Condition D2 regarding revegetation of part of the subject site (Lots 3 & 4) has been appropriately amended to ensure the continued protection of the natural riverine environment, whilst also ensuring the Proponent is not adversely financially impacted. Lot 1 is not included in the revegetation condition due to it not having only frontage to the Sheepwash lagoon and Lot 2 being the original existing land use. This is also a concession for the applicant.

It is noted no other part of the previous report or recommendation has been altered. See original report below:

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. Re-vegetation Plan

A Re-vegetation 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 including trees and shrubs.

The plan must outline re-vegetation of the river front area land which abuts proposed Lots 3 and 4 of the submitted plan.

Once approved, the proponent is responsible for the funding and completion of required planting in accordance with the approved plan. Re-vegetation 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 ⇩

3. Public Submission 1 - Video Link ⇩

4. Public Submission 2 - Video Link ⇩

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

28 April 2020

8.4.3 Planning Proposal - Boundary Road Moama PP_2016_MRIVE_003_03

File Number: -

Author: Llyan Smith, Senior Town Planner

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

Applicant: Habitat Planning

Owner: GB & JM Donchi

Proposal: To amend the Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011 to rezone land

Location: Part Lot 52 DP 1220883

Recommendation

That Council proceed with the next steps, as detailed in this report, to finalise PP_2016_MRIVE_003_03 with Parliamentary Counsel’s Office and the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment.

Background

On 26February 2019, Council resolved to endorse a Planning Proposal effecting part Lot 52, DP1220883, Boundary Road, Moama to:

· Rezone from E3 Environmental Management Zone to R2 Low Density;

· Amend the minimum lot size requirements from 120 hectares to 1000m².

A copy of that report has been attached for reference. A timeline of this proposal is provided below:

Planning Proposal draft submission	May 2016
Comments and further information requested	10 May 2016
Finalised Planning Proposal lodged	12 May 2016
Council resolved to support Planning Proposal and send to Department of Planning Industry & Environment (DPIE) for Gateway Determination	28 June 2016
Planning Proposal sent to DPIE requesting Gateway Determination	5 July 2016
Gateway Determination issued by DPIE	12 August 2016
Additional information requested from Applicant in accordance with Gateway Determination conditions	22 August 2016
Gateway extension issued (until 12 August 2018)	15 August 2017
Amended Planning Proposal submitted to Council for checking	20 November 2017
Amended Planning Proposal forwarded to DPIE for checking and comment	25 January 2018
Request sent to DPIE for extension of time to complete	25 January 2018
Gateway extension issued (until 19 February 2019)	6 February 2018
Response from DPIE re Planning Proposal assessment	12 July 2018
Amended Planning Proposal heard at Council meeting (deferred to February 2019 Council Meeting)	22 January 2019
Gateway extension issued (until 19 February 2020)	1 February 2019
Amended Planning Proposal heard at Council meeting (supported )	26 February 2019
Planning Proposal forwarded to DPIE seeking amended Gateway	17 April 2019
Amended gateway issued to Council approving Delegation and confirmation to proceed to Community consultation	6 May 2019
Referral to relevant agencies in accordance with Gateway Determination conditions	21 May 2019
NSW Biodiversity Conservation Division (formerly Office of Environment & Heritage - OEH) response received	12 June 2019
Community Consultation	6 August 2019 – 4 September 2019
Advertised in local newspaper (Riverine Herald)	7 August 2019
Registration of scar tree	22 August 2019
Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) response (as neighbor submission)	5 September 2019
Request from Council to DPIE for extension of time sent to complete LEP	15 January 2020
Gateway extension issued (until 19 May 2020)	4 February 2020
Mapping and executed Map Cover Sheet sent to DPIE for checking (via portal)	6 April 2020

The following actions are yet to be completed in order to finalise this proposal:

· Confirmation issued by DPIE that mapping and associated documents were acceptable;

· Draft LEP requested from Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO);

· Draft LEP received from PCO;

· Confirmation of Draft LEP to PCO;

· PCO opinion requested;

· PCO opinion received;

· LEP finalized; and

· Final LEP Sent to Department of Planning Industry & Environment requesting notification.

Discussion

Staff have now completed all required consultation and actions set out in the Gateway Determination and are presenting the outcomes of consultation to Council for noting and information purposes.

During the consultation process, Council received two (2) submissions from the Biodiversity Conservation Division (formerly Office of Environment & Heritage - OEH) and Roads & Maritime Services (RMS). These responses have been included as attachments in this report.

The applicant and Council have addressed the requirements of the submissions and it has been agreed that the matters raised by these authorities can and will be addressed at the time that a development application is assessed for the development of the site.

A summary of the matters addressed are set out below:

Matters raised by Authority	Response to submission
Flooding “…The flood risk is relatively minor given the location of the proposal on the edge of the mapped/modelled flood extent…However we remain concerned that this modelled/mapped extent and flood risk may change with updated modelling with the Echuca Moama Torrumbarry Flood Study and Floodplain Risk Management Study and the true flood risk may be understated by the current assessment. It is the Department’s preference that Council wait for the updated studies. In particular, the Echuca Moama Torrumbarry Flood Study and Floodplain Risk Management Study flood model will consider future flood altering development or structures such as the new Murray River bridge to be constructed immediately upstream of the site, which may alter flood extents and flood risk…While Council needs to be aware that there is some risk in continuing the assessment against the outdated flood mode, the Department does not object to its use for this particular planning proposal...”	Council have taken into consideration these comments regarding flooding but feel that the recommendation to assess the planning proposal against the incoming Echuca Moama Torrumbarry Flood Study and Floodplain Risk Management Study is unreasonably onerous given that these studies have not yet been completed, and will not be completed for some time. In addition, while part of the lot is mapped as flood prone land, the part of the land effected by the planning proposal is not currently mapped as flood prone land under the current Murray LEP 2011. The topography of the site drops off into low lying area, however this drop off largely occurs outside of the subject portion of land (as represented by the flood mapping). This matter has been discussed a number of times with DPIE who have supported Council’s position with respect to this site and flood risk. The position to err on the side of caution is acknowledged and all future development will be assessed against the updated modelling, where available.
*Biodiversity* “…OEH does not support the justification of ‘minor significance’ with regard to Ministerial Direction 2.1 Environment Protection Zones. The planning proposal underestimates the anticipated clearing of native vegetation and potential threatened species habitat that is likely to occur if the lot is rezoned as proposed. OEH supports the recommendation in the biodiversity assessment that the existing Eucalyptus trees on the site be retained and protected. However, this appears to be inconsistent with the proposed rezoning and associated land use change. Should this planning proposal be approved, OEH recommends that Council require a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) under the BC Act for the site in its entirety, as part of the subsequent subdivision development application…”	The comments are noted. Council will ensure that any development application received for the subsequent subdivision of the site is accompanied by a Biodiversity Assessment Report under the BC Act for the entire site.
*Aboriginal Cultural Heritage* “…We note that a Due Diligence assessment been provided in support of this planning proposal. We recommend that the Due Diligence assessment be documented in accordance with requirements under the ‘Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales’, including a current Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) search. The identified scarred tree must be registered in AHIMS. If the planning proposal is approved, we recommend the following conditions for future development on this site: • Prior to any construction works the scarred tree is to be protected in the manner identified by the Moama Local Aboriginal Land Council, i.e. high-visibility netting with a 5 m buffer. • Any persons entering the site are to be made aware of the scarred tree as part of the site induction protocol, and advised of the penalties for damaging such an Aboriginal object. • An unanticipated finds protocol be followed to ensure compliance with legislation in place to protect Aboriginal sites and objects in NSW and that no additional harm is caused if ACH is encountered…”	The comments are noted. The subject scar tree has now been registered in AHIMS. Any works near the tree will be subject to the preservation requirements stipulated by Moama Local Aboriginal Land Council and the protection requirements of the relevant legislation.
Historic heritage “…there are places on the NSW State Heritage Register (SHR) within one kilometre of the works including the Moama Historic Precinct (SHR 600). Historic heritage assessments, any historic heritage approvals that may be required and questions regarding historic heritage should be sent separately to OEH Heritage Division…”	Comments are noted. The subject proposal is significantly separated from the State listed conservation area and therefore Council is satisfied that there will be no detrimental impact with respect to historic heritage.
*Noise* “…The site is located in close proximity to the selected route of the Echuca Bridge project. The supporting documentation to the planning proposal refers to the Noise report prepared for the Bridge project and acknowledges the need for noise attenuation design solutions to future dwellings on the subject site. To address this issue a special provision should apply to the site that requires any future subdivision or residential building be designed and constructed to maintain noise levels in accordance with the EPA requirements for residential properties during the construction and operation of the Echuca Bridge project. Based on the information provided Roads and Maritime Services advises that it would object to the Planning Proposal to amend the Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011 unless appropriate measures are implemented over any future subdivision or residential building proposals to maintain noise levels in accordance with the EPA requirements for residential properties during the construction and operation phases of the Echuca Bridge project…”	Comments are noted. Future development of the land will be subject to merit based assessment, including the evaluation of noise impact. In addition, an Instrument may be implemented on the title to ensure that any future subdivision or residential building must be designed and constructed to maintain noise levels in accordance with the EPA requirements for residential properties during the construction and operation of the Echuca Bridge project.

Subject Site

Part Lot 52 DP 1220883 – please see previous reports relating to this planning proposal submitted for Council consideration.

Proposal

On 26th February 2019, Council resolved to endorse a Planning Proposal to rezone Part Lot 52 DP 1220883, Boundary Road, Moama from E3 Environmental Management Zone to R2 Low Density and accordingly amend the minimum lot size requirements from 120 hectares to 1000m2. A copy of that report has been attached to this report for reference.

Statutory Assessment Process

All required statutory assessments have been completed to enable the proposal to reach this current stage. This report has been generated to update Council regarding the progress to date.

Town Planning Assessment

No aspects of the proposal endorsed by Council on 26^th February have been amended. The town planning assessment against the statutory framework remains suitable.

Conclusion

This report has been generated to update Council on the progress of Planning Proposal PP_2016_MRIVE_003_03 relating to Part Lot 52 DP 1220883, Boundary Road, Moama. Staff will continue to progress this Planning Proposal toward finalisation.

Attachments

1. Council Report 26 February 2019 (endorsed) ⇩

2. Biodiversity Conservation Division response ⇩

3. Roads & Maritime response ⇩

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

28 April 2020

8.5 Correspondence Report

8.5.1 Correspondence Report

File Number: -

Author: Kerri Keogh, Manager Office of the General Manager

Authoriser: Des Bilske, General Manager

Recommendation

That the Correspondence Report be received and the information noted by the Council.

Discussion

01/04: Local Government NSW Weekly

Indices of General Circulars dated 20 March, 27 March, 3 April, 9 April and 17 April 2020 have been forwarded to Councillors and Senior Staff via email.

02/04: Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) News

Newsletters dated 20 March, 27 March, 3 April, 9 April and 17 April 2020 have been forwarded to Councillors and Senior Staff via email.

03/04: Local Government NSW

Forwarding a Media Release dated 20 March 2020 advising that councils were helping to ensure their communities had access to enough food and other goods in supermarkets and other retail outlets, despite suggestions to the contrary. Refer Attachment 1.

04/04: Local Government NSW

Forwarding a Media Release dated 24 March 2020 advising that emergency COVID-19 legislation introduced into NSW Parliament on 24/03/20 had the support of local government, as mayors and councillors called for certainty about the timing of local government elections. Refer Attachment 2.

05/04: Local Government NSW

Forwarding a Media Release dated 25 March 2020 welcoming the decision by the NSW Government to postpone the state’s council elections until September 2021 because it provided certainty to Australian communities during these extraordinary times. Refer Attachment 3.

06/04: NSW Government – Department of Planning, Industry & Environment

Forwarding a Media Release dated 26 March 2020 advising that the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) will temporarily close all campgrounds, high visitation areas and historic sites across NSW until further notice, in response to tighter Australian and NSW Government health directives on social distancing and non-essential travel to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 in the wider community. Refer Attachment 4.

07/04: NSW Government – Department of Planning, Industry & Environment

Forwarding a Message from the NSW Cross-Border Commissioner dated 27 March 2020 on COVID-19 and border communities. Refer Attachment 5.

08/04: Prime Minister of Australia

Forwarding a Media Release dated 30 March 2020 announcing a $130 billion JobKeeper Payment to enable businesses significantly impacted by the Coronavirus outbreak to access a subsidy to continue paying their employees. This assistance will help businesses to keep people in their jobs and re-start when the crisis is over. Refer Attachment 6.

09/04: NSW Government – Deputy Premier

Forwarding a Media Release dated 31 March 2020 advising that non-essential travel to regional NSW towns and remote communities must be cancelled and Easter holidaymakers should indefinitely postpone their visits, in line with the nationwide effort to slow the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Refer Attachment 7.

10/04: Member for Murray, Helen Dalton MP

Forwarding correspondence dated 2 April 2020 in response to Council’s representations made to her office requesting a formal invitation be made to the Shadow Minister for Primary Industry, Investment and Tourism, and Medical Research, Jenny Aitchison MP, to visit the region, and in particular the Murray River Council LGA, predominantly in respect of the Murray Region as a tourist destination and the effect that the Murray Darling Basin Plan has had on the region’s communities. Refer Attachment 8.

11/04: Local Government NSW

Forwarding a Media Release dated 3 April 2020 advising that LGNSW President Linda Scott is seeking urgent clarification from the Government to ensure council-run early childhood education and childcare services will be eligible for JobKeeper payments, which helps keep staff employed by providing $1500 of a worker’s wage per fortnight. Refer Attachment 9.

12/04: Local Government NSW

Forwarding a Media Release dated 3 April 2020 stating that Prime Minister Scott Morrison must reverse a decision to deny JobKeeper payments to councils. Refer Attachment 10.

13/04: Local Government NSW

Forwarding a Media Release dated 9 April 2020 advising that a last-minute reprieve for council-run childcare centres across NSW was fantastic news that would save jobs and support communities. Refer Attachment 11.

14/04: Local Government NSW

Forwarding a Media Release dated 15 April 2020 advising that properly and fairly funded community infrastructure built by councils will help NSW’s economic recovery from the coronavirus in response to the announcement that Planning Minister Rob Stokes had established a review of developer contributions, headed by Productivity Commissioner Peter Achterstraat, which will deliver a final report by March 31. Refer Attachment 12.

15/04: Local Government NSW

Forwarding a Media Release dated 16 April 2020 advising that more than 100 NSW councils have adopted a new industrial award that will help preserve local jobs for thousands of local government staff across the State. Refer Attachment 13.

16/04: Local Government NSW

Forwarding a Media Release dated 17 April 2020 welcoming the State Government’s announcement to provide extra funding for council-run showgrounds across the state’s rural and regional areas. Refer Attachment 14.

17/04: Minister for Local Government, The Hon Shelley Hancock MP

Forwarding correspondence dated 17 April 2020 advising of the outcomes of the Ministerial Advisory Group meeting held on 28 February 2020. Refer Attachment 15.

18/04: Moama Public School

Forwarding correspondence dated 20 April 2020 thanking Council for the provision of an ANZAC Day book “An ANZAC Tale” to the school in commemoration of ANZAC Day 2020. Refer Attachment 16.

Attachments

1. LGNSW Media Release - Councils are helping to ensure communities have access to enough food and other goods ⇩

2. LGNSW Media Release - NSW councils need election certainty; welcome remote meeting provisions ⇩

3. LGNSW Media Release - LGNSW welcomes certainty of council elections postponement ⇩

4. NSW Government Media Release - NSW NPWS close campgrounds and high visitation areas ⇩

5. NSW Government Message - COVID-19 and Cross-Border Communities ⇩

6. PM Media Release - $130 billion JobKeeper payment to keep Australians in a job ⇩

7. NSW Government Media Release - Please cancel travel to regional NSW ⇩

8. Member for Murray Helen Dalton - Invitation to Jenny Aitchison MP ⇩

9. LGNSW Media Release - Childcare centres under threat by new funding plan ⇩

10. LGNSW Media Release - PM must allow councils to access JobKeeper payments ⇩

11. LGNSW Media Release - Childcare centres saved, but council workers still out in the cold ⇩

12. LGNSW Media Release - Councils welcome moves to fairly fund community infrastructure ⇩

13. LGNSW Media Release - New award supports council jobs ⇩

14. LGNSW Media Release - Showground funding welcomed but councils need more ⇩

15. Letter from The Hon Shelley Hancock MP - Ministerial Advisory Group ⇩

16. Moama Public School - Thank You ANZAC Day Book ⇩


AGENDA Ordinary Council Meeting Tuesday, 28 April 2020
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary Meeting of Murray River Council will be held on:
Date:	Tuesday, 28 April 2020
Time:	6:00PM
Location:	Council Chambers Moama Administration Office 52 Perricoota Road, Moama
Des Bilske General Manager

24 February 2020	Applications open
9 April 2020	Applications close
28 April Council Meeting	Report to Council to appoint assessment panel
10 May 2020	Assessment of applications completed
26 May 2020 Council Meeting	Council to approve funding for recommended projects
June 2020	Applicants notified of outcome
June 2020	Successful applicants to submit invoice for payment
By 30 June 2021	Projects completed and funding acquittal submitted

Stage	SCF1	SCF2	SCCF1	SCCF2	RGF1	MRC	TOTAL
Number of projects	9	7	7	7	6	2	38
Start-up		1					3%
Scoping					1		3%
Design					3		8%
Planning							0%
Procurement		1				1	5%
Construction	4	1	1	4	2	1	34%
Complete	5	4	6	3			47%
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%	86%	71%	100%	n/a	n/a
% over budget*	20%	14%	29%	0%	n/a	n/a