Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

26 May 2020

8.4.2 Murray River Council Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement - Post Consultation Update

File Number: -

Author: Llyan Smith, Senior Town Planner

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

Recommendation

That the Officer’s report on Murray River Council Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement - Post Consultation Update as at 29 April 2020 be received and the information noted by the Council.

Discussion

The Murray River Council Local Strategic Planning Statement (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.

At the Council meeting held 24 March 2020, Council resolved to:

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

· Proceed to public consultation for the Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement in accordance with the approved Communication and Engagement Plan.

Due to the COVID 19 crisis restriction in place at the time the draft was exhibited, Council could not engage as originally planned with physical community workshops and information sessions. All consultation for this draft was subsequently carried out online, largely via the Your Say Murray River Portal. The draft was publicly exhibited from 26 March 2020 until 29 April 2020 using the following methods:

· Written correspondence to Developer Forum attendees

· Written correspondence to neighbouring Councils, local and State Agencies and referral bodies

· Advertised on Council’s website

· Advertised on Local newspapers

· Media releases

· Social media

· Your Say Murray River online portal.

Council received a fantastic level of community engagement to the draft document, with the following response received:

· 453 total visits to our Your Say Murray River LSPS page

· 20 External submissions (via online submission tool and direct email)

· 1 ‘Question’ loaded to the LSPS page for response

· 75 Map Pins dropped on our map tool from 20 contributors. The pins were grouped into the following three categories:

o “My big idea”

o “What I like/would like to keep”

o “What I would like to change”

A table setting out a summary of submissions and Council’s response to each has been included here as Table 1. It is noted that only the submissions received during the consultation period are included in this table. Council did receive preliminary contact from a number of parties, whose comments have been taken into consideration as part of the draft released for public consultation.

Map Pins using the Your Say Portal generated a corresponding GPS coordinate, however for the purposes of this report the location of the pin has been identified using locality, and an address where available. A copy of itemised Pin locations can be provided to Councillors upon request, together with a Summary Report of activity recorded by the Your Say LSPS Portal. A full copy of all original submissions can also be provided upon request.

THEME 1 - A ROBUST, GROWING AND INNOVATIVE ECONOMY

Planning Priorities

1. Grow, strengthen and sustain agriculture

2. Grow and strengthen tourism

3. Create an ‘open for business’ identity

THEME 2 - LIVEABLE COMMUNITIES WITH SOCIAL CAPITAL

Planning Priorities

4. Housing growth, supply and density

5. Recreation and open space

6. Servicing and utility infrastructure

THEME 3 - ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Planning Priorities

7. Identify and protect environmental values

8. Celebration of culture and heritage

9. Climate change and natural hazards

Table 1 – LSPS Submissions summary

External Submissions

Ref.

Locality &

LSPS Theme

Matters raised by submission

(see Annexure # for full submission)

Council comments

EX.1

Council wide

Theme 2

Liveable communities

Theme 3

Environment, Heritage and Change

The following advice is provided

“…Theme 2 - Priority 4 - Housing growth, supply and density

The preparation of a Strategic Bush Fire Study (SBFS), as part of the preliminary studies undertaken for a planning proposal, shall be carried out where land is located in proximity to bush fire risks. The SBFS shall be in accordance with the Strategic Planning Principles of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2019 (PBP19) to ensure only appropriate development occurs in areas where bush fire hazards exist.

NOTE: the SBFS addresses a number of considerations which should inform the suitability of a site (and its surrounding location in the landscape) for the proposed land uses in consideration of strategic access networks, proposed densities and likely internal and external impacts as a result of bush fire impacts. The SBFS should address the contents of Table 4.2.1 of PBP19…”

The LSPS outlines that Council will continue to locate residential development away from known hazard wherever possible. However, acknowledgement of advice to require a Strategic Bush Fire Study for planning proposals which are located in proximity to bushfire risks is noted. Council will continue to adhere to the applicable Planning Directions for the assessment of planning proposals effected by bush fire prone land mapping, and require a suitable assessment against bushfire risk at development application stage.

The current review of bushfire prone land mapping in collaboration with RFS will be finalised and updated as per Action 9.3. This will enable Council to better identify the applicable planning proposals which require preparation of a Strategic Bush Fire Study.

EX.2

Mathoura

Council wide

Theme 2

Liveable communities

The LSPS does not include site specific rezoning of the submission maker’s private property to achieve multi-dwelling housing, as previously discussed with Council since 2015.

The LSPS does cater for housing strategy to meet the needs of our aging population

The applicant was contacted by staff to discuss their concerns. It was noted at the time that the LSPS forms the highest tier of planning strategy for Murray River Council and will be used to inform lower tier (more specific) strategies, such as Land Use Strategy, and housing strategies that will plan for residential form in our towns and villages. The LSPS in itself cannot specifically advocate for lot specific LEP changes which do not already have endorsed strategic backing. Council will be creating housing strategy (see Action 4.1-4.5 of Priority 4) to identify and plan for housing growth, supply and density and this site specific proposal will be considered at that time.

Priority 4 of the LSPS acknowledges that we need to provide suitable housing variety for our aging population and flags that there have been interest in the provision of retirement villages and aged care facilities within Moama, Barham and Mathoura. To achieve our vision, key actions of the LSPS are to deliver housing choice with varying densities and forms to meet the varying needs of our changing demographics. Multi dwelling housing can be investigated as part of our housing strategy.

EX.3

Council wide

Theme 2

Liveable communities

Concern that Council would be considering existing strategies to inform our new direction

The submission maker was contacted by staff to discuss their concerns. It was noted at that time that while some strategy is no longer relevant or fit for purpose, there are some strategies which may hold future value. For instance, Moama’s growth is projected to extend along the current north-west development corridor, as such, the Moama North-West Master Plan and the Moama Mid-West Drainage Strategy remain relevant and should be assessed as part of our housing strategy investigations for Moama. Council understands that this may not be the case for all existing strategy across Council, however this will not be known definitively until we have considered these existing strategies on their merits.

EX.4

Barham

Theme 1

Economy

The submission maker requests that Council consider a site specific rezoning at Lot 121 DP 1094887, which is currently zone R5 Large Lot Residential, however has been operated as a timber processing facility (sawmill) since 1975. The submission maker is unaware of any consultation that was carried out with them as owners prior to the rezoning to R5 in around 2013. The submission maker requests that Council rezone the site to industrial, or a zoning that allows the use of the existing buildings and facilities to support the future development opportunities for Barham.

The applicant was contacted by staff to discuss their concerns. It was noted at the time that the LSPS forms the highest tier of planning strategy for Murray River Council and will be used to inform lower tier (more specific) strategies, such as Employment Lands Strategy and Masterplans for commercial/industrial expansion throughout Murray River Council. The LSPS in itself cannot specifically advocate for lot specific LEP changes which do not already have endorsed strategic backing. The LSPS advocates for an evaluation of land currently available for commercial and industrial uses throughout the LGA, with Action 3.4 set to investigate commercial and/or industrial land release/redevelopment in Barham. This site specific proposal will be considered at that time.

EX.5

Council wide

Theme 3

Environment,

Heritage & Climate Change

Objects of the Crown Land Management Act and the principles of Crown land management must be considered in Local Strategic Planning Statements

Local Strategic Planning Statements must be consistent with reserve and dedication purposes

Local Strategic Planning Statements must be consistent with plans of Management

The draft LSPS considered the principles of Crown Land management and the objects of the Crown Land Management Act.

All actions will not impact on any current Crown Land Management Plan or impact the use of the land for the purposes of which it is reserved for. A consistent approach is to be taken with any future strategies/projects that fall out of the LSPS.

We note the submission suggests consideration should be given to encouraging public use and enjoyment, and multiple uses of Crown Land, where appropriate. As stated in LSPS, Council are in the process of reviewing our current Plans of Management for Crown Lands, and will be investigating the opportunity to use Crown Land and Travelling Stock Routes for use as biodiversity offset areas. This will form part of our overall biodiversity investigations as per Action 7.2.

EX.6

Council wide

Moulamein

Theme 2

Liveable communities

Riverfront setbacks, and minimum lot sizes for housing and subdivision require review to achieve a common sense approach which responds to the characteristics of a site.

Submission maker suggested 40m setback and 5 acre minimum lot size in Moulamein and other river front areas throughout Council to attract more residents

The submission maker was contacted by staff to discuss their concerns. As discussed throughout a number of priorities within this LSPS, our rivers and riverfront lands are attractive drawcards for residential, tourist, economic, and recreational development within Murray River Council. The LSPS advocates for the completion of a River Front Development Strategy (see Priority 2, and 7, and Action 7.1). Any strategy for the development of riverfront housing will reflect the investigations and outcomes of the proposed Murray River Council Riverfront Development Strategy identified for action in Priority 2 and Priority 7, and will be assessed for viability with respect to servicing and infrastructure provision.

EX.7

Moama

Theme 2

Liveable communities

Site specific aspirations (Perricoota Road, Moama) for rezoning. Goal is to deliver housing product to cater for ‘tree change’ population. Seeking to achieve multi tenanted housing ranging from 4000m² lots to serviced apartments able to accommodate the various needs of permanent residential and itinerant workforces

EX.8

Mathoura

Theme 1 Economy

Theme 2

Liveable communities

Theme 3

Environment, heritage & climate change

Site specific aspirations to extend existing multi-dwelling housing (eco-village style setting) to achieve up to 30 residences for diversified and sustainable farming of the RU1 land at this property This property also supports a number of small businesses, with ambitions to create new business opportunities on site associated with horticulture, eco-tourism and green waste recycling.

The submission maker was contacted by staff to discuss their ideas. See above comments regarding the LSPS role as higher tier strategy. The subject site does not have existing endorsed strategic backing to achieve the desired outcomes of the submission maker, however Council will be investigating the merits of this proposal in the consideration of housing, farming and tourism products for Mathoura and surrounds. The LSPS identifies aspirations to create more sustainable communities, with an aim to investigate and support eco village style setting where appropriate. See discussion and actions throughout the LSPS relating to agriculture, tourism, business, and environment.

EX.9

Council wide

Theme 3

Environment, heritage & climate change

A key priority identified in the Riverina Murray Regional Plan 2036 is to "Provide infrastructure that supports business and industry growth and productivity, and responds to community needs".

Concerns that LSPS is missing key concept of liveability and the impact of infrastructure planning and development on liveability.

Important liveability element of Arts and culture lacking in LSPS.

The key priority quoted by the submission maker from the Riverina Murray Regional Plan 2036 (pg. 63) is actually a key priority of Murrumbidgee Shire, not Murray River Council. However, Council acknowledges the importance of providing infrastructure that supports local arts and cultural projects, that in turn benefits the urban design and economic development of our communities, as outlined by the submission.

The LSPS highlights that recreational and open space facilities provide an opportunity to celebrate the uniqueness of our communities by providing infrastructure that responds to each local setting and their culture. An example of this is the Bridge Arts Project precinct (Moama) which is to be strategically accommodated as per Action 5.2. There may be further opportunities for arts and cultural input into recreational and open space facilities in the future.

Priority 8 also highlights the importance of providing our towns and people the opportunity to tell their story through projects such as the Barham Redgum Statue River Walk and the Moulamein Heritage Village project. Celebration of our culture is achieved through these heritage projects. There is an opportunity to liaise/engage with the local creative community when reviewing Council’s heritage assets for adaptive reuse.

EX.10

Council wide

Theme 2

Liveable Communities

“..Cancer Council NSW is committed to reducing the impact of cancer on individuals and the community, and to lessening the burden for people affected by cancer… We believe health is central to urban planning in order to create environments that promote cancer-smart behaviours and reduce exposure to known cancer risks such as solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation.

Cancer Council NSW is a key partner in the implementation of the NSW Skin Cancer Prevention Strategy (2017) which defines a comprehensive approach to reducing overexposure to (UV) and ultimately the incidence of skin cancer in NSW. The Strategy is a multidisciplinary initiative lead by Cancer Institute NSW which is an agency of NSW Health.

As part of the delivery of the Strategy, the Shade Working Group is committed to increasing shade across NSW for skin cancer prevention by influencing the planning system and advocating for shade in the local community…Cancer Council NSW strongly encourages Council to ensure the value of shade for UV radiation protection and other co-benefits are fully recognised in the vision for the LGA…”

Council will be considering the advice of Cancer Council Australia in the design of recreation spaces to create shaded, protected spaces. See discussion and Actions within Priority 5 of the LSPS.

EX.11

Barham

Land covered by the Wakool LEP 2013

Council wide

Theme 1

Economy

Theme 2

Liveable communities

Requests the Rural Lands Study include a review of the minimum lot size for RU1 Primary Production zoned land, noting that 500 hectare minimum lot size is too restrictive and is hindering agriculture.

The submission maker suggests that greater discretion is needed around the assessment of rural dwellings on RU1 lots that do not meet the minimum lot size requirement. The LEP should allow for merit-based assessment taking into account the unique characteristics and circumstances of each site.

Suggests that the Barham Club Lakes facility and the Barham Bowls club site at 6 Cobwell Street, Barham not be considered for residential rezoning.

The submission maker identifies this site for investigation as part of the Economic Development & Tourism Strategy, and Riverfront Development Strategy, noting these riverfront sites hold greater value and potential as tourism activity precinct facilitating a whole of river experience incorporating a commercial mooring area, fine dining, boutique river front accommodation, and conference facilities.

Review of definition and application of riverfront area to facilitate merits based assessment of development

The submission maker notes that based on the existing data (adopted by Council) there is no strategic basis for further residential land release in Barham.

The preparation of an Employment Lands Strategy and incentives to attract economic investment should be prioritised by Council. There has been a lack of foresight in identifying suitable areas for industrial and commercial expansion in Barham and the towns existing industrial precinct is now constrained by residential development on all fronts.

Development of a high-quality, landscaped business park precinct may be beneficial to differentiate the current industrial offering in Barham.

The submission maker notes that the town maps mentioned on page 18 of the LSPS were not included within the exhibited draft and suggests that the community should have an opportunity to view and provide comment in relation to these maps prior to the adoption of the LSPS.

The request for minimum lot size review is noted. As identified in Priority 1, Council will encourage agribusiness diversification and value-adding by recognising the diversity of modern agricultural enterprises and facilitate their growth. Reducing minimum lot size within the rural zones may be considered as a method of facilitating smaller scale agricultural ventures. As part of the Rural Lands Study (Action 1.2) the minimum lot size of RU1 Primary Production zoned land can be reviewed.

These comments are noted. These comments will be considered as part of Council’s investigation into rural land use, rural housing for incorporation into the relevant subsequent strategies focussing on these matters.

The comments are noted. See above comments regarding the LSPS role as higher tier strategy. The subject site does not have existing endorsed strategic backing to achieve residential rezoning, however Council has been in long term discussion with the owners of the subject site regarding their aspirations for the land, and the potential of this site to provide a desirable riverfront housing product in Barham. As noted in the LSPS, development of land adjoining or near the riverfront must be balanced against the environmental, social, and economic value of the river system. This site will be evaluated against these considerations.

Noted. Specific investigation into applicable set back controls will be investigated through the proposed Murray River Council Riverfront Development Strategy identified for action in the LSPS. Subsequent amendment of the LEP (and riverfront land definition) will be informed by this strategy.

As noted in the Priority 4, Actions 4.1 – 4.5 of the LSPS will investigate and update the current residential supply and demand data and reflect these outcomes in housing strategies throughout Murray River Council.

These comments are noted, other submissions also cited the lack of available industrial land as an issue. As identified in the LSPS, Council aims to investigate how and where business attraction can be accommodated in Barham (and surrounds) with the growth of industries supporting agri-business and manufacturing flagged as a key opportunity for the township. These investigations will be actioned (3.4) and inform the Employment Lands Strategy (3.1), the MRC Land Use Strategy (3.5) and the incoming LEP (3.2). The priority of these investigations is noted

The submission maker’s comments are noted. Unfortunately, the Town Maps referenced in the Draft LSPS were planned to be created, in part, at the community workshops as a consultation tool for discussion and feedback. Due to the COVID-19 crisis which prohibited community workshops, these maps have not been created to date. . The LSPS Draft will be amended accordingly.

EX.12

Barham

Theme 1

Economy

Supportive of the Priority 1 and potential Agri-business precinct / Research & Development Facility.

Interested in further involvement in rural lands and agricultural strategies.

Support of Planning Priority 1 and future related strategies noted.

Council will be interested to hear of the implementation of the Wakool Agri-Innovation Programme to support development of high value agri-food and tourism sectors in the Wakool Irrigation District.

Council welcomes collaboration and resource sharing from the findings in the WAIP to contribute toward our future strategies including Rural Lands Study and Agri-knowledge Precinct Master Plan, as well as the new Murray River LEP, when prepared.

EX.13

Murray Downs

Theme 1

Economy

Theme 2

Liveable communities

Theme 3

Environment, heritage & climate change

The submission maker made the following comments/requests:

· 500ha blocks are zoned Rural - need to be able to subdivide into 1000m2, 2000m2 & 4000m2 blocks

· Lack of land available to build

· Retirement Village

· Boat ramp

· River access

· Mooring

· Community facilities.

· Hall

· Gym

· Recreation Reserve

· Netball Courts

· Parks with Basketball court

· Football Oval

· Tennis Courts

· Stadium

· Basketball Courts

· Equestrian Arena

· Rodeo Arena

· Lights for walking track

· RV park and dumping point

· Extending the sealed path

· Bridge Upgrade

· NBN - No service

· Mobile service - Is poor

· Power - brownouts / blackouts

· RMS- Car Registration, Licence renewals, - open an office one day a week

· Police

· Ambulance

· Australia Post Outlet - No Mail deliveries

· Truck interchange near fuel station

· Fuel station for the area for truck as and locals

· Convenience store

· Take advantage of the riverfront behind Pickerings transport

· Relocate Pickering Transport

· RV Park and dumping point

· Mooring

· Restaurants on the river

· Caravan Park

· Café on the river

· Mini golf

· Animal Sanctuary

· Is the Water Treatment Plan going to be big enough going forward?

· Are the Waste Water Lagoons big enough for development?

· Solar farm to power the community

· Green Waste Depot

· Council to collect rubbish, Green waste, recycle and hard rubbish

· No industrial area

· Wharf Industrial area

· Need to beautify around the bridge area

· Council have permanent staff for Parks and Gardens

· Rabbit Plague

· Water Allocations

· Dumping of rubbish on vacant land

· Lack of interest from Council for the area

· Stormwater gutters need repairing/upgrading

· Roadside vegetation

· Water being traded out of the area.

· Parks, garden and roadside are poor

· Signage at the bus stop

· Council Issues

· Signage around the district is poor

· Felton Drive - needs repair

· Streets need to be fixed.

· How much does council do in the area?

· Removal of plane trees in the estate

· Excessive rate = value for rate dollars

· Wamba Wamba Relocation

The submission maker was contacted by staff to discuss their ideas. See above comments regarding the LSPS role as higher tier strategy.

As noted in the LSPS, these aspects will be considered as part of the Actions for Priority 5 relating to the provision of recreation and open space areas. Council strives to provide high quality public and recreation spaces for the social and economic benefit of communities. The LSPS provides an opportunity for Council to review plans for recreation facilities. The feasibility and suitability of infrastructure such as that suggested by the submission maker will be investigated in the future. The submission maker will have opportunity to provide more detailed feedback at the time that these individual projects are considered.

As noted in the LSPS, these aspects will be considered as part of the Actions for Priority 6 relating to Servicing and Infrastructure. The Swan Hill Bridge is due to be upgraded in the coming years as the first priority for investment under the Murray River Crossings Investment Priority Assessment completed by VicRoads in partnership with NSW Roads & Maritime Services. Council will continue to engage with State Government regarding this project.

As noted in Priority 6 of the LSPS, digital connectivity will play a greater role in supporting the connectivity of communities for social and economic purposes. Council will be working with key telecommunication providers and other levels of Government to identity fill telecommunication gaps in the Murray River Council. Council can identify Murray Downs as one of these ‘gap’ locations.

These servicing matters are largely out of the control of Council however can be discussed with the relevant State Government Agency to investigate viability.

The upgrade of Swan Hill Bridge will trigger consideration of demand for associated services and infrastructure in Murray Downs, such as those listed. This can be undertaken as part of the investigations of Action 3.4 as well as through the Employment Lands Strategy (Action 3.1.).

The LSPS advocates for tourism development in strategic locations along the river, including cluster & commercial mooring sites close to towns. It states the importance of better capitalising off existing events and activities which attract visitors to bordering towns. Opportunity to consider these projects in Murray Downs will arise under the proposed MRC Economic Development and Tourism Strategy, and the MRC Riverfront Development Strategy. These strategies will be open for public input, at the time.

Council are in the process of conducting a detailed strategic review of all Council owned and managed infrastructure to understand the current usage and capacity to accommodate growth. This will include an evaluation of water and sewer infrastructure, road infrastructure, recreational assets, open spaces, community facilities, and cemeteries. These investigations will inform the incoming Murray River Council Integrated Water Cycle Management Plan, Asset Management Strategy, and long term plans of management.

Council are not the electricity provider within Murray Downs, however the LSPS identifies aspirations to create more sustainable communities. Please see Priority 9.

Council are currently reviewing the way we collect, transport, process, recycle and dispose of our household and commercial waste. Council will investigate the appropriate areas for environmentally sensitive/innovative waste management services (including current and future sites), taking into consideration current and future commodity markets, and the demand of waste/recycling management services across the LGA to support our communities. Council is in the process of finalising a number of waste management strategies and plans to inform how this will occur in the short and long term. Murray Downs will be taken into consideration as part of these strategies.

Priority 3 identifies issues with inadequate bridge infrastructure hindering commercial and industrial activity in Murray Downs. However the new bridge crossing presents significant opportunities for new industrial land release. This will be investigated as identified in Action 3.4, planned in the Employment Lands Strategy (Action 3.1) and then reflected in the incoming MRC Land Use Strategy and LEP (Actions 3.2 & 3.5).

These comments have been forwarded to the relevant Departments within Council for their attention.

EX.14

Council wide

Theme 1

Economy

Theme 2

Liveable communities

Theme 3

Environment, heritage & climate change

Document specific comments:

“…Page 3

The dreaming story out the front needs to go. It is borrowed from the Ngarrindjeri in SA lower Murray River and does not relate to Yorta Yorta’s creation story of the Murray (Dhungala) River. Given MRC crosses a couple of Traditional Owner Boundaries, there is no need for this to be in the document. The acknowledgement beforehand will suffice unless they acknowledge us all, Yorta Yorta, Wemba Wemba and Barapa Barapa…Aboriginal in terms of these types of documents tend to homogenise us all together. I would like to a [sic] recognition of Traditional Owners or First Nations Peoples and acknowledgement of historical Aboriginal community members Might word that better.

Page: 8

• Community leadership and governance is required to build social capital, so although it is covered in the Community Strategic Plan should be referenced more fully.

• Facilitation of planning for education infrastructure (pre-school, school and tertiary) should feature in this section, and then be cross referenced to community outcomes in Community Strategic Plan

• Perhaps add in the Priority Areas from the MRC Community Strategic Plan as well.

Page: 27

• Add: Actively facilitate the business development of innovative tourism product, particularly lead by local young people

• Add in 'arts, cultural and heritage' to sporting and entertainment events

Page: 30

• Add: Actively facilitate opportunities to attract new or expanded value-added food or advanced product manufacturing (4.0)

Page 31 Theme 2: LIVEABLE COMMUNITIES WITH SOCIAL CAPITAL.

We note that while this section has ‘Social Capital’ in the title, it then goes on to prioritise hard infrastructure and does not articulate any actions relating to social capital.

Suggestion:

• Add Priority 7: Community engagement activities to build Social Capital

• Add: Support coordination of volunteering, engaging young people, events and activities for children and families, cultural recognition for Aboriginal people and multicultural community, community leadership programs to build community governance, activities to reduce social isolation for older people, community participation for people living with a disability etc.

Some of these things, not all, are alluded to in the MRC Community Strategic Plan, but there is no mention of it in this plan.

Page: 32

• Add: value and purpose to end of sentence.

• Add: Specific consideration should be given to older people, people living with mental and physical disability, and people requiring affordable housing.

Page: 33

• Add: Complete the review of the Moama Recreation Reserve and add in further priorities like exploring the feasibility of a sprinting track and upgraded athletics infrastructure.

• Add: Explore feasibility of a Heated Pool

Page: 34

• Add: specifically, to meet the needs of young people, children and families and older people

• Add: Facilitation of planning associated with the location of emergency services and police

are not mentioned eg: Moama Police Station

Page: 35

• Add: Review accessibly and interconnection of Pedestrian, Cycle and Scooter pathways

• Add: Review infrastructure relating to the provision of public and community-based transport

Page: 37

• Add: for community based visual or performing arts, music, street art and contemporary heritage interpretation.

Council thanks the submission maker for their detailed review of the document. These comments are noted and will be incorporated (where appropriate) into the final LSPS presented to Council for adoption.

Noted. This section will be updated as suggested.

These comments are noted. The table on Page 8 has been formulated to convey the relationship between the LSPS and Regional level plans delivered at a State level. Staff will reconsider the manner in which this table is presented to better convey its intention.

These comments are noted and will be incorporated into the final LSPS presented to Council for adoption, where appropriate.

These comments are noted. The LSPS is above all else a strategy for land use. As a result, the deliverables of this document are effectively physical outcomes. The social capital referenced in the document refers more to tangible social capital, generated as part of those ‘on the ground outcomes’. For instance, the sense of community and opportunity to connect with other community members though shaded, well connected, social greenspaces; or the sense of pride, belonging or insight evoked through art installations which pay homage to our identity as a community. Staff will reconsider the advice set out at the beginning of this document to better convey its role as a land use document.

See comments above. This document relates to physical outcomes delivered through land use strategy and as such some of the listed suggestions may not achievable via the LSPS. The Community Strategic Plan is the best place to advocate for activities that do not strictly have a land use outcome.

This may be considered at the time the LEP is amended. Consideration would include a land use table which facilitates spaces and areas to deliver these types of activities – for instance a land use table which streamlines the approval process to hold events.

Noted. The housing strategy will seek to meet the varied needs of the community as a whole.

Noted. As referenced in the LSPS, these aspects will be considered as part of the Actions for Priority 5 relating to the provision of recreation and open space areas. Council strives to provide high quality public and recreation spaces for the social and economic benefit of communities. The LSPS provides an opportunity for Council to review plans for recreation facilities. The feasibility and suitability of infrastructure such as that suggested by the submission maker will be investigated in the future. The submission maker will have opportunity to provide more detailed feedback at the time that these individual projects are considered.

Noted. We are hoping to meet the needs of our community as a whole.

Noted.

Noted. Council are in the process of conducting a detailed strategic review of all Council owned and managed infrastructure to understand the current usage and capacity to accommodate growth. This will include an evaluation of road infrastructure, recreational assets, open spaces, and community facilities. These investigations will help inform long term strategy associated with connectivity and movement around towns and public spaces,

Noted.

EX.15

Council wide

Barham

Theme 1

Economy

Theme 2

Liveable communities

The proposed Economic Development and Tourism Strategy and Riverfront Development Strategy are strongly supported. The submission maker notes that site of the Bowls Club adjoining the river holds great value as a commercial venue as a commercial river front venue.

The submission maker urges Council not to rezone this land for housing supply, noting that there is no strategic backing to rezone for residential purposes.

The Rural lands study should include a review of the existing 500ha minimum lot size that applies to primary production land in the Wakool LEP. The 500ha minimum lot size is overly restrictive and severely limits opportunities. It is suggested that the minimum lot size should be reduced to 120ha (or less) near key centres to facilitate agricultural diversity and support local agri-tourism opportunities. This would be consistent with the minimum lot size that generally applies across RU1 zoned land in the Murray LEP, and that which applied in the Wakool LEP prior to its review in 2013.

Council acknowledges the request to review minimum lot size when preparing the Rural Lands Study and reflect the outcomes in the incoming LEP. See previous comments regarding this matter.

EX.16

Moulamein

Land covered by Wakool LEP 2013

Theme 2

Liveable communities

The submission maker makes the following comments:

“…My main issues with the current LEP are the lack of potential for smaller, semi rural lifestyle blocks with river frontage. Maybe a flexible approach of 1Ha to 40 Ha's depending on location and topography within a 10 km radius of Moulamein…The lot size in rural zoning for a dwelling be reduced from the 500 Ha's (1,235 acres) to a more realistic size. This would allow retiring farmers to build a residence and remain on the property or conversely allow a sibling or siblings to do same…

The 100 M setback from the river for a dwelling to be reverted back to 40 M…”

See above comments regarding the LSPS role as higher tier strategy. These comments are noted and will be considered as part of Council’s investigation into rural land use, rural housing and subsequent strategies regarding housing provision.

As noted in the LSPS, development of land adjoining or near the riverfront must be balanced against the environmental, social, and economic value of the river system. Any strategy to develop riverfront land will reflect the investigations and outcomes of the proposed Murray River Council Riverfront Development Strategy identified for action in Priority 2.

EX.17

Council wide

Theme 3

Environment, heritage & climate change

“…Heritage NSW supports many of the initiatives in Murray River Council’s LSPS, including:

· celebrating and promoting heritage by facilitating events that enable local communities and

· visitors an opportunity to connect with the area and its heritage

· the proposed listing of the ‘Old Moama’ heritage conservation area under Council’s Local

· Environmental Plan (LEP)

· conserving Council owned heritage assets and consider adaptive reuse where appropriate,

· and reviewing Plans of Management and Conservation Plans for Council’s heritage assets

· partnering with Local Aboriginal Land Councils and Aboriginal community groups to investigate

· the inclusion of Aboriginal cultural sites into Council’s LEP

· improving engagement and consultation with Local Aboriginal Land Councils and Aboriginal

· community groups regarding development and strategy to protect, avoid or minimize impacts

· on Aboriginal objects and sacred places, and

· updating Council’s LEP heritage schedule and reviewing heritage engagement strategies.

…

Areas we suggest that Council and the Department consider when finalising the LSPS are:

· if the relevant Aboriginal communities and/or groups have not already been consulted about

the content of the LSPS, this should be done prior to the LSPS being finalised

· considering the linkages between culture, heritage and tourism, and the opportunities culture and heritage bring for economic growth

· further articulating heritage as it relates to local character, including potentially identifying

clusters of places and items which contribute to the significant character of the place, and

· considering the linkages between actions and priorities, e.g. the ways in which heritage and

culture contribute to attractive and liveable places, local employment and community wellbeing.

This would help better align Council’s local strategic planning with the Riverina Murray Regional Plan, specifically Direction 29 – Protect the region’s Aboriginal and historic heritage…”

Noted. The draft LSPS was forwarded directly to the following Local Aboriginal Land Council’s for comment:

• Moama

• Wamba Wamba

• Deniliquin

• Cummeragunja

• Balranald

Noted.

Council will review the draft LSPS prior to adoption to ensure these considerations are addressed.

EX.18

Council wide

Theme 2

Liveable communities

Theme 3

Environment, heritage & climate change

“…Priority 2 statements for achieving the vision should include that Council will ensure only development with essential relationship with the river is in or on land adjacent to the River Murray, with other development set well back from the bank of the river.

Priority 7 statements for achieving the vision should include that Council will protect and enhance the riverine landscape by maintaining native vegetation along the riverbank and adjacent land…”

The comments are noted. As noted in the LSPS, development of land adjoining or near the riverfront must be balanced against the environmental, social, and economic value of the river system. Any strategy to develop riverfront land will reflect the investigations and outcomes of the proposed Murray River Council Riverfront Development Strategy, and will include consideration of the comments provided by this agency.

EX.19

Council wide

Theme 1 Economy

Theme 2 Liveable

communities

Generally supportive of Priority 1 and proposed rural strategies, but notes that sufficient water supply for the Tooleybuc almond industry precinct is unresolved.

Other proposed strategies for residential, economic and commercial should be designed to avoid areas of high agricultural value.

Recommended release areas for rural living should avoid identified productive lands.

The suggested investigations into water security for Tooleybuc almond industry are noted and will be followed up as part of Action 1.6 (facilitate outcomes of the Tooleybuc Master Plan).

As noted throughout Priority 1 and those subsequent actions, Council will strive to protect our prime productive agricultural land from conflicting land uses which may undermine the viability of the land to support productive agriculture. Priority 2 commits Council to the appropriately locating residential housing expansion to avoid areas considered important productive agricultural land.

EX.20

Council wide

Theme 1

Economy

The applicable agency “…has reviewed the Murray River Council Draft LSPS and notes mineral and extractive resources have not been specifically addressed in this document. However, the LSPS is aligned with the Riverina Murray Regional Plan, which recognises the importance of extractive industries in future land use planning within the Murray River Council Region. Accordingly, (Agency name) has no concerns with the draft LSPS…”.

Noted. As noted within the Environment & Resource lands section of the Draft (page 21):

“…There are also mineral resources within our area which are extracted for use in the construction industry, roadworks and farming operations, however these areas are not of significant size…”

Any proposals within the mineral and extractive resources mapped area of MRC will be considered on its merits in relation to cumulative impact.

MAP PINS
Ref	Locality	Submission maker comments	Council comments
PIN.1	Moama	“What I like/want to keep” Map Pin category Perricoota Road “… We love the playing fields along Perricoota Road, Moama. They are very well utilised...”	Noted. Council strives to provide high quality public and recreation spaces for the social and economic benefit of communities.
PIN.2	Murray Downs	“What I would like to change” Map Pin category 38 Swan Hill Road “…Opposite the Federal Hotel - Roadside needs spraying. Suckling trees are growing everywhere especially on the walking track and the pine posts are broken…	Forwarded on to the relevant department in Council for Action.
PIN.3	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category Boat Ramp	Council will be creating strategy as part of Themes 1, 2 and 3 regarding development of river frontage for commercial and public recreation purposes. Development of land adjoining or near the riverfront must be balanced against the environmental, social, and economic value of the river system. These suggested projects will be evaluated against these considerations. Any strategy to develop riverfront land will reflect the investigations and outcomes of the proposed Murray River Council Riverfront Development Strategy. The LSPS aims to provide recreation and open space that is responsive to the changing needs of the community in a manner which reflects the character of its setting. This is also an opportunity to review or create masterplans for recreation areas. The locations suggested in this pin submissions can be considered at the time these recreation plans and projects are considered. These plans will be open for public consultation at the time they are formulated with suitable opportunity for the community to provide more detailed input. Requests to upgrade existing services (such as walking tracks etc.) have been passed on to Council’s engineering Department for immediate consideration.
PIN.4	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category 3 Kidman Reid Drive Park with playground equipment. BBQ. Big enough area to kick a football and play games
PIN.5	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category Community shed/venue to hold fitness/yoga classes. Can be temporary used as a community hall/venue
PIN.6	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category Parking area for boat ramp
PIN.7	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category 3 Kidman Reid Drive Parking area for the park area
PIN.8	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category 1 Murray Downs Drive Recreation Reserve
PIN.9	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category 1 Murray Downs Drive Stadium
PIN.10	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category 1 Murray Downs Drive Gym
PIN.11	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category 150 Swan Hill Road Fuel station with convenience store	The new Swan Hill bridge crossing presents significant opportunities for new services, facilities, and economic development. Investigations will be carried out through the Employment Land Strategy, and commercial / industrial expansion master plans in the incoming MRC Land Use Strategy.
PIN.12	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category 150 Swan Hill Road Truck interchange
PIN.13	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category Java Spice, 17 Beveridge Street Caravan Park
PIN.14	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category 37 Swan Hill Road, Murray Downs Retirement village	The LSPS advocates for delivery of housing and facilities to cater for our aging population. This site can be investigated for this purpose. This site can be considered at the time those strategies are investigated.
PIN.15	Murray Downs	My big idea” Map Pin category 38 Swan Hill Road Services such as RMS, Police, Council etc	Please see previous comments regarding these matters.
PIN.16	Murray Downs	My big idea” Map Pin category Riverside park, Monash Drive Restaurant on the river	See previous comments regarding development of MRC Riverfront Development Strategy.
PIN.17	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category 40 Swan Hill Road Housing	As noted in the Priority 4, Actions 4.1 – 4.5 of the LSPS will investigate and update the current residential supply and demand data and reflect these outcomes in housing strategies throughout Murray River Council. The delivery of housing supply in Murray Downs will be investigated as part of these strategies, and the locations indicated by these “Pins” for the expansion of housing will be considered at that time. Strategies for the supply of housing will be subject to further pubic consultation.
PIN.18	Murray Downs	“What I’d like to change” Map Pin category 64 Noorong Road, Murray Downs Wastewater Treatment Ponds extended	Council are in the process of conducting a detailed strategic review of all Council owned and managed infrastructure to understand the current usage and capacity to accommodate growth. This will include an evaluation of water and sewer infrastructure, road infrastructure, recreational assets, open spaces, community facilities, and cemeteries. These investigations will inform the incoming Murray River Council Integrated Water Cycle Management Plan, Asset Management Strategy, and long term plans of management.
PIN.19	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category 64 Noorong Road, Murray Downs Green Waste Site	Council are currently reviewing the way we collect, transport, process, recycle and dispose of our household and commercial waste. Council will investigate the appropriate areas for environmentally sensitive/innovative waste management services (including current and future sites), taking into consideration current and future commodity markets, and the demand of waste/recycling management services across the LGA to support our communities. Council is in the process of finalising a number of waste management strategies and plans to inform how this will occur in the short and long term. Murray Downs will be taken into consideration as part of these strategies.
PIN.20	Murray Downs	‘My big idea’ Map Pin category 197 Swan Hill Road, Murray Downs New Industrial Area	Priority 3 identifies issues with inadequate bridge infrastructure hindering commercial and industrial activity in Murray Downs. However the new bridge crossing presents significant opportunities for new industrial land release. This will be investigated as identified in Action 3.4, planned in the Employment Lands Strategy (Action 3.1) and then reflected in the incoming MRC Land Use Strategy and LEP (Actions 3.2 & 3.5).
PIN.21	Murray Downs	‘My big idea’ Map Pin category 51 Swan Hill Road, Murray Downs Coffee shop or store	As identified in the LSPS, Council aims to investigate how and where business attraction can be accommodated in our towns These investigations will be actioned (3.4) and inform the Employment Lands Strategy (3.1), the MRC Land Use Strategy (3.5) and the incoming LEP (3.2).
PIN.22	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category Cygnet Lane, Murray Downs New Housing estate	As noted in the Priority 4, Actions 4.1 – 4.5 of the LSPS will investigate and update the current residential supply and demand data and reflect these outcomes in housing strategies throughout Murray River Council. The delivery of housing supply in Murray Downs will be investigated as part of these strategies, and the locations indicated by these “Pins” for the expansion of housing will be considered at that time. Strategies for the supply of housing will be subject to further pubic consultation.
PIN.23	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category New Housing estate (no available address)
PIN.24	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category 51 Swan Hill Road, Murray Downs New Housing estate
PIN.25	Murray Downs	“What I would like to change” Map Pin category 51 Swan Hill Road Roadside vegetation needs to be cut and tidied up from the bridge to the 80 km/h sign both sides of the road. Remove all of the build up dead branches along the road	Noted. This matter will be raised with the relevant department within Council for discussion.
PIN.26	Murray Downs	“What I’d like to change” Map Pin category 5 Murray Downs Drive Extend the Wastewater Treatment Plant	Council are in the process of conducting a detailed strategic review of all Council owned and managed infrastructure to understand the current usage and capacity to accommodate growth. This will include an evaluation of water and sewer infrastructure, road infrastructure, recreational assets, open spaces, community facilities, and cemeteries. These investigations will inform the incoming Murray River Council Integrated Water Cycle Management Plan, Asset Management Strategy, and long term plans of management.
PIN.27	Murray Downs	“My bid idea” Map Pin category Murray Downs Drive Council yard with a permanent Council staff member	Noted. This matter will be raised with the relevant department within Council for discussion.
PIN.28	Moulamein	“What I would like to change” Map Pin category Murray Street, Moulamein “…This parcel of land contains 7 land owners, along with land that is owned by council. We have wanted to subdivide our 14 acres into 2, 7 acre lots, that already contain 2 homes and both have river frontage. We have needed to do this for the past 20 years, however the way the LEP has been structured over the years it hasn't allowed this to happen. We are needing the shire to be aware of the situation that the past LEP struction [sic] have left us in, unable to subdivide because of size lots. We already have 2 established homes on this one title, why is it so hard for that land to become 2 titles…”	These comments are noted. These comments will be considered as part of Council’s investigation into rural land use, rural housing and subsequent strategies regarding housing provision. As noted in the LSPS, development of land adjoining or near the riverfront must be balanced against the environmental, social, and economic value of the river system. This site will be evaluated against these considerations. Any strategy to develop riverfront land will reflect the investigations and outcomes of the proposed Murray River Council Riverfront Development.
PIN.29		“What I would like to change” Map Pin category Murray Street, Moulamein This particular road is all wrong. It starts out as Tuppin St, it simply rounds a bend and then rounds another bend. Why does it have 2 different names on here, and yet to drive down this dirt rd, it actually has 3. The longer rd that I have place the heart on, has a street sign saying Jebb St. Very confusing when in fact Jebb st is the other side of the Billabong Creek, heading north on the map, and the numbers do not coincide with house numbers	Noted. This matter will be raised with the relevant department within Council for discussion.
PIN.30	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category Boat Ramp installation and fishing pontoon/platform	See previous comments regarding infrastructure projects within Murray Downs.
PIN.31	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category Car Park
PIN.32	Moulamein	“My big idea” Map Pin category Murray Street, Moulamein. “…The whole of this bend needs to be able to be sub divided into lifestyle blocks, min 5 acres to 10 / 20 acres per block…”	These comments are noted. These comments will be considered as part of Council’s investigation into housing provision. As noted in the Priority 4, Actions 4.1 – 4.5 of the LSPS will investigate and update the current residential supply and demand data and reflect these outcomes in housing strategies throughout Murray River Council. Development of land adjoining or near the riverfront must be balanced against the environmental, social, and economic value of the river system. These sites will be evaluated against these considerations. Any strategy to develop riverfront land will reflect the investigations and outcomes of the proposed Murray River Council Riverfront Development.
PIN.33	Moulamein	“What I would like to change” Map Pin category 31 Gwynne Street, Moulamein. “…The whole of this bend needs to be able to be sub divided into lifestyle blocks, min 5 acres to 10 / 20 acres per block…”
PIN.34	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category Boat Ramp	See previous comments regarding infrastructure projects within Murray Downs.
PIN.35	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category Car Park and Playground/BBQ area
PIN.36	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category 22 Murray Downs Drive Lights on the walking track
PIN.37	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category 150 Swan Hill Road Extend the asphalt walking track to the bridge
PIN.38	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category 150 Swan Hill Road Beautify the Entrance
PIN.39	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category Boat ramp
PIN.40	Barham	“My big idea” Map Pin category 46 Gonn Street Indoor basketball stadium	Council will be creating strategy as part of Themes 1, 2 and 3 regarding development of river frontage for commercial and public recreation purposes. Development of land adjoining or near the riverfront must be balanced against the environmental, social, and economic value of the river system. This site will be evaluated against these considerations. Any strategy to develop riverfront land will reflect the investigations and outcomes of the proposed Murray River Council Riverfront Development Strategy. The LSPS aims to provide recreation and open space that is responsive to the changing needs of the community in a manner which reflects the character of its setting. This is also an opportunity to review or create masterplans for recreation areas. The locations suggested in this pin submissions can be considered at the time these recreation plans and projects are considered. These plans will be open for public consultation at the time they are formulated with suitable opportunity for the community to provide more detailed input.
PIN.41	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category Reserve/bbq/playground on river frontage with boat ramp for the community to access the river, give the community an area to gather and attract others to our community
PIN.42	Murray Downs	“My big idea” Map Pin category 1 Murray Downs Drive Extend the sealed walking/bike track into Swan Hill and beautify the entrances to Murray Downs and the estate to showcase our community	Noted. This has been passed onto the relevant Department within Council for consideration.
PIN.43	Barham	“My big idea” Map Pin category 124 East Barham Road, Barham “…Any future proposal to rezone the Lakes complex to residential should not be supported by Council given there is already 60+ years supply of residential land available in Barham. Council should work with the BDSM club board to identify suitable alternative uses for the site that deliver a public benefit and maximise tourism and economic development opportunities for the town...”	These comments are noted. These comments will be considered as part of Council’s investigation into housing provision. As noted in the Priority 4, Actions 4.1 – 4.5 of the LSPS will investigate and update the current residential supply and demand data and reflect these outcomes in housing strategies throughout Murray River Council. Development of land adjoining or near the riverfront must be balanced against the environmental, social, and economic value of the river system. These sites will be evaluated against these considerations. Any strategy to develop riverfront land will reflect the investigations and outcomes of the proposed Murray River Council Riverfront Development Strategy.
PIN.44	Barham	“My big idea” Map Pin category 6 Cobwell Street, Barham “…Any future proposal to rezone the bowling club to residential should not be supported by Council. This is a strategic site that presents an opportunity to establish a destination dining experience or tourism precinct overlooking the Murray River…”
PIN.45	Barham	“My big idea” Map Pin category Grigg Road Nature based playground / water play park –	See previous comments regarding infrastructure projects townships.
PIN.46	Barham	‘My big idea’ Map Pin category 6788 Moulamein Road, Barham “…Facilitate light industrial / business park fronting Moulamein Road…”	As identified in the LSPS, Council aims to investigate how and where business attraction can be accommodated in Barham (and surrounds) with the growth of industries supporting agri-business and manufacturing flagged as a key opportunity for the township. These investigations will be actioned (3.4) and inform the Employment Lands Strategy (3.1), the MRC Land Use Strategy (3.5) and the incoming LEP (3.2).
PIN.47	Murray Downs	My big idea’ Map Pin category Boat Ramp	See previous comments regarding infrastructure projects townships.
PIN.48	Murray Downs	My big idea’ Map Pin category BMX bike track for children
PIN.49	Murray Downs	My big idea’ Map Pin category Car park and BBQ area
PIN.50	Murray Downs	My big idea’ Map Pin category 3 Kidman Reid Drive Playground with big area to play sport and kick a ball. Basketball/netball court.
PIN.51	Barham	My big idea’ Map Pin category Punt Road Like to see the this frontage area opened up to the community - currently feels like you are trespassing and the walking track along the River is not accessible due to the cabins being right on edge of riverbank	Council will be creating strategy as part of Themes 1 2 and 3 regarding development of river frontage for commercial and public recreation purposes. Development of land adjoining or near the riverfront must be balanced against the environmental, social, and economic value of the river system. This site will be evaluated against these considerations. Any strategy to develop riverfront land will reflect the investigations and outcomes of the proposed Murray River Council Riverfront Development. The LSPS aims to provide recreation and open space that is responsive to the changing needs of the community in a manner which reflects the character of its setting. This is also an opportunity to review or create masterplans for recreation areas. The locations suggested in this pin submissions can be considered at the time these recreation plans and projects are considered. These plans will be open for public consultation at the time they are formulated with suitable opportunity for the community to provide more detailed input.
PIN.52	Barham	My big idea’ Map Pin category 124 East Barham Road Perhaps part of the Club Lake area could be used for the Council caravan park (enhanced walking access back to town needed) and an area could be for RVs
PIN.53	Mathoura	“My big idea” Map Pin category Mathoura Growth of the 45yo Not-For-Profit, Gulpa Creek Community Farm from the current 8 dwelling hamlet into a formalised sustainable Eco-Village which could seek permits of up to a maximum of 30 residences/workers accommodations. This would allow diversified use of the Class 4 Land Capability (moderate to severe limitation, requiring high to specialised farming skill) and support the regenerative agricultural use of the RU1 (primary agricultural production) zoned land, ancillary small businesses, re-vegetation, agro-forestry, stewardship of the local forest and contribution to the local economy through tourism and trade	Council will be investigating the merits of this proposal in the consideration of housing, farming and tourism products for Mathoura and surrounds. The LSPS identifies aspirations to create more sustainable communities, with an aim to investigate and support eco village style setting where appropriate, See discussion and actions throughout the LSPS relating to agriculture, tourism, business, and environment.
PIN.54	Duplicate of Pin 53
PIN.55	Mathoura	“My bid idea” Map Pin category Green Waste Recycling & Landscape Supplies	Council are currently reviewing the way we collect, transport, process, recycle and dispose of our household and commercial waste. Council will investigate the appropriate areas for environmentally sensitive/innovative waste management services (including current and future sites), taking into consideration current and future commodity markets, and the demand of waste/recycling management services across the LGA to support our communities. Council is in the process of finalising a number of waste management strategies and plans to inform how this will occur in the short and long term. Murray Downs will be taken into consideration as part of these strategies.
PIN.56	Mathoura	“My big idea” Map Pin category 602 Clifton Street, Mathoura There is a need to create low maintenance affordable housing/accommodation (Multi-Dwelling) to assist in future population growth of Mathoura ie; where possible by Council and/or as previously recommended by implementing the recommendations of Department of Planning & Environment (email dated 8/8/2016 – Jenna McNabb) following a Council decision to support in their meeting of 3/3/2015 in as to engage in rezoning (ie; to RU5) into the overarching review of Council’s Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP). This will also have a positive impact on our local economy and employment. Current local businesses will reap rewards from this and new businesses will be created from demand of growth out of necessity. Mathoura does have the potential for growth similar to Moama if properly supported by our Council as it already has established itself in Tourism over time with approx 2000 plus visitors to our town every holiday period mostly located at Picnic Point but they do spend valuable tourist dollars in our town. The fact that we now have a very viable Function / Eatery venue recently established at Picnic Point (Timbercutters) attest to this fact. Our Club over the years has regularly received accolades for its services and facilities which is a testament in itself as some other local towns who have a larger population base do not possess a Club. Mathoura can become a very viable hub for the Murray Council if given the opportunity and support from Council and State Government /DPE. The time to act is now for the future of our town, our families/children and the wider community	Council will be creating housing strategy (see Action 4.1-4.5 of Priority 4) to identify and plan for housing growth, supply and density and this site specific proposal will be considered at that time. Priority 4 of the LSPS acknowledges that we need to provide suitable housing variety for our aging population and flags that there have been interest in the provision of retirement villages and aged care facilities within Moama, Barham and Mathoura. To achieve our vision, key actions of the LSPS are to deliver housing choice with varying densities and forms to meet the varying needs of our changing demographics. Multi dwelling housing can be investigated as part of our housing strategy.
PIN.57	Duplicate of Pin 56
PIN.58	Barham	“My big idea” Map Pin category 124 East Barham Road, Barham Potential fish breeding facility/education centre, barbie boat mooring and festivals/events (on Riverfront)	Council will be creating strategy as part of Themes 1, 2 and 3 regarding development of river frontage for commercial and public recreation purposes. Development of land adjoining or near the riverfront must be balanced against the environmental, social, and economic value of the river system. This site will be evaluated against these considerations. Any strategy to develop riverfront land will reflect the investigations and outcomes of the proposed Murray River Council Riverfront Development Strategy.
PIN.59	Barham	‘My big idea’ Map Pin category 6 Cobwell Street, Barham Potential restaurant overlooking river	Council will be creating strategy as part of Themes 1, 2 and 3 regarding development of river frontage for commercial and public recreation purposes. Development of land adjoining or near the riverfront must be balanced against the environmental, social, and economic value of the river system. This site will be evaluated against these considerations. Any strategy to develop riverfront land will reflect the investigations and outcomes of the proposed Murray River Council Riverfront Development Strategy.
PIN.60	Barham	‘What I like / want to keep’ Map Pin category 14 Beet Lane, Barham Protection of native vegetation	Noted. The LSPS advocated for the protection of environment. Please see Theme 3, Priority 7.
PIN.61	Barham	“What I would like to change” Map Pin category Barham Review river setbacks. A 100m setback distance is illogical given existing rural dwellings in this area are all located within 30-40m of the river	As noted in the LSPS, development of land adjoining or near the riverfront must be balanced against the environmental, social, and economic value of the river system. Any strategy to develop riverfront land will reflect the investigations and outcomes of the proposed Murray River Council Riverfront Development Strategy identified for action in Priority 2. Subsequent amendment of the LEP will be informed by this strategy.
PIN.62	Barham	‘My big idea’ Map Pin category 5 Gonn Road, Barham Potential future heavy industrial precinct	As identified in the LSPS, Council aims to investigate how and where business attraction can be accommodated in Barham (and surrounds). These investigations will be actioned (3.4) and inform the Employment Lands Strategy (3.1), the MRC Land Use Strategy (3.5) and the incoming LEP (3.2).
PIN.63	Barham	‘What I would like to change’ Map Pin category 124 East Barham Road, Barham Investigate suitability for commercial mooring	As noted in the LSPS, development of land adjoining or near the riverfront must be balanced against the environmental, social, and economic value of the river system. These sites will be evaluated against these considerations. Any strategy to develop riverfront land will reflect the investigations and outcomes of the proposed Murray River Council Riverfront Development Strategy (Action 2.2).
PIN.64	Barham	‘What I would like to change’ Map Pin category 124 East Barham Road, Barham Fish farm / recreational fishing & events space
PIN.65	Barham	‘My big idea’ Map Pin category 6 Cobwell Street, Barham Potential brewery / restaurant overlooking river
PIN.66	Moama	“My big idea” Map Pin category 472 Perricoota Road, Moama I would like to action development on my land when available to APPROX 4000 sq meter lots. We have Myall Rd already off Perricoota Rd as entry and I'm following up on submissions already presented to council over the last 5 years	Council will be creating housing strategy (see Action 4.1-4.5 of Priority 4) to identify and plan for housing growth, supply and density. Perricoota Road is the current preferred growth corridor for Moama and this site specific proposal will be considered on its merits at the time the housing strategy is drafted.
PIN.67	Barham	“My big idea” Map Pin category 6 Cobwell Street This area should not be turned in to residential housing. There are no waterfront restaurants for the whole of the Murray River and this is the perfect site for one. This would be an absolute draw card for our town and should remain as a key asset. I would love to see this as a boutique restaurant showcasing local produce! Please don't let this be rezoned!	Noted. Council will be creating strategy as part of Themes 1, 2, and 3 regarding development of river frontage. Such development must be balanced against the environmental, social, and economic value of the river system. This site will be evaluated against these considerations. Any strategy to develop riverfront land will reflect the investigations and outcomes of the proposed Murray River Council Riverfront Development. The LSPS advocates for opportunities to showcase a whole a river experience for the economic benefit of towns.
PIN.68	Barham	“My big idea” Map Pin category 6 Cobwell Street The bowls club is in an excellent location. I do not support re-zoning the location to residential. There is unlimited potential for an outstanding community asset!
PIN.69	Barham	“My big idea” Map Pin category 6 Cobwell Street This would be an excellent space for a water front restaurant or to leave as the bowls club or for a gallery!
PIN.70	Barham	“What I would like to change” Map Pin category 124 East Barham Road It would be great if this could be maintained as a parkland. It is currently an eye-sore. A lot of people walk/run/ride around it in its current state and I think with a small amount of maintenance, people would use it a lot more!	Noted. The LSPS aims to provide recreation and open space that is responsive to the changing needs of the community in a manner which reflects the character of its setting. This is also an opportunity to review or create masterplans for recreation areas.
PIN.71	Mathoura	“My big idea” Map Pin category 5094 Cobb Highway "Future roadside outlet for on farm manufactured educational products, farm produce, red gum souvenirs and coffee shop. Also acting as a cultural exchange for Long Paddock and tourism themes. Development application approved, construction certificate in progress."	Noted.
PIN.72	Duplicate of PIN.71
PIN.73
PIN.74
PIN.75

Q & A submission

Ref.

Matters raised by submission

Response to submission

QA.1

Re your LSPS Final Draft; Planning priorities, Theme 2, Priority 4 - Achieving our vision : dot point 4 _ Develop a housing strategy which Considers, evaluates and incorporates (where appropriate ) the Moama...MNWM, the Moama....MRRS and the EXISTING SLUP plans for former Murray Shire and former Wakool Shire. I am getting very nervous!! You want develop a strategy using EXISTING SLUP plans from former Shires. We are supposed to be moving forward, not stagnating on a ridiculous LEP. Please allay my fears !!!!

Thank you for your question. MRC acknowledges that not all of the content from existing strategies and LEP’s are working for the community, nor Council for that matter. This is why we included the “where appropriate” comment in the LSPS as you’ve rightly indicated.

If you have specific or particular issues with the existing strategies that inform the direction of the LSPS, we would love to see them, so please make a submission!

(Posted on the Your Say Portal)

Staff will now be reflecting the relevant changes identified as a result of consultation (where appropriate) into the Final LSPS document. To improve readability and visual aesthetic, the final LSPS will be professionally edited and be subject to graphic redesign in the coming weeks. The final version of the LSPS will be presented to the June 2020 Council meeting for consideration and adoption.

Attachments

Nil

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

26 May 2020

8.4.4 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

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.

The matter was therefore heard at Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 28 April 2020. 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) were requested to provide a short 3 minute video outlining their comments in order for the Council to consider. All parties had an opportunity to do such, with two submission makers providing a video submission, which were watched in the Public Forum held prior to the Council Meeting.

It is also noted that the proponent 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.

The motion brought to the Council at Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 28 April 2020 outlined:

Motion

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.

The MOTION lapsed for want of a mover and seconder.

As the Motion lapsed, Council officers sought independent legal advice on the matter and has determined that Council has not made a decision on the subject DA. This situation is a risk to Council, as the statutory timeframe for Council to determination this application has now lapsed (deemed a refusal). Failure for council to make a decision on this application could lead to Council being challenged in the Land and Environment Court which could result in significant legal costs against the Council.

The matter is therefore required to be decided upon at this Council Meeting (May 2020). It is noted no other part of the previous report or recommendation has been altered from the Ordinary Meeting held 28 April 2020, with the exception that the Submissions Table has been updated due to additional responses from Agencies being received.

See 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 Objections. No conditions were imposed.
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 Objections. No conditions were imposed..
WaterNSW	No objections.
Victorian Department of Planning, Environment, Land and Water	No response received.
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.

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

26 May 2020

8.4.5 Development Application 10.2013.115.2 (DA 115/13 Amendment One) - Construction of Dwelling House

File Number: -

Author: Christopher O'Brien, Senior Town Planner

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

Applicant: Planright Surveying

Owner: Genevieve Susan Canfield

Proposal: Amendment One: Construction of Dwelling House
Details of Amendment One: Amendment of structure from manufactured home to a building (dwelling house), and reduction of setback from bank of Murray River from 100m to 80m

Location: Lot 1, DP851678, 3 Forbes Street, Moama

Recommendation

That Development Application 10.2013.115.2 (DA 115/13 Amendment One) for the construction of a dwelling house on Lot 1, DP851678, 3 Forbes Street, Moama, be refused modified development consent, due to the following reasons:

1. The application is inconsistent with Clause 7.4 ‘Development on river front areas’ of the Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Murray LEP 2011), as the dwelling is proposed to be setback 80m from the Murray River, instead of the required 100m.

2. The proposal does not comply with Clause 4.2A ‘Erection of dwelling houses on land in certain rural and environmental protection zones’ of the Murray LEP 2011 for the following reasons:

(a) The subject site is below the minimum lot size as specified for that land by the Lot Size Map (120 hectares), and

(b) The application does not comply with Clause 4.2A (3)(d) as the land had ceased to be an existing holding at the time of lodgement of the original application.

The development is therefore inconsistent with the particular objective of Clause 4.2A to prevent unplanned rural residential development.

The resulting non-compliance results in the development not satisfying Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act).

3. The application is inconsistent with Clause 14 ‘Building setbacks—special provisions’ of the Murray Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Riverine Land (Murray REP2) as the dwelling is proposed to be setback 80m from the Murray River.

4. The proposal is deficient in respect of information supplied in relation to flood hazard applicable to the subject land. As a consequence, the application:

(a) is inconsistent with Clause 7.8(3) of the Murray LEP 2011 resulting in the development not satisfying Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Act; and

(b) does not provide sufficient justification so as to adequately address Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Act as to the suitability of the site for the development.

5. The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the Murray Development Control Plan 2012 (Murray DCP 2012) Chapter 11 - Flood Prone Land and in particular Table 1. The resulting non-compliance results in the development not satisfying Section 4.15(3A) of the Act.

Background

Development Application 10.2013.115.1 (DA 115/13) for the installation of a manufactured home to be used as a dwelling house on the subject site was approved by Council at its Ordinary Meeting held Tuesday 17 July 2018. The subject site of the development is Lot 1 DP 851678, known as 3 Forbes Street, Moama.

The report which was heard by Council recommended the DA be refused for a number of reasons, however the Council resolved to approve the development subject to conditions of consent. A copy of the Council Meeting Agenda and Minutes from the Ordinary Meeting held 17 July 2018, along with a copy of the current approval are attached at the end of this report. The approval is currently issued as a ‘Deferred Commencement’ under Section 4.16 (3) of the Act.

The Proponent has now lodged a modification application which seeks to amend the type of structure from a manufactured home to a building (dwelling house), and reduce the setback of the structure from the bank of the Murray River from 100m to 80m.

The subject modification 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 modification application was not required to be notified to adjoining property owners.

The proposed modified development is inconsistent with the Murray LEP 2011 (specifically Clause 4.2A, Clause 7.4 and Clause 7.8) whilst the application continues to be inconsistent with the Murray DCP 2012.

The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 4.15 and Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and is deemed inconsistent with the requirements. The modified application has the potential to adversely impact upon the riverine environment and continues to be non-compliant with various planning requirements. It is recommended that the proposed modified development be refused in accordance with the original recommendation previously brought to Council.

However, if Council wished to approve this amendment it would be considered based on the previous approval by Council (17 July 2018) for a manufactured home to be developed on the site, with the opportunity for an improved structure to be on site (a dwelling house), with no significant environmental impacts. Acknowledging that the reduced riverfront setback would still not be addressed.

Discussion

Please see below assessment report outlining the subject application and assessment against Section 4.15 and Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Subject Site

The site subject to this development application is located at 3 Forbes Street MOAMA 2731 on Lot: 1 DP: 851678. Land size is 5807 m². The subject land is an irregular shaped parcel of land situated at the south western intersection of Forbes Street and Ward Street. The site is zoned E3 Environmental Management, and is mapped as Murray Regional Environmental Plan – Riverine Land, Bush Fire Prone Land, Flood Prone Land (High Hazard Floodway), Terrestrial Biodiversity (Native Vegetation), and Wetlands. The site is located within the NSW State significant Heritage Conservation Area known as ‘Moama historic precinct’ (Item No. C1). The land is not mapped as an Urban Release Area, Contaminated Land, RAMSAR Wetlands, or Key Fish Habitat. Apart from a shipping container, a portable toilet block and a small brick shed the land is otherwise vacant. See Figure 1 for more information.

Figure 1 – Aerial photograph of subject site. Subject site marked by black star. (Photo taken 7 Nov 2015)

Proposal

The Applicant seeks consent to amend the approval by altering the subject structure from a manufactured home to a building (dwelling house), and reduce setback of the structure from the bank of the Murray River from 100m to 80m. Please see below figures for more information.

Figure 2 – Submitted site plan

Figure 3 – Submitted Elevations

Statutory Assessment Process

2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 1.3 Objects

Comment: The original assessment report outlined the following in relation to the Objects of the Act:

“Having regard to the following report it is questionable whether the proposed development is consistent with relevant objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the “Act”) including the following:

(a) to promote the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment by the proper management, development and conservation of the State’s natural and other resources,

(h) to promote the proper construction and maintenance of buildings, including the protection of the health and safety of their occupants”,

It is considered that the proposed modified development does not alter this assessment.

Section 1.7 Application of Part 7 of Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of Fisheries Management Act 1994

Comment: The Applicant has confirmed no vegetation is required to be removed. It is therefore considered that the proposed modified development will not have a significant effect on the terrestrial and aquatic environment, threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats. As the Applicant confirmed no vegetation is required to be removed, the modified 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 land is mapped as bushfire prone. The Applicant has provided a Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) Risk Application which outlines the dwelling is to be constructed with a BAL rating of 29. The modified application was referred to NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) for comment. RFS provided correspondence outlining they did not concur with the submitted BAL rating of 29, however did not object to the granting of modified consent subject to conditions.

Section 4.15 Evaluation

Comment: This report provides the necessary review and evaluation of the modified development application. See below.

Section 4.46 What is “integrated development”?

Comment: The original application was classed as Integrated Development with Heritage Council of NSW. The modified application was therefore referred to Heritage Council of NSW under Clause 120 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (the Regulations). The Heritage Council of NSW did not object to the granting of modified consent subject to conditions.

Section 4.55 Modification of consents—generally

(1A) Modifications involving minimal environmental impact
A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

Consideration	Comment
(a) it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and	Council is not satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact. The submitted amendment seeks to reduce the approved setback of the structure from 100m to 80m. This request is inconsistent with Clause 7.4 ‘Development on river front areas’ of the Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011, whilst Council’s legal advice outlines the setback distance is a standard which cannot be varied.
(b) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and	It is considered that the proposed modified development is substantially the same as the original development.
(c) it has notified the application in accordance with: (i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or (ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and	The modified application was notified in accordance with the Regulations and Chapter 12 of Council’s Development Control Plan.
(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be. Subsections (1), (2) and (5) do not apply to such a modification.	All submissions have been considered during this assessment.

2.2 Contributions

Section 7.11 (formally Section 94) Development Contributions are not required.

Section 7.12 (formally Section 94A) Levy Development Contributions are required.

Section 64 contributions are not required.

Town Planning Assessment

Assessment of the modified 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

(a) the provisions of:

(i) any environmental planning instrument, 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

3.2.1 Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 Preliminary

Clause 1.2 Aims of Plan

Comment: The original assessment against this clause outlined the following:

“Having regard to the following report it is questionable whether the proposed development is consistent with relevant aims of Murray LEP 2011 including the following:

(a) to encourage sustainable economic growth and development within Murray,

(c) to identify, protect, conserve and enhance Murray’s natural assets,

(f) to encourage and focus growth in the Moama and Mathoura townships”,

The proposed modified development does not alter this assessment.

Clause 1.9A Suspension of covenants, agreements and instruments

Noted: 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

Zone: E3 Environmental Management

Objectives of zone

• To protect, manage and restore areas with special ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values.

• To provide for a limited range of development that does not have an adverse effect on those values.

Comment: It is considered that the proposed reduction of setback from 100m to 80m to the Murray River is unlikely to protect the subject development site and is therefore inconsistent with the objectives of the zone.

Part 3 Exempt and complying development

Comment: Not applicable.

Part 4 Principal development standards

Clause 4.2A Erection of dwelling houses on land in certain rural and environmental protection zones

Comment: The original assessment outlined that the proposal does not comply with this clause. See original assessment attached. The proposed modification therefore continues to be inconsistent with this clause (with the exception of the manufactured home classification which is addressed by the proposed amendment to construct a building instead).

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

Comment: Council’s legal advice outlines that the required 100m setback from the Murray River as outlined in Clause 7.4 of the Murray LEP 2011 is unable to be varied under Clause 4.6.

Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions

Clause 5.10 Heritage conservation

Comment: The site is located within the NSW State significant Heritage Conservation Area known as ‘Moama historic precinct’ (Item No. C1). The modified Application was therefore referred to Heritage Council of NSW under Clause 120 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (the Regulations). The Heritage Council of NSW did not object to the granting of modified consent subject to conditions.

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

Comment: It is considered that the modified proposal is not specifically inconsistent with the requirements of this clause.

Part 7 Additional local provisions

Clause 7.1 Essential services

*Subclause*	Comment
(a) the supply of water,	Private reticulated water supply is available.
(b) the supply of electricity,	Electricity is available.
(c) the disposal and management of sewage,	The subject land is capable of connection to a private reticulated sewer service.
(d) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,	Able to comply.
(e) suitable road access	Although accessed via Forbes Street this road does not afford flood free access for residents or essential facilities and services.

Clause 7.2 Earthworks

Comment: While no earthworks apart from those associated with building footings would be proposed as a part of this modified application it is observed from the site inspection as well as perusal of Aerial Photography (2010 - 2017 Nearmaps) that there appears to have been some earth forming and possibly filling of part of the subject land.

Clause 7.3 Biodiversity protection

Comment: The land is mapped as Terrestrial Biodiversity. Subclause (3) outlines:

(3) Before determining a development application for development on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must consider whether or not the development:

(a) is likely to have any adverse impact on the condition, ecological value and significance of the fauna and flora on the land, and

(c) has any potential to fragment, disturb or diminish the biodiversity structure, function and composition of the land, and

(d) is likely to have any adverse impact on the habitat elements providing connectivity on the land.

Although the applicant has advised no clearing of vegetation is required, no information to specifically address the decision criteria as outlined at Clause 7.3(3) has been provided. The modified application is therefore considered to be deficient in that regard.

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. The modified proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the clause due to the proposed 80m setback of the dwelling from the Murray River which is prohibited within 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,

(c) environmental protection works,

(d) extensive agriculture and intensive plant agriculture,

(e) environmental facilities and recreation areas,

(f) water recreation structures.

Comment: The modified proposal is prohibited under the terms of Clause 7.4 as it relates to a type of development that is not provided for under clause 7.4(2).

(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,

Comment: As the proposed reduction to river setback is prohibited, the modified proposal therefore does not comply with the requirements of the clause.

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

Comment: Not applicable.

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: The land is mapped as Wetlands. Subclause (3) outlines:

(3) When assessing a development application, the consent authority must consider potential adverse impacts from the proposed development on:

(a) the growth and survival of native flora and fauna, and

(b) the condition and significance of the native flora on the land and whether it should be substantially retained, and

(c) the provision and quality of habitats for indigenous and migratory species, and

(d) the surface and groundwater characteristics of the site, including water quality, natural water flows and salinity, and

(e) any wetland in the vicinity of the proposed development, and any proposed measures to minimise or mitigate those impacts.

The applicant has provided no information to specifically address the decision criteria as outlined at Clause 7.7(3). The application is therefore considered to be deficient in that regard.

Clause 7.8 Flood planning

3.2.2 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: The original assessment outlined the following:

“Given the proximity of the subject land from the high bank of the river it might be argued that the development does nothing to address the aims of REP2 to conserve and enhance the riverine environment of the River Murray.

The subject land is however already cleared and the proposed building site is relatively well screened from the waterway itself so at best the proposal might be regarded as being neutral in this regard”.

The proposed modified development does not alter this assessment.

Clause 3 Objectives of the plan

Comment: Noted.

Part 2 Planning principles

Clause 9 General principles

Comment: The proposed modified development is considered to be not inconsistent with the general principles of this plan. The proposed modified development is unlikely to significantly adversely affect the River Murray.

Clause 10 Specific principles

Comment: The proposed modified development is considered to be not inconsistent with the specific principles of this plan, with the exception of subclauses ‘Flooding’ and ‘Settlement’.

Part 3 Planning requirements and consultation

Clause 13 Planning Control and Consultation Table

Comment: The modified application was not required to be referred under this plan.

Clause 14 Building setbacks—special provisions

(1) Application This clause deals with matters which are to be taken into consideration when—

(a) a consent authority determines a development application, or

(b) a public authority or person proposes to carry out development for which development consent is not required but which has the potential to adversely affect the riverine environment of the River Murray.

Comment: Noted.

(2) Building setback All buildings outside land zoned for urban purposes under a local environmental plan should be set well back from the bank of the River Murray. The only exceptions are buildings dependent on a location adjacent to the River Murray.

Comment: The proposed modified development is inconsistent with this subclause. The reduction of setback from 100m to 80m from the bank of the Murray River is not classed as an exception where the building is dependent on the location.

(3) Objectives of building setback The objectives of siting buildings away from the River Murray are to—

• maintain and improve water quality,

• minimise hazard risk and the redistributive effect on floodwater associated with the erection of buildings on the floodplain,

• protect the scenic landscape of the riverine corridor,

• improve bank stability, and

• conserve wildlife habitat.

Comment: The objectives of the clause are noted.

(4) Matters to be considered When determining the location of a building in relation to the River Murray, in addition to the planning principles the following specific matters should also be considered—

(a) Effluent disposal

(i) it is generally unsuitable to locate septic tanks—

• on flood liable land,

• where the watertable is within 2 metres of the surface,

• in close proximity to a sensitive natural environment,

• if seasonably low evapotranspiration is common, or

• on soils of low permeability,

(ii) septic tanks should only be installed on suitable (ie permeable) soils with absorption areas located as far as possible from the River Murray or other drainage lines,

(iii) in circumstances where septic tanks are unsuitable, package sewage treatment plants or humus closet (dry toilet) systems should be preferred,

(iv) excess stormwater should, where possible, be disposed of on-site away from any septic absorption area.

Comment: Noted.

(b) Landscaping

The visual impact of buildings in the riverine landscape can be lessened by the planting of a variety of appropriate vegetation species. This practice has other advantages in stabilising unstable or eroding banks and providing both habitat for wildlife and a trap for silt, nutrients and other substances which may otherwise enter the river and lead to a deterioration of water quality.

Comment: Noted.

3.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Koala Habitat Protection) 2019

Comment: The subject land is not considered to be core koala habitat or potential core koala habitat.

3.2.4 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 reference to Clause 7 of the SEPP, Council is satisfied that, the land is suitable in its current state for the purpose for which the modified development is proposed to be carried out.

3.2.5 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

Comment: The modified proposal relates to a BASIX affected development. A valid BASIX certificate (1080720S dated 7/03/2020) has been submitted with the application. Plans appear to be consistent with BASIX commitment.

3.2.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

Comment: The proposed modified development cannot be classed as exempt or complying development as it does not meet all of the development requirements.

3.2.7 State Environmental Planning Policy (Primary Production and Rural Development) 2019

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

3.2.8 State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017

Comment: The Applicant has stated no vegetation is required to be removed. It is therefore considered that the proposed modified development is not inconsistent with this Policy.

3.2(a)(ii) Proposed instruments

Comment: There are a number of draft amendments to Murray LEP 2011 that have been the subject of public consultation under the Act. While these draft amendments apply to land within Murray River Council it is noted that none of these Amendments specifically change the provisions affecting the subject land. As a consequence there are no relevant issues identified.

3.2(a)(iii) Any development control plan

Comment: Murray Development Control Plan 2012: Amendment 5 dated 2/2/2016 applies to the modified proposal.

DCP Chapter	Comment
Chapter 2 Residential Development	The modified proposal is not specifically inconsistent with this Chapter.
Chapter 6 Strategic Land Use Plan	The original assessment outlined the following: The proposal relates to a dwelling on E3 zoned land not being land either required for urban expansion or land that is considered to be productive agricultural land. This notwithstanding the proposal can be considered to be inconsistent with the vision of Council for land use planning to ensure that the Shire’s natural environment is carefully managed and that its natural and built assets are protected from inappropriate rural and urban development that would prejudice the agricultural, heritage and urban attributes of the Shire. The proposed modified development does not alter this assessment.
Chapter 9 Vegetation Removal	The applicant has advised that no vegetation is required to be removed.
Chapter 10 Watercourses & Riparian Land	The modified proposal is not specifically inconsistent with this Chapter.
Chapter 11 Flood Prone Land	The original assessment outlined that the proposal does not comply with this chapter. See original assessment attached. The proposed modification therefore continues to be inconsistent with this chapter (with the exception of the manufactured home classification which is addressed by the proposed amendment to construct a building instead).
Chapter 12 Notification Policy	Noted.

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 modified application. It is considered that the proposal 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.

The original assessment outlined the following:

“Comment: The subject land is essentially a small vacant parcel situated adjacent to the Murray River opposite the Echuca Wharf. While there is some scattered development nearby the land on the NSW side, the property itself sits in an otherwise largely undeveloped riverine landscape setting surrounded by riparian forest. This in part forms a basis for the designation of the Heritage Conservation Area opposite the Echuca Wharf.

Given its location as well as the overall characteristics of the immediate locality, the impact upon the riverine environment is considered to be negative. The economic and social impacts are considered to be largely neutral and having no significant influence in determining the application...”

The proposed modified development does not alter this assessment.

3.4(c) The suitability of the site for the development

Comment: The original assessment outlined the following:

“Having regard to site context and existing functions of the subject land it is considered that in sufficient supporting documentation has been provided to demonstrate that the land is suitable for the proposed development”.

The proposed modified development does not alter this assessment.

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

Agency	Response
Heritage Council of NSW	No objections subject to conditions.
NSW RFS	Correspondence received outlining they do not concur with the submitted BAL rating of 29, however did not object to the granting of modified consent subject to conditions.
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment – Biodiversity Conservation Division	No objections, comments received.

Public Submissions

No public submissions were received.

3.6(e) The public interest.

Comment: The public’s interest has been taken into consideration in the assessment of this modified development application. It is considered that the modified proposal may have adverse amenity and/or environmental impacts. As a consequence it is concluded that there is no public benefit associated with the modified proposal.

Conclusion

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.15 & Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and is considered to be non-satisfactory.

Although the proposal is inconsistent with a number of planning requirements, as outlined throughout the report, and is therefore recommended for refusal, Council may consider that the difference between the manufactured home approved and the proposed dwelling in this application may in fact be a better outcome from a planning and environmental perspective. It should also be noted that an existing dwelling is located on the adjacent lot which is actually closer to the river than the proposal. If therefore, Council wished to approve this amendment it would be considered based on the previous approval by Council (17 July 2018) for a manufactured home to be developed on the site, with the opportunity for an improved structure to be on site (a dwelling house), with no significant environmental impacts. Acknowledging that the reduced riverfront setback would still not be addressed.

Attachments

1. DA 115/13 Original Deferred Commencement Consent ⇩

2. Assessment Report of Original DA 115/13 (under separate cover)

3. Original DA 115/13 Resolution - Minutes of MRC Ordinary Meeting held 17 July 2018 ⇩

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

26 May 2020

8.4.6 Development Application 10.2019.284.1 - 368 Lot Torrens Title Subdivision

File Number: -

Author: Gayan Wickramasinghe, Town Planner

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

Applicant: Habitat Planning

Owner: Swedzah Pty Limited and R & M Perry P/L

Proposal: 368 Lot Torrens Title Subdivision, including two public reserves and ancillary earthworks

Location: Lot 11, DP 701453, Beer Road, Moama

Recommendation

1. That the Officer’s report on Development Application 10.2019.284.1 – 368 Lot Torrens Title Subdivision be received and noted by the Council.

2. That approval be granted to Development Application 10.2019.284.1 for 368 Lot Torrens Title Subdivision, including two public reserves and ancillary earthworks on Lot 11, DP701453, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

Background

This report provides an assessment of Development Application (DA) 10.2019.284.1 for a residential subdivision involving 368 residential lots and two public reserves at Lot 11, DP701453, Beer Road, Moama.

As per the Murray River Council adopted ‘Delegated Authority for the Assessment of Development Applications Policy’ (POL400.V1), section 7.2 which outlines that development applications for approval involving substantial aspects of the following elements be referred to the Council for determination:

- When, in the opinion of Council’s Director Planning, Waste and Regulatory Services, the development is significant in its content.

Following public exhibition of the DA from 1 April 2020 to 4 May 2020, Council received seven (7) submissions. Accordingly, this matter is reported to the Council for determination.

Discussion

Subject Site

The site subject to this development application is located at Beer Road Moama 2731 on Lot 11, DP701453. Land size is 58.78 ha. The subject development site is a rectangular shaped allotment and has been historically cleared of vegetation with the exception of a stand of remnant Grey box trees on the southern boundary. The site is zoned R1 General Residential and is mapped as Murray Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Riverine Land. A small proportion of the northern section of the site is mapped as bush fire prone land. The subject development site does not contain any known items of environmental heritage significance.

As per applicant’s documentation, the land has been used for dryland agriculture (cropping and grazing) for many decades. Towards the western end of the northern boundary is a small partially developed residential estate. The subject land has two street frontages with the sealed Twenty Four Land on the western side and the unsealed Beer Road along the southern side. Figures 1 and 2 outline the subject site.

Figure 1 – Locality (Source: ePlanning Spatial Viewer NSW 2019)

Figure 2 – Aerial photograph of subject site. Subject site marked with a yellow polygon.

(Source: Six Maps NSW 2019)

Proposal

The applicant is seeking permission for subdivision of residential land identified as Lot 11 DP 701453 into 368 lots in thirteen stages, lot sizes ranging from 750m² to 999m², 1000m² to 1500m² and above 1500 m². The proposal also includes two public reserves. One reserve is located at the southern boundary of the development site by incorporating the existing vegetation. The other public reserve is proposed as part of the stage 10 subdivision works of the proposed development. As per submitted documentation, access will be gained from both Twenty Four Lane with a second access in Beer Road as part of later stages.

Works required for the subdivision to be carried out include earthworks, internal road construction, and provision and extension of infrastructure services including sewerage, water supply, storm water infrastructure, electricity and telecommunications.

The applicant has also provided the following details to support the application:

1. Plan of proposed subdivision including; Staging Plan, Road Grading Strategy, Servicing Plan and the Drainage Plan,

2. The completed application form

3. An assessment against relevant planning controls

4. Other supporting documents(The Biodiversity Offset Scheme Entry Threshold report (BOSET), Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) search and a revised Traffic Impact Assessment report, Bushfire Assessment Report and a spray drift report)

The proposed subdivision plan is included as Attachment A.

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.

Section 1.7 Application of Part 7 of Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of Fisheries Management Act 1994

Section 4.14 Consultation and development consent—certain bush fire prone land

Comment: As per NSW ePlanning Spatial Viewer, the north eastern corner of the development site is mapped as Bushfire Prone Land. According to the Rural Fires Act 1997 the applicant requires to obtain a bushfire safety authority for the following;

(a) a subdivision of bush fire prone land that could lawfully be used for residential or rural residential purposes…

A Bush Fire Safety Authority (BFSA) is therefore required from the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS). The application is accompanied with a Bush Fire Assessment Report and was referred to RFS seeking general terms of approval.

Section 4.15 Evaluation

Comment: This report provides the necessary review and evaluation of the development application. See below.

Section 4.46 What is “integrated development”?

Comment: The application is classed as Integrated Development with RFS as it requires a separate approval under Rural Fires Act 1997.

2.2 Chronology of events and public notification and statutory referral process.

The below table provides an overview of the timeline with respect to the lodgement and assessment of the application.

Application history/timeline

Application lodged	11/11/2019
Neighbour Notification	01/04/2020 to 04/05/2020
Further information requested	02/12/2019
Further information received	26/03/2020
Site Inspection	18/03/2020

2.3 Referrals and Owners Consent

Internal Referrals	DA Panel Engineering Department Waste Department
External Referrals	NSW EPA Biodiversity Conservation Division of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE BCD) Water NSW Crown Lands - Department of Planning, Industry and Environment Murray Darling Basin Authority NSW Rural Fire Service Natural Resources Access Regulator NSW Department of Primary Industries – Fisheries NSW Department of Primary Industries- Agriculture Transport for NSW (Formally known as RMS)
Advertised	The proposed subdivision is identified as Wetland Subdivision under the REP 02 Murray Regional Environmental Plan No 2- Riverina Land. It is also noted that the proposed development is identified as Integrated Development in accordance with Section 4.46 of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Therefore, the application was advertised in the Riverina Herald on 2 occasions as per Murray DCP 2012 Notification Policy.
Public Notification	The proposed development was notified to adjoining property owners for 30 days in accordance with Murray DCP 2012 Chapter 12 – Notification Policy.
Owners Consent	Provided

2.4 Contributions

Section 7.11 (formerly Section 94) Development Contributions are required. Please refer to the condition section.

Section 7.12 (formerly Section 94A) Levy Development Contributions are not required.

Section 64 contributions are required. Please refer to the condition section.

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

(a) the provisions of:

(i) any environmental planning instrument, 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 will encourage sustainable economic growth and focus growth in the Moama Township. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the aims of 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: R1 General Residential

§ To provide for the housing needs of the community.

§ To provide a variety of housing types and densities.

§ To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day-to-day needs of residents.

§ To avoid potential land use conflict and protect the amenity of residents.

§ To provide for tourist and visitor accommodation in appropriate locations.

Comment: The proposed subdivision is proposed to have different lot sizes within land zoned R1 General Residential. It will provide a variety of housing types and densities. Therefore the proposed residential subdivision is consistent with the objectives of R1 General Residential Zone.

Permissibility

Comment: As per Clause 2.6 of Murray LEP 2011, the proposed Torrens Title Subdivision is permitted with Council consent.

Clause 2.6 Subdivision—consent requirements

Comment: The proposed Torrens Title Subdivision is permissible with Council Consent. It is also noted that the proposed subdivision is not considered to be exempt development. As per Murray LEP 2011, the proposed lots are not less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

Part 4 Principal development standards

Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size

Comment: Lot sizes of the proposed subdivision is on or above 750m², which meet the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

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 DPIE BCD condition regarding protection of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.

Part 6 Urban release areas

Comment: Not applicable

Part 7 Additional local provisions

Clause 7.1 Essential services

*Subclause*	Comment
(a) the supply of water,	As per applicant’s documentation, reticulated water supply will provide as an extension from Council reticulated system. Council’s Engineering Department did not object to this arrangement subject to conditions.
(b) the supply of electricity,	A condition will be imposed stating that prior to release of the subdivision certificate for each stage, the applicant must provide electricity to each allotment. Council’s Engineering Department did not object to this arrangement.
(c) the disposal and management of sewage,	As per applicant’s documentation, reticulated sewer supply will be provided as an extension from Council reticulated system. Council’s Engineering Department did not object to this arrangement subject to conditions.
(d) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,	As per applicant’s documentation, the applicant has proposed retention basins within the development site and is also proposed to direct all storm water generates from the development to the proposed reserve. Council’s Engineering Department did not object to this arrangement subject to conditions.
(e) suitable road access	The proposed development includes two accesses from both Twenty Four Land on the western side and Beer Road along the southern side. The application is also incorporated with a Road Grading Strategy plan. As per plan; each lot will have direct or indirect access to proposed internal roads. It is also noted, that pedestrian pathways are incorporated into the internal road network. The proposed a Road Grading Strategy plan was referred to Council’s Engineering Department. They did not object to the proposal subject to conditions.

Clause 7.2 Earthworks

Comment: During the site inspection, it was revealed that the topography of the proposed development site is flat to gentle slope. It is further noted that the applicant has also proposed a stormwater drainage reserve in the middle of the development site for the management of stormwater across the subject land from the adjoining golf club to Beer Road. These proposed activities will require some minor earth works and site preparation works. It is considered that the proposed earthworks are of a minor nature and will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, existing drainage patterns, neighboring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land. A number of measures to address potential impacts associated with the earthworks will be conditioned with any consent granted. These include measures for dust control and sediment and erosion control.

Clause 7.3 Biodiversity protection

Comment: Not applicable. The subject site is not covered by Council’s biodiversity mapping.

Clause 7.4 Development on river front areas

Comment: Not applicable. The subject land is not classed as a river front area.

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

Comment: Not applicable. The proposed development is not occurring on riparian land.

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: Not applicable.

Clause 7.8 Flood planning

Comment: As per Murray LEP 2011, the subject site is not mapped as flood prone land. However as per 7.8 (2) of Murray LEP 2011, Council still have to consider other land at or below the flood planning level. According to the Moama Floodplain Management Study carried out by the former Murray Shire Council in 2001, more than half of the development site would be inundated during a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) event. However, the subject development site was recently rezoned from RU1- Primary Production to R1 – General Residential. As part of the rezoning process, the planning proposal was referred to then the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) for their respective comment. They initially responded that:

Whilst the site is located within the study area of the Moama Floodplain Management Study (1999) there have been changes to flood risk management policy and practice since 1999 which mean the mapping presented in the study is not consistent with current policy and practice. The Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011 includes flood mapping, however it is understood the basis of those maps is also not consistent with current policy and practice. OEH encourages Council to review and extend their flood study and undertake a Flood Risk Management Study and Plan, to enable more robust assessment of proposals such as this, consistent with current policy.

This rezoning proposal is required to be consistent with the NSW Flood Prone Land Policy and the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005. Council should consider requesting the proponent to undertake a more detailed flood study addressing the requirements of the Flood Prone Land planning directions (section 4. 3) issued under Section 117 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The above response was forwarded on to the applicant and the applicant’s respective response was then forwarded on to OEH who responded that:

As the proposal site is above the 1 in 100 year flood level, we consider that this proposal is compliant with s117 Direction 4.3 for Flood Prone Area.

In light of the above response, Council is satisfied that the development is compatible with flood hazard of the land is not likely to significantly adversely affect flood behavior resulting in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding.

3.2(a)(i)b Murray Regional Environmental Plan No. 2—Riverine Land

Comment: The proposed subdivision is considered consistent with the aims and objectives of the Murray Regional Environmental Plan No. 2, subject to appropriate conditions which will be included in the development consent.

Part 1 Introduction

Clause 2 Aims of the plan

Comment: The proposed 368 Torrens Title subdivision with two public reserves is considered to be consistent with the aims of this plan. The proposed development is unlikely to detrimentally impact upon the riverine environment of the River Murray. In the event that Council approves this application, conditions will be imposed to ensure consistency.

Clause 3 Objectives of the plan

Comment: The proposed development is generally considered to be consistent with the objectives of this plan.

Part 2 Planning principles

Clause 9 General principles

Comment: The proposed development is not considered to be inconsistent with the general principles of this plan. The development site is located well away from the Murray River or any watercourse identified as River Murray. It is further noted that there is no adopted river management plan within the Murray River Council.

Clause 10 Specific principles

Comment: The proposed development is unlikely to have an impact on the riverine environment of the River Murray. As previously discussed, flooding on the development site is deemed to be the lowest risk category of ‘low hazard flood storage.

Part 3 Planning requirements and consultation

Clause 13 Planning Control and Consultation Table

Comment: The development site is mapped as REP 02- Riverina Land. The proposed development is classed as ‘STORMWATER DRAINAGE SCHEME’. Therefore, the Application was referred to a number of Government agencies. Please refer 3.5(d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

Clause 14 Building setbacks—special provisions

Comment: No buildings form part of this application. Therefore this clause is not applicable.

3.2(a)(i)f State Environmental Planning Policy (Koala Habitat Protection) 2019

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

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 (Infrastructure) 2007

Comment: The proposed subdivision creates 200 or more allotments; as such it is classed as traffic-generating development in accordance with Clause 104 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. To satisfy the requirements outlined in this Clause, the applicant provided a Traffic Impact Assessment Report (TIAR) from a suitably qualified person. The report includes predicted traffic amounts from the existing intersection of Beer Road and Twenty-four Lane, new intersection of Twenty-four Lane including entrance to across the road and new intersection to Beer Road. The TIAR concludes the following information related to the development:

§ The additional traffic generated by the subdivision will have a minimal impact on the existing operations of Twenty-four Lane and Beer Road and the wider road network at years 2025 and 2033;

§ The provision of turning treatments at the proposed intersection of Twenty-four Lane/Street A and Beer Road/Street C and the upgrade of the existing intersection of Twenty-four Lane/Beer Road will ensure safety and allow motorists to negotiate the turning movements with minimal delays. All intersection movements operate with an average LOS A;

§ The redesigned and incorporation of the St Anne’s Winery left turn lane (AUL) into the layout of the proposed CHRs intersection treatment of Twenty-four Land and Street A will adequately cater for the existing traffic and B-double movements at the winery;

§ Sight distance criteria are met for the proposed intersections of Twenty-four Lane/Street A and Beer Road/ Street C.

It is also noted that the TIAR has made the following recommendations:

§ Murray River Council concur with the locations and turning treatments at the proposed intersections of Twenty-four Lane/Street A and Beer Road/Street C;

§ Murray River Council concur with the incorporation of the St Anne’s Winery AUL into the layout of the proposed CHRs intersection treatment of Twenty-four Land/Street A

This information was externally referred to Transport for NSW and Council’s Engineering Department. Neither Transport for NSW nor Council’s Engineering Department objected to the proposed development subject to conditions.

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

Comment: The proposed development site is zoned R1 General Residential. Therefore this policy is applicable. However, as per supplied Statement of Environmental Effects report, no vegetation is proposed to be removed.

3.2(a)(ii) Proposed instruments

Comment: Draft Murray LEP 2011 applies. No issues identified.

3.2(a)(iii) Any development control plan

Comment: Murray Development Control Plan 2012 (DCP) applies to the proposal. Relevant to this application are the following Chapters of the DCP:

· Chapter 6 – Strategic Land Use Plan

· Chapter 7 – Subdivision

· Chapter 12 – Notification Policy.

Chapter 6 – Strategic Land Use Plan

Response:

The proposal is consistent with the SLUP. The development site is identified as future residential stage 1.

Chapter 7 – Subdivision

7.1 Context

Objective/s

To ensure that the layout and design of a subdivision is consistent with and implements any objective, policy, strategy or plan for the area.

Response:

Lot sizes of the proposed subdivision are on or above 750m², which meet the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land of Murray LEP 2011. The proposed development also complies with the Murray Shire Strategic Land Use Plan. It is further noted that the proposed development is also consistent with the Moama mid-west drainage Investigation recommendations.

Control/s

Subdivision shall be consistent with the Murray Shire Strategic Land Use Plan.

Response:

The proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable Section of the Murray Shire Strategic Land Use Plan. The development site is identified as future residential stage 1.

7.2 Neighbourhood Character

Objective/s

To create urban places with identity and character.

Response:

The proposed subdivision will facilitate to increase residential densities for underutilised sites within the Murray River Council. The proposed subdivision will support the demand for housing as a result of population growth in the Council and therefore it will contribute to enhancing the identity of the existing and preferred neighbourhood character in existing urban areas.

Objective/s

To design subdivisions that are consistent and compatible with existing development in the neighbourhood.

Response:

The proposed lot design is consistent with the existing nearby residential development in the area. The subdivision includes stormwater treatment measures, road grading strategy, sewer and water supply service plans, which are consistent with contemporary residential subdivision design. Council is satisfied that these design approaches are of an appropriate design and will provide sufficient capacity.

Objective/s

Ensure a transition in density from lower to higher density residential areas.

Response:

As per supplied subdivision master plan, the proposal includes a variety of lot sizes ranging from 750m² to 999m², 1000m² to 1500m² and above 1500 m². This will allow for a diversity in housing form. This approach will facilitate smooth transition between lower to higher density.

Control/s

Subdivision to be generally consistent with the theme and character of development relating to the same land use within the vicinity of the subject development.

Response:

The proposed subdivision layout has been designed to encourage allotments which are orientated in a north-south manner. It is further noted that the existing character of the area is made up of a mix of small lots and large allotments. As discussed in this report, the proposed development proposes to create lots of a size that on balance provide for the development of future dwellings that will fit comfortably within the context of the character of the surrounding area.

Control/s

Requests to vary minimum lot size on land zoned residential west of Lignum Road will be considered by Council to be inconsistent with the objectives for neighbourhood character.

Response:

The proposal does not seek to vary the minimum lot size applying to the land.

7.3 Staging

Objective/s

To ensure the timely and efficient release of urban land making provision for necessary infrastructure and sequencing.

Response:

As per submitted plans, the proposed Torrens Title subdivision is a staged development; which is proposed to be undertaken in 13 development stages. A staging plan has been prepared by the applicant.

Control/s

Where staging of a subdivision is proposed, the lodgement of a staging plan with the development application.

Response:

The staging plan has been prepared by the applicant and has been lodged with the development application. The application was also internally referred to Council’s Engineering Department for their respective comments. They did not object to the proposal subject to conditions.

Control/s

Consistency with Councils Strategic Land Use Plan.

Response:

As discussed in this report, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable Section of the Murray Shire Strategic Land Use Plan. The development site is identified as future residential stage 1.

Control/s

Council will consider any subdivision that is isolated from existing services and infrastructure or remote from existing urban development as inconsistent with the objective of this control.

Response:

The proposed development site is allowed convenient access by vehicle and/or pedestrians to existing Moama CBD and Meninya Street.

7.4 Movement Network

Objective/s

To create compact neighbourhoods that are oriented around easy walking distances to activity centres, schools and community facilities, public open space and public transport.

Response:

The proposed subdivision occurs in close proximity to Moama CBD and easy walking distance to schools and community facilities.

Objective/s

To allow easy movement through and between neighbourhoods for all people.

Response:

The proposed subdivision is located adjacent to an existing residential area, which has been designed to allow easy movement through and between neighbourhoods for all users including walking, cycling, and motor vehicles. It is further noted that the application is also incorporated with a Road Grading Strategy plan. As per the submitted plan, each lot will have direct or indirect access to proposed internal roads.

Objective/s

To provide safe and direct movement through and between neighbourhoods by pedestrians and cyclists.

Response:

The lots have been designed to enable good street frontage to encourage community social interaction. It is further noted that the proposed 12 m (approximately) wide road will enable direct movements through and between neighbourhoods for all people.

Objective/s

To reduce car use, greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

Response:

The proposed residential subdivision is to be located within the urban released area of the Moama township. The development site will be able to access by a variety of transport modes, in particular public transport, walking and cycling.

Control/s

Compliance with the Murray Shire Engineering Guidelines for Subdivisions and Development Standards.

Response:

The application was referred to Council’s Engineering Department. Council’s Engineering Department did not object to the proposal subject to conditions. In the event, that Council approves this application, these conditions will form part of any consent granted.

Control/s

The use of cul-de-sacs in subdivision design should only be contemplated in circumstances where constraints dictate a through street cannot be accommodated.

Response:

No cul-de-sac proposed as part of this subdivision. However, it is not clear how applicant is proposed to facilitate vehicle turning movements on the eastern boundary of the development site. Upon referring this application to Council’s Engineering Department, they recommend that applicant is required to provide revised plans for stage 12. Should this application be approved this condition will form part of any consent granted.

Control/s

On land to which the Moama North West Masterplan (2008) applies, consistency with the recommendations of that plan.

Response:

Not applicable

7.5 Activity Centres and Community

Objective/s

To provide for mixed-use activity centres, including neighbourhood activity centres, of appropriate area and location.

Response:

The proposed residential subdivision is appropriately located within the Moama urban release area. Lots resulting from the proposed subdivision are located within a short distance to the Moama CBD that has community and commercial facilities.

Objective/s

To provide appropriately located sites for community facilities.

Response:

The proposed subdivision also incorporates two public open space reserves, and a number of bus stops. It is also noted that the proposed subdivision is located within a short distance to the Moama activity centre, which has all community facilities, these arrangements are considered satisfactory in this instance.

Control/s

Subdivision shall be consistent with the Murray Shire Strategic Land Use Plan.

Response:

As discussed in this report, the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable Section of the Murray Shire Strategic Land Use Plan. The development site is identified as future residential stage 1.

Control/s

On land to which the Moama North West Masterplan (2008) applies, consistency with the recommendations of that plan.

Response:

Moama North West Master Plan is not applicable.

7.6 Public Open Space

Objective/s

To provide a network of quality, well-distributed, multi-functional and cost-effective public open space that includes local parks, active open space, linear parks and trails, and links to regional open space.

Response:

It is considered that the proposed subdivision will increase demand for public open space in the area as it will increase the housing/population density of the area and result in existing public open space areas being more intensively used. As per applicant’s subdivision layout, two public open spaces are proposed. One is to be located close to the northern section of the development site and the other one is to be located in the southern section of the development site adjacent to Beer Road. It is noted that currently Murray River Council does not have specific guidelines around required open space for subdivisions. Nevertheless the development site is well-located to take advantage of the existing range of services and facilities and public open space.

Objective/s

To provide a network of public open space that caters for a broad range of users.

Response:

The proposed subdivision includes two public open space reserves. It is further noted that 1.5m wide pedestrian pathways have been incorporated with every internal road. Therefore these arrangements are considered satisfactory in this instance.

Objective/s

To encourage healthy and active communities.

Response:

The proposed development is also accompanied with a footpath along all the internal road network. These internal road network will then connect to collector roads such as Beer Road and Twenty Four Lane. Twenty Four Lane connects to Perricoota Road which has an existing foot path and links to the Moama CBD and the Meninya Street precinct. This setting will facilitate and encourage healthy and active communities.

Objective/s

To ensure land provided for public open space can be managed in an environmentally sustainable way and contributes to the development of sustainable neighbourhoods.

Response:

The proposed subdivision layout plan was referred to Council’s Engineering Department and Parks and Gardens sections. They did not object to the proposed public open spaces provided with this development application. A condition will be imposed stating the management arrangements required for the proposed public open spaces.

Control/s

Compliance with the Murray Shire Engineering Guidelines for Subdivisions and Development Standards.

Response:

Council’s Engineering Department consented to the proposal subject to conditions Therefore engineering conditions will be imposed to ensure consistency.

Control/s

Applications for residential subdivision are to address the provision of Public Open Space (POS). All proposed residential subdivisions seeking consent for 25 lots or more are to provide POS on the subject site to the satisfaction of Council, unless Council is satisfied of an alternative solution which does not require additional POS to be provided. Requirement to provide POS will be assessed by Council on the merits of the application based on the following:

Proximity of the proposed subdivision to existing POS - No additional POS will be required if the application can suitably demonstrate that the following is safely and easily accessible to the proposed subdivision:

a. District parks, consisting of 3 ha minimum area and containing a range of recreation settings, are provided within 2 km of all dwellings within the proposed subdivision; and/or

b. Large local parks consisting of 0.4-1.0 ha minimum area provided within 500 m safe walking distance of all dwellings within the proposed subdivision; and/or

c. Small local parks consisting of 0.2 ha minimum area provided they are located within 300 m safe walking distance of all dwellings within the proposed subdivision.

d. Access to Council's recreation reserves is available within 1km of all the dwellings within the proposed subdivision

e. Connectivity of the proposed subdivision to existing POS

Response:

As the proposed subdivision is seeking consent for more than 25 lots, the provision of public open space needs to be considered. As per submitted plans, the applicant is indicating a large area of public open space of approximately 7ha extending across the subject land from the northern to southern boundary. As per documentation, this area will have the dual function of providing for drainage and public open space and link with the space on the southern side of Beer Road. In addition to that, a smaller ‘pocket park’ of approximately 1500m² is also proposed in the eastern part of the development. It is further noted that the development site is located in close proximity to the Moama Recreational Reserve. It is therefore considered that the proposed arrangements are satisfactory in this instance.

Control/s

On land to which the Moama North West Masterplan (2008) applies, consistency with the recommendations of that plan.

Response:

Moama North West Master Plan is not applicable.

7.7 Landscaping

Objective/s

An overall landscaping strategy for the protection and enhancement of riparian areas and remnant vegetation, including visually prominent locations, and detailed landscaping for the public domain.

Response:

The applicant has not proposed to remove any vegetation on site. Therefore, the proposed development complies with the existing neighbourhood and streetscape character and objectives of this clause is consider to be met. A condition will be imposed to ensure consistency.

Control/s

A Landscape Plan is required to be submitted to Council detailing proposed landscaping

Response:

The applicant has not provided a preliminary landscaping plan. Therefore, in the event that Council approved this application a condition will be imposed stating that a preliminary landscaping plan must be submitted with the Subdivision Works Certificate Application.

7.8 Lot Design

Objective/s

To provide lots with areas and dimensions that enable the appropriate siting and construction of a dwelling, solar access, private open space, vehicle access and parking, water management, easements and the retention of significant vegetation and site features.

Response:

Lots resulting from the proposed subdivision meet the minimum lot size of the R1 General Residential Zone. As the proposed lots are not constrained by topography or other site, conditions they will enable to construct a dwelling without limiting solar access, private open space or vehicle access.

Objective/s

To provide lot design that is consistent with the character and desired density of an area.

Response:

The proposed lot design contributes to the character and identity of the existing surrounding neighbourhood and the preferred neighbourhood character. It is further noted that the proposed lot sizes are on or above the minimum lot sizes in minimum lot size map of Murray LEP 2011.

Objective/s

To ensure smaller lots are located only in areas suitable for higher density housing and will consistent with the direction of the LEP.

Response:

Lots sizes of the proposed development is on or above the minimum lot size provisions affecting the subject site. Therefore the proposed development is consistent with the direction of Murray LEP 2011 Lot Size Map.

Objective/s

To provide lots for industrial and commercial purposes that allow for the appropriate siting of buildings, landscaping, parking and the manoeuvring of vehicles.

Response:

This specific development application is for residential subdivision. Therefore this Clause is not applicable.

Objective/s

To ensure that subdivision of commercial or industrial land is appropriately sized for the expected use and would not compromise its productive or desired use.

Response:

This specific development application is for residential subdivision. Therefore this Clause is not applicable.

Control/s

Compliance with the Murray Shire Engineering Guidelines for Subdivisions and Development Standards.

Response:

Council’s Engineering Department consented to the proposal subject to conditions Therefore engineering conditions will be imposed to ensure consistency.

Control/s

For battle-axe allotments a minimum width of the access handle is to be:

- 3.5m for a maximum length 20 metres;

- 4m for a maximum length 30 metres; and

- 5m for lengths greater than 30 metres.

Response:

As per submitted staging plans, the applicant wants to have a limited number of battle-axe allotments in stage 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. However, all the lots comply with the provisions of this standard.

Control/s

Subdivisions are to be designed to maximise solar access and the number of rectangular shaped allotments

Response:

Proposed lots located on streets aligned on a north-south and east-west axis to maximise solar orientation of lots.

Control/s

Subdivisions must demonstrate a building envelope measuring 10 metres by 15 metres on each lot or display a dwelling to be constructed on the lot(s) consistent with the objectives and controls of Chapter 2- of this DCP.

Response:

All allotments are above 750 square metres and capable of containing a rectangle building envelope with the dimensions 10m x 15m.

7.9 Infrastructure and Services

Objective/s

To provide public utilities to each lot in an efficient manner.

Response:

The supplied subdivision preliminary engineering drawings indicate that all proposed lots will have access to sewer, gas, underground electricity and fibre internet. A condition will be imposed to ensure consistency.

Objective/s

To design and implement infrastructure that minimises Council’s ongoing maintenance burden.

Response:

Sewer, gas, underground electricity and fibre internet are to be designed to the satisfaction of the relevant agencies’ requirement. A condition will be imposed to ensure consistency.

Objective/s

To minimise increases in stormwater run-off and protect the environmental values and physical characteristics of receiving waters from degradation by urban run-off.

Response:

Stormwater run-off from the development will be directed to the proposed retention basin within the development site. These arrangements are considered satisfactory in this instance as per Council’s Engineering Department comment.

Objective/s

To encourage Water Sensitive Urban Design techniques in new subdivisions.

Response:

The proposed subdivision is not specifically inconsistent with this sub section. However Council Engineering Department did not object to the development.

Objective/s

To maximise the opportunities for shared trenching.

Response:

Shared trenching will be designed, constructed and utilised to accommodate reticulated water, sewerage, electricity, gas and telephone services to the satisfaction of Council Engineering Guidelines. A condition will be imposed to ensure consistency.

Objective/s

To provide public lighting to ensure the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.

Response:

Street lighting is to be installed at the developer’s cost to the satisfaction of Council relevant engineering guidelines. The position and the number of lighting is to be indicated in the Subdivision Works Certificate plans. Positioning of street lightning will increase the safety and surveillance to area at night.

Objective/s

Compliance with the Murray Shire Engineering Guidelines for Subdivisions and Development Standards.

Response:

A condition will be imposed to ensure consistency.

Objective/s

Residential

- On land to which the Moama West Infrastructure Strategy (2005) applies, consistency with the recommendations of that strategy.

- On land to which the Moama North West Masterplan (2008) applies, consistency with the recommendations of that plan.

Response:

Moama North West Master Plan or the infrastructure strategy is not applicable.

7.10 Natural Hazards

Objective/s

Amelioration of natural and environmental hazards, including bushfire, flooding and site contamination and, in relation to natural hazards, the safe occupation of, and the evacuation from, any land so affected.

Response:

As per 7.8 (2) of Murray LEP 2011, the subject site is not identified as Flood Prone Land. However, a small proportion of the subject land in the northern section is classified as bushfire prone and therefore the development application was referred to NSW RFS for General Terms of Approval. Please refer to 3.5(d) for comments.

Objective/s

On land mapped as bushfire prone, compliance with the NSW Rural Fire Service document Planning for Bushfire Protection (2006).

Response:

A very small portion of the development site in the north-eastern corner is mapped as bushfire prone, therefore the development application was referred to NSW RFS for General Terms of Approval. Please refer to 3.5(d) for comments.

Objective/s

On land identified as flood prone in the Moama Floodplain Management Study (1999), compliance with clause 7.8 of the LEP and the State Government’s Floodplain Development Manual (2005).

Response:

As per assessment against Clause 7.8 in this report, the subject site is not mapped flood prone. However, the Moama Floodplain Management Study carried out by the Murray Shire Council in 2001 outlined that, more than halve of the development site would be inundated during a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) event. It is noted that, the subject development site was recently rezoned from RU1- Primary Production to R1 – General Residential. As part of the rezoning process, OEH confirmed that the subject site is deemed suitable for residential development without additional or studies.

Objective/s

On land that is, or has previously been used for viticulture, an investigation of the land for potential contamination in accordance with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land. An investigation should be in accordance with the process detailed in the State Government’s Managing Land Contamination – Planning Guidelines SEPP55 Remediation of Land (1998).

Response:

As per supplied SOEE, the applicant has indicated that the land has been previously used for viticulture. However as part of rezoning process from RU1- Primary Production to R1 – General Residential this issue (site contamination) has been addressed. DPIE concluded that no additional investigations are required. It is therefore considered that no additional investigation is required in this instance.

Objective/s

A chemical spray drift buffer is to be provided between existing viticulture activity and residential lots. The applicant is to submit information prepared by a suitably qualified person with the development application that demonstrates an appropriate buffer distance.

Response:

The subject development site is located in close proximity to an existing viticulture activity. Therefore, the applicant has provided a spray drift report to satisfy requirements outlined in this Clause. The supplied spray drift report has recommended that the applicant must plant indigenous plants along the northern border of Beer Road and the western boundary of Twenty Four Lane. In the event that Council approves this Development Application, those recommendations will form part of any consent granted.

7.11 Site Management

Objective/s

To protect drainage infrastructure and receiving waters from sedimentation and contamination.

Response:

It is noted that the proposed development complies with the Moama Mid-west drainage Strategy. As per study, the applicant has proposed a retention basin within the development site and is also proposing to direct all stormwater generated from the development to the proposed reserve.

Objective/s

To protect the site and surrounding area from environmental degradation or nuisance prior to and during construction of subdivision works.

Response:

A condition will be imposed to ensure consistency.

Objective/s

To encourage the re-use of materials from the site and recycled materials in the construction of subdivisions where practicable.

Response:

Recycled water is not yet available in this area.

Objective/s

Compliance with the Murray Shire Engineering Guidelines for Subdivisions and Development Standards.

Response:

Should this application be approved a condition will be imposed to ensure consistency.

Chapter 11 – Flood Prone Land

Response:

As per Clause 7.8 of this report, the subject development site has not been identified as flood prone land. However as per Moama Floodplain Management Study 2001, the subject development site is being identified as a land within the Flood Planning Area 1 (FPA1). Please see Clause 7.8 in this report for further comments.

Chapter 12– Notification Policy

Response:

The application was advertised in the Riverina Herald newspaper on two occasions and was notified to the public for 30 days in accordance with the Notification Policy. Six submissions were received. Refer to 3.5(d) in this report for additional information.

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 consistent 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

It is considered that the proposed development will not cause any significant adverse impact to the natural environment. The proposed development does not seek to remove native vegetation from the site. The application was also referred to a number of Government agencies and they did not object to the proposal subject to conditions. However as discussed in this report on a numerous occasions, a small portion of the northern section of the development site is mapped bushfire prone. Therefore the application was referred to NSW RFS. At the time of completion of this report, Council had not received a response from NSW RFS. A condition will therefore be imposed stating that the applicant must comply with any requirements outlined in that response. It is noted that the proposed development is abutting to a vineyard. The applicant has provided a spray drift report to support the application. Should this development be approved, as per report recommendation conditions will be imposed to minimise the environmental impacts. The proposed subdivision also includes considerable amount of earthworks. This may have potential to create issues such as additional noise generated from construction equipment, dust, destablisation of soil and sediment transfer to watercourses or other properties. However, Council is satisfied that the conditions of development consent will address potential impacts associated with development construction.

Built Environment

The surrounding context is generally characterised by residential and private recreational land uses to the north, and agricultural land vacant blocks to other directions. Whilst the area surrounding the subject land is of a general rural character, it is all designated for future urban purposes as part of Moama’s growth. As discussed in this report the subject development site is identified as future residential in the Murray Shire Strategic Land use Plan. Therefore, the proposed subdivision will reinforce the residential character in the locality and can be considered as prime example for transiting land from RU1 to R1 or R5 to the east of Perricoota Road. The Site is also located within close proximity to a range of community and education facilities including recreational facilities, schools, shopping centres and Moama Central Business District. The lots resulting from this residential subdivision is consistent and compatible with the surrounding built environment. It is also noted that the proposed dual-purpose public open space reserve would soften the overall appearance of the development, upon completion. The application is not accompanied with a streetscape plan; nevertheless, Council believes that the development can still be achievable subject to complying with relevant conditions of the consent. It is further noted that the proposed subdivision is abutting a major golf course in Moama (Rich River Golf Club). Therefore there is a potential risk of being hit by golf balls in the event Council decided to endorse this application and a dwelling is erected after such plan has been approved. Therefore a condition will be imposed stating that a 25m high mesh fence to be erected at developers cost along the northern boundary of the development site and also a covenant will be imposed stating that the prospective buyers must be aware of the potential risk associated with living adjacent to the Rich River Golf Club. It should be acknowledged that any future dwelling design will be subject to a separate assessment.

Social Impacts

The development is unlikely to create any adverse social impact. The proposal will deliver an increased supply of average density residential housing in an area already serviced by Council's infrastructure. The proposed lot sizes and predicted neighborhood character are considered consistent with the predominant development which exists in the surrounding area.

Economic Impacts

The proposed development has the potential to create positive economic effects to the community. The proposed development is unlikely to create any adverse economic impact.

Traffic and Parking

The proposed subdivision will create an additional 368 residential lots to the area. The future collector road such as Beer Road will be upgraded if necessary to Council’s standard at developer’s cost. It is considered that this is appropriate for the traffic amounts that will be generated by the proposed development and for the existing traffic in the area. Noise impacts from additional traffic are considered unlikely to result in unacceptable noise levels to the area.

3.4(c) The suitability of the site for the development

Comment: As a consequence of the above detailed discussion, it is considered that the proposed development site is suitable for the above particular development subject to a number of conditions on development consent. It would further reduce the potential impacts of the development to acceptable levels.

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

Agency	Response
NSW EPA	No objections subject to conditions.
Biodiversity Conservation Division of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment	No objections subject to conditions.
Water NSW	Did not receive any comment.
Crown lands - Department of Planning, Industry and Environment	Did not receive any comment.
Murray Darling Basin Authority	No objections, no conditions were imposed.
NSW Rural Fire service	Did not receive any comment. However, NSW RFS is still within their timeframe due to time taken by Applicant to pay required Fees.
Natural Resources Access Regulator	No objections, no conditions were imposed.
NSW Department of Primary Industries – Fisheries	No objections, no conditions were imposed.
NSW Department of Primary Industries- Agriculture	No objections subject to conditions.
Transport for NSW - Roads	No objections subject to conditions.
DPIE Planning Division	No objections, comments received.

Public Submissions

The application was advertised in Riverina Herald paper for two occasions and was notified to public for 30 days in accordance with the Notification Policy. Seven submissions were received. Please see below key summary and response from the responsible officer. Please also refer to Attachment B for the full list of submissions.

Submission	Response from the authorised officer
Cantwell Property Castlemaine “Can you please help me identify the property on a planning map so I can see how it will affect us? Has the land already been rezoned or does the DA cover the rezoning as well?”	This officer has contacted the submission maker on 09/04/2020 and provided the necessary information. The officer also sent a written response on the same date with relevant information.
“Could Council confirm that we are to keep the 8 Meter buffer zone separating the Fairways Estate from this new development, as was indicated as such by the Rich River Golf Club when we purchased our allotment”.	Submission maker’s comments noted. The Fairways Estate directly abuts the subject site to the north west and is zoned R1 General Residential. The proposed development site is also zoned R1 General Residential. This application is seeking approval for residential subdivision of Lot 11 DP 701453. It is considered that the proposed intended use of land is consistent with existing land use of the Fairways Estate. The current proposal does not affect any existing buffers within Fairways Estate.
“Can you therefore provide confirmation that adequate consideration has been given to the flow of water arising from the proposed development to ensure drainage water flows in accordance with the Moama Mid-West Drainage Strategy and if these details and specifications are yet to be finalised, that steps are taken to ensure the drainage works are engineered and constructed by the applicant accordingly?”	Council’s Manager Engineering Operations contacted the submission maker on 17/04/2020 and explained to the submission maker that, all stormwater run-off from this development must be contained on site as per the drainage study.
“What stage of construction, earthworks, sewer, drainage, power, water etc. need to be completed prior to house lots being sold. As we have witnessed the Winbi Stage 4-5 lengthy delays in completion much to the frustration of future residents and builders etc. As on application it states construction works are expected to be completed within a short time frame, what constitutes a short time frame? Due to majority of winds coming from south or south west, and the dryness of land, what dust minimisation plans will be put in place by developer, seeing we are on north boundary”.	Submission maker’s comments noted. The applicant has 5 years to physically start the construction works, once a Subdivision Works Certificate has been issued for the relevant stage. If the applicant starts work within 5 years any development consent issued will not lapse. Council cannot legally imposed a condition on when works need to be completed. It is also noted that all relevant conditions of consent are required to be met before Council will release the Subdivision Certificate for each stage. Submission maker’s comments noted. A condition will be imposed stating that the developer must minimize dust generation during the construction stage.
“The tree buffer zone within the subject land abutting our residential estate on the north boundary, can you confirm that this will be retained”.	Submission maker’s comments noted. No trees will be removed as part of this subdivision. A condition will be imposed to ensure consistency.
Rich River Golf Club “We note that under the proposal, the developer is proposing to relocate our Club’s irrigation pipeline to the Murray River that is protected by an easement through the property. We were surprised by this ‘proposed relocation’ and only became aware of it when going over the plans in the proposal. We would like to find out more about what exactly is proposed as part of this relocation. Given the existing pipeline is protected by an easement we believe that any relocation as such would require our approval and consent”.	Submission maker’s comments noted. A condition will be imposed stating that prior to the release of the relevant Subdivision Certificates, any private easement must be relocated. Consent of Rich River Golf Club will be required as beneficiary of the subject easement.
“We note that under the proposal, the developer is proposing to relocate our Club’s irrigation pipeline to the Murray River that is protected by an easement through the property. We were surprised by this ‘proposed relocation’ and only became aware of it when going over the plans in the proposal. We would like to find out more about what exactly is proposed as part of this relocation. Given the existing pipeline is protected by an easement we believe that any relocation as such would require our approval and consent”. “However, we note that no buffer zone is proposed under the Development Application at the North Eastern end of the property where the subject land adjoins our 11th East golf hole. We believe that it is in all parties’ interest that an appropriate buffer zone be established in this area where the occasional errant golf ball off our 11th East tee will enter. We believe that it is in everyone’s interest to preserve the amenity of the golf course and other sporting, recreational and tourism facilities within the existing regional setting”. and “RRGC raises concerns over proposed Lots 250 to 311 and the protection of future dwellings from errant golf balls. Lots 255 to 261 are considered to be most at risk. The submission accompanying the Development Application suggests the responsibility is completely left to the Club to manage.” Amenity impact to proposed development, as a result of errant golf ball going into the proposed blocks.	A condition has been imposed to state that prior to the release of the Subdivision Work Certificate for Stage 1, the applicant is required to provide evidence that the beneficiary of the easement consents to its relocation. A condition will be imposed stating that a 25m high mesh fence is to be erected on the northern border of the development site prior to release of subdivision certificate for stages 3, 4 9, 10, 11 and 13. This will be required to be fully funded by the developer. It is therefore considered that no additional vegetation buffer is required. As per above response a condition will be imposed to erect a fence along the northern border of the subject development site to minimize amenity impacts.

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. As discussed in this report a number of issues were raised during the public submission period. These issues related to amenity impacts, vegetation removal, maintaining a buffer and stormwater management. However, Council is satisfied that the conditions of development consent will minimise the potential environmental impacts associated with development. Council will advise persons who made a submission on Development Application 10.2019.284.1 of Council’s decision.

Conclusion

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Murray REP No-02, Murray LEP 2011, Murray DCP 2012, and the Murray Shire Strategic Land Use Plan. The proposed lot sizes and predicted neighborhood character are considered consistent with the predominant development which exists in the surrounding area. 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

B. Planning conditions

General Conditions that must be fulfilled

1. Approved plans

The subdivision must be carried out in accordance with the following approved preliminary plans and information submitted to and approved by Council:

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Master Plan” DWG: 1133 G04.1; sheet 1 of 22 (Dated 10/03/20) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Preliminary Road Grading Strategy” DWG: 1133 G04.2; sheet 2 of 22 (Dated 10/03/20) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Central Reserve” DWG: 1133 G04.3; sheet 3 of 22 (Dated 10/03/20) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Typical Sections” DWG: 1133 G04.4; sheet 4 of 22 (Dated 10/03/20) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Staging Plan” DWG: 1133 G04.5; sheet 5 of 22 (Dated 10/03/19) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – High Level Sewer & Water Plan” DWG: 1133 G04.6; sheet 6 of 22 (Dated 10/03/19) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – High Level Drainage Plan” DWG: 1133 G04.7; sheet 7 of 22 (Dated 10/03/19) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Stage 1 Lot Details & Services” DWG: 1133 G04.8; sheet 8 of 22 (Dated 10/03/19) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Stage 1 Lot Details & Services” DWG: 1133 G04.9; sheet 9 of 22 (Dated 10/03/19) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Stage 2 Lot Details & Services” DWG: 1133 G04.10; sheet 10 of 22 (Dated 10/03/19) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Stage 3 Lot Details & Services” DWG: 1133 G04.11; sheet 11 of 22 (Dated 10/03/19) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Stage 4 Lot Details & Services” DWG: 1133 G04.12; sheet 12 of 22 (Dated 10/03/19) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Stage 5 Lot Details & Services” DWG: 1133 G04.13; sheet 13 of 22 (Dated 10/03/19) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Stage 6 – Sheet 1; Lot Details & Services” DWG: 1133 G04.14; sheet 14 of 22 (Dated 10/03/19) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Stage 6 – Sheet 2; Lot Details & Services” DWG: 1133 G04.15; sheet 15 of 22 (Dated 10/03/19) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Stage 7 Lot Details & Services” DWG: 1133 G04.16; sheet 16 of 22 (Dated 10/03/19) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Stage 8 Lot Details & Services” DWG: 1133 G04.17; sheet 17 of 22 (Dated 10/03/19) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Stage 9 Lot Details & Services” DWG: 1133 G04.18; sheet 18 of 22 (Dated 10/03/19) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Stage 10 Lot Details & Services” DWG: 1133 G04.19; sheet 19 of 22 (Dated 10/03/19) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Stage 11 Lot Details & Services” DWG: 1133 G04.20; sheet 20 of 22 (Dated 10/03/19) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Stage 12 Lot Details & Services” DWG: 1133 G04.21; sheet 21 of 22 (Dated 10/03/19) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Stage 13 Lot Details & Services” DWG: 1133 G04.22; sheet 22 of 22 (Dated 10/03/19) prepared by Development Outcomes.

· “Traffic Impact Assessment Report – Lot 11 DP 701453; Twenty-Four Lane; Proposed Residential Subdivision” (Dated 10/03/2020); Prepared by Peter Meredith Consulting; Issue A.

· “Impact Assessment and Mitigation of Off-Target Agricultural Spray Drift on Land proposed for residential subdivision – Lot 11, 24 Lane – Martin Road, Moama NSW 2731” (Dated February 2020); Prepared by Advanced Environmental Systems P/L (AES).

· “Biodiversity Value Map and Threshold Report” (Dated 11 March 2020).

Where a preliminary plan conflicts with specific requirements set out in the subject conditions of consent, the preliminary plans are deemed subservient.

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 and advertised.

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

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

4. Protection of vegetation

There must be no clearing of any 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 the 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 the 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 the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment - Biodiversity and Conservation Division contacted.

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

It is noted that it is the responsibility of the Proponent to ensure that the development is consistent with the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (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 and to ensure compliance with the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects.

6. Soil

A suitable soil chemical analysis and investigation report is required in the event that any evidence of contamination on the subject site is found during construction/civil works. If any evidence of contamination is found, all works at the particular location must cease immediately. If remediation works are required, civil works/construction must not recommence on the subject site until Council is satisfied that any required remediation techniques have been appropriately completed.

Reason: To ensure the subject site is not contaminated.

Compliance with Government Department conditions of consent

7. DPI Agriculture

The Proponent must comply with all conditions and requirements outlined in NSW DPI Agriculture correspondence (NSW DPI Agriculture ref: OUT20/5098; Dated 30 April 2020), attached to this Development Consent as Appendix 1.

Reason: To comply with DPI Agriculture requirements.

8. Transport for NSW

The Proponent must comply with all conditions and requirements outlined in Transport for NSW correspondence (Transport for NSW ref: SWT20/00037; Dated 5 May 2020), attached to this Development Consent as Appendix 2.

Reason: To comply with Transport for NSW requirements.

9. NSW EPA

The proponent must take all necessary precautions and implement measures to prevent pollution of waters during construction and development works.

Reason: To comply with NSW EPA requirements.

10. NSW EPA

Illegal fill and/or waste materials must not be received or deposited at the site.

Reason: To comply with NSW EPA requirements.

11. NSW EPA

All waste generated from the development of the subdivision must either be lawfully recycled or disposed of at a site that can lawfully accept the waste.

Reason: To comply with NSW EPA requirements.

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

12. NSW Rural Fire Service

The Proponent must comply with all conditions and requirements outlined in NSW Rural Fire Service correspondence received before 29 May 2020.

Reason: To ensure compliance with NSW Rural Fire Service requirements.

13. Subdivision Works Plans

Full Engineering Plans (Subdivision Works Plans) in respect to the provision of the following services must be submitted with the Subdivision Works Certificate application for each stage. The applicant must also lodge revised engineering plans for Stage 12 indicating turning circles.

a) Road Design (Internal roads).

b) Vehicle access (driveway)

c) Intersection detail of new connections to 24 Lane and Beer Road

d) Sewer.

e) Filtered Water.

f) Raw Water.

g) Stormwater Management (including utilising Water Sensitive Urban Design).

h) Environmental and sedimentation.

i) Concrete footpaths (1.5m wide).

j) Concrete shared (pedestrian/cycling) paths (2.5m wide).

k) Landscaping.

l) Street lighting

m) Certified Essential Energy (electricity) plans.

n) Proposed Street names.

o) Indicative details of utilities (gas, telecommunications).

p) Indicative bus stop details (location/infrastructure).

These plans must be generally in accordance with the preliminary plans outlined in Condition 1 of this development consent.

Where a preliminary plan conflicts with specific requirements set out in the subject conditions of consent, the preliminary plans are deemed subservient.

Details of where any excavated material is to be stored must be submitted to and approved by Council.

These plans must be prepared to the satisfaction of Council’s Engineering Department. The plans must be prepared in accordance with Council’s ‘Guidelines for Subdivisions and Development Standards’ and must be consistent with conditions of this consent. These plans must be approved by Council prior to the release of the Subdivision Works Certificate for each stage.

Reason: To ensure the development is appropriately serviced.

14. Overall concept plan

The Proponent must submit a preliminary overall concept plan of the entire Residential Subdivision to Council with the application for a Subdivision Works Certificate for Stage 1. The submitted preliminary overall concept plan must show preliminary infrastructure, street numbering and bus stop locations for the entire development. This is to be submitted to allow Council’s Engineering Department to assess infrastructure requirements, street numbering and bus stop locations and to ensure infrastructure, street numbering and bus stop locations in future stages are consistent with the approved Stage 1. Council’s Engineering Department must be satisfied of the submitted information prior to the release of the Subdivision Works Certificate for Stage 1.

Reason: To ensure that infrastructure, bus stop and street numbering details are provided.

15. Prior to the issue of Subdivision Works Certificate for Stage 1, the Applicant must provide sufficient evidence to Council outlining that the beneficiary of the existing easement for water supply on Lot 11 DP 701453 consents to the relocation of the alignment of the easement to avoid any private residential allotments. It is noted that DP 701453 states the following: (A) BENEFITED BY EASEMENTS FOR WATER SUPPLY – S156245, S156246.

Reason: To ensure that the existing water supply easement is suitably relocated.

16. Sewer and Water Feasibility Study

The Proponent must prepare and submit a Sewer and Water Feasibility Study to Council with the application for a Subdivision Works Certificate for Stage 1. This study must be approved by Council’s Engineering Department prior to the release of the Subdivision Works Certificate for Stage 1.

Reason: To ensure that sewerage from the subdivision is managed and disposed of in an acceptable manner, and water is provided in an acceptable manner.

17. Traffic calming details

The Proponent must prepare and submit traffic calming devices details to Council with the application for a Subdivision Works Certificate for each stage. These details must be approved by Council’s Engineering Department prior to the release of the Subdivision Works Certificate for each stage.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate traffic calming devices details are approved.

18. Stormwater Management Plan

The Proponent must prepare and submit a Stormwater Management Plan to Council with the application for a Subdivision Works Certificate for each stage. This Stormwater Management Plan must provide a suitable stormwater disposal system to service the area and provide details as to the staging of the development of this system. The plan must be consistent with the requirements of Council’s Engineering Department. The plan must incorporate Water Sensitive Urban Design techniques and be consistent with ‘The Blue Book: Managing Urban Stormwater’ produced by LANDCOM. All infrastructure proposed as part of the plan as well as any required upgrades to existing infrastructure must be fully funded by the proponent. The plan must be consistent with the required Landscape Plan. These plans must be approved by Council’s Engineering Department prior to the release of the Subdivision Works Certificate for each stage.

Reason: To ensure that stormwater from the subdivision is managed and disposed of in an acceptable manner.

19. Water Sensitive Urban Design

The Proponent must demonstrate that the development complies with Water Sensitive Urban Design principles. Compliance with Water Sensitive Urban Design requirements (including environmental targets etc.) must be demonstrated by using ‘MUSIC’, ‘STORM’ or another similar relevant software program. These details must be approved by Council’s Engineering Department prior to the release of the Subdivision Works Certificate for each stage.

Reason: To ensure that the subdivision incorporates Water Sensitive Urban Design principles.

20. Streetscape Plan

A Streetscape Plan must be prepared, submitted to and approved by Council prior to the release of the Subdivision Works Certificate for each stage. This plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person to the satisfaction of Council. This plan must follow the recommendations outlined in the “Impact Assessment and Mitigation of Off-Target Agricultural Spray Drift Report”; Dated February 2020; Prepared by Advanced Environmental Systems P/L (AES) for landscaping along Twenty Four Lane and Beer Road (Martin Lane as per the report).

It is noted walkway reserve plantings must be of a mature installation size to the satisfaction of Council’s Engineering Department.

The plan must provide for the following:

· A plantation buffer along the southern and western boundaries of the development as per Spray Drift Report recommendation; Dated February 2020; Prepared by Advanced Environmental Systems P/L (AES).

· Details of plants, relating to size, planting regime and similar.

· The existing patch of remnant vegetation on the southern boundary of the subject land must be incorporated into additional landscaping.

Once approved, the proponent is responsible for the funding and completion of required landscaping in accordance with the approved plan. Landscaping must be completed in accordance with the approved plan and as per Spray Drift Report recommendation; Dated February 2020; Prepared by Advanced Environmental Systems P/L (AES).

The Proponent is responsible for the maintenance and care, including replacement with similar species/age plants of all landscaping for a period of twelve (12) months from release of the Subdivision Certificate/completion of all landscaping for each stage.

Reason: To ensure the development is satisfactorily landscaped, and to comply with Department of Planning, Industry and Environment - Biodiversity and Conservation Division recommendations.

21. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must be prepared and submitted to Council with the application for a Subdivision Works Certificate for each stage. Exposed surface soil must be stabilised as soon as possible to avoid potential erosion and dust issue. Any stockpile of earth on the site must not be higher than 2m. This plan must be approved by Council prior to the release of the Subdivision Works Certificate for each stage.

Reason: To prevent water pollution, to comply with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, and to ensure that erosion and sediment is appropriately managed during construction.

22. Long Service Levy

A Subdivision Works Certificate for each stage must not be issued with respect to the plans and specifications for any subdivision work unless any long service levy payable under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 (or, where such a levy is payable by instalments, the first instalment of the levy) has been paid. Council can advise if the Long Service Levy is payable at the time the Fee Quote Request is lodged for the Subdivision Works Certificate for each stage.

Reason: To comply with the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986.

23. Engineering Supervision and Plan Checking Fees

Engineering Supervision and Plan Checking Fees (2% of Construction Cost of roads, stormwater drainage, water, sewer, shared paths, and any other required infrastructure) must be paid prior to the release of the Subdivision Works Certificate for each stage.

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

24. Street names

The Proponent must submit a list of proposed street names for Council’s consideration and approval. The street names must be approved by Council prior to the release of the Subdivision Works Certificate for each stage.

Reason: To ensure the development has appropriate street names.

25. Council Infrastructure

The Proponent must submit to Council recent photographs of Council’s infrastructure in the area of the proposed works, to the satisfaction of Council’s Engineering Department, prior to the release of the Subdivision Works Certificate for each stage.

Reason: To ensure Council receives appropriate documentation prior to works commencing.

NOTE: Compliance Certificate

Once works have been completed, the proponent is required to ascertain a Compliance Certificate from Council for each stage. Please contact Council’s Engineering Department for more information.

Reason: To ensure the development is appropriately constructed and to comply with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Conditions that must be fulfilled prior to the commencement of any works

26. Subdivision Works Certificate

A Subdivision Works Certificate must be submitted to, and approved by Council for each stage prior to any subdivision works taking place.

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

27. Erosion and sedimentation controls

Erosion and sedimentation controls must be installed and maintained on site in accordance with the approved plan for the duration of construction works. Erosion and sediment controls must be installed in accordance with the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation “Erosion and Sediment Control – A Resource Guide for Local Councils”.

Reason: To minimise erosion of the site and prevent deposition of silt within the waterways, creeks and wetlands.

28. Water closet accommodation

A temporary water closet accommodation must be provided onsite during construction. This facility must be located onsite so as to not create a nuisance to any adjoining properties.

Reason: To ensure suitable facilities are provided for workers during construction and to comply with requirements for Work Health and Safety on worksites.

29. Temporary fencing around existing vegetation

All trees along the southern boundary of the subject land must be retained and suitably protected in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 'Protection of Trees on Development Sites' by way or tree guards, barriers or other measures as necessary to protect root system, trunk and branches, during construction of any stage of the project.

Reason: To protect existing vegetation.

Conditions that must be complied with during works and in perpetuity

30. Vehicles during construction

Vehicles must be clean and free of debris prior to leaving the site during construction. Deposited material may be ordered to be removed at the Proponent/operator’s expense.

Reason: To ensure that sediment is not trafficked onto Council’s road network.

31. Council property

Any damage or deterioration to any portion of the footpath and/or kerb and guttering or other Council property including road reserves, during construction must be reinstated to its original condition at the owner's expense to the satisfaction of Council.

Reason: To maintain safe access for pedestrians and to protect the amenity of the adjoining area.

32. Time of work

Work must not commence on the site before 7am on weekdays and Saturdays and 8am on Sundays and public holidays. All works must cease by 8pm on any day.

Reason: To comply with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

33. Plant and equipment noise

The operating noise level of plant and equipment during subdivision works must not exceed 5dB(A) above the background noise level when measured at the boundaries of the premises. The provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 apply to the development, in terms of regulating offensive noise.

Reason: To comply with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, and to preserve the environmental health and amenity of the adjoining area.

34. Dust Control Measures

Adequate measures must be taken to prevent dust from affecting the amenity of the neighbourhood during construction. In particular, the following measures must be adopted:

a) All materials must be stored or stockpiled at the best locations;

b) The surface should be dampened slightly to prevent dust from becoming airborne but should not be wet to the extent that runoff occurs;

c) All vehicles carrying spoil or rubble to or from the site must at all times be covered to prevent the escape of dust or other materials;

d) Cleaning of footpaths and roadways must be carried out regularly; and

e) Rumble grids must be installed at access points to the site.

Reason: To preserve the environmental health and amenity of the adjoining area.

35. Construction site

The construction site must be maintained in an environmentally sound manner during construction. Designated waste containment areas must be provided on site, and must be maintained so as to prevent any windblown litter escaping from the site.

Reason: To comply with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, and to preserve the environmental health and amenity of the adjoining area.

36. No obstruction of road reserve permitted

The road reserve must not be obstructed by any materials, vehicles, refuse skips or the like, under any circumstances. All activities including loading/unloading of vehicles associated with this development must be undertaken within the subject site.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

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

37. Sewerage

The Proponent must connect each allotment into Council’s existing reticulated sewerage system. This must be provided in accordance with the approved design and must be fully funded by the Proponent.

Reason: To satisfactorily service the lots created.

38. Water Supply

The Proponent must provide filtered and raw water supply to each allotment. This must be provided in accordance with the approved design and must be fully funded by the Proponent.

It is noted that separate filtered and raw water meters are not required to be installed prior to the release of the Compliance Certificate or Subdivision Certificate.

Reason: To satisfactorily service the lots created and to ensure that separate billing of newly created lots is possible.

39. Stormwater management

Each allotment must be provided with appropriate stormwater infrastructure that is connected to an approved system. Incorporation of Water Sensitive Urban Design must be provided. This must be provided in accordance with the approved design and must be fully funded by the Proponent.

Reason: To satisfactorily service the lots created.

40. Road network

The internal road network (including kerb and gutter) must be constructed to the satisfaction of Council.

Reason: To ensure that all allotments within the development have adequate access.

41. Access

Access must be provided to allotments that can only have one preferred access to the satisfaction of Council. An application to Council’s Engineering Department must be made for the construction of new accesses. All new accesses must be constructed at the Proponent’s expense to Council’s standards and in accordance with Council’s policy.

Reason: To ensure that all allotments have adequate access.

42. Shared paths

Shared paths (Pedestrian and bicycling) (2.5m wide)/footpaths must be provided to the satisfaction of Council’s Engineering Department. Shared paths/footpaths must be constructed with concrete.

Reason: To ensure that shared paths are provided.

43. Street lights

Street lights must be provided by the proponent to the satisfaction of Council’s Engineering Department.

Reason: To satisfactorily service the development.

44. Street name plates

Street name plates must be provided by the Proponent. The proponent must also submit a list of proposed street names for Council’s consideration and approval prior to the release of the Compliance Certificate.

Reason: To ensure the development has appropriate street names and street name plates.

45. Bus Stops

Bus stops must be installed in accordance with the approved Subdivision Works Certificate plans. The installation of the required bus stops must be completed to the satisfaction of Council’s Engineering Department.

Reason: To ensure the development is appropriately serviced.

46. Landscaping /Street scaping

Landscaping/ street scaping, revegetation works, buffer plantings and associated infrastructure must be completed to the satisfaction of Council in accordance with the approved Landscaping Plan as outlined in Condition 20 of this development consent.

Reason: To ensure the residential estate is appropriately landscaped.

47. High security water

The Proponent must provide Council with evidence that the required volume of high security water has been allocated to each allotment or transferred to Council in accordance with Council policy.

The following rates apply:

a) 500kL per lot less than 1000m²

b) 750kL per lot between 1001m²–1500 m²

c) 1,000kL per lot between 1501m²–2000m²

These details must be submitted to and approved by Council.

Reason: To comply with Council’s Policy for the provision of water by developers.

48. Works as Executed Plans

Works as Executed (WAE) plans of all infrastructure and services must be provided to Council in both hard and electronic format (i.e. PDF and AutoCAD dwg. formats). The Submitted WAE plans must be to the satisfaction of Council and must contain the true and correct locations and details of all installed infrastructure. The proponent must also provide Council with an asset value for all installed infrastructure that will be transferred to and/or managed by Council, along with street numbering shown on submitted plans.

Reason: To ensure Council receives true and correct details/location for all installed infrastructure and services in the form of Works as Executed plans.

49. Compaction of lots

Prior to the release of the Compliance Certificate, the Proponent must provide Council with the appropriate evidence that the entirety of the lots have been filled and compacted to the relevant Australian Standards. This evidence must be to the satisfaction of Council’s Engineering Department.

Reason: To ensure that the lots are filled and compacted.

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

50. Subdivision Certificate Application

The submission of formal subdivision plans and an application for Subdivision Certificate including the applicable fees must be made with Council for each stage. 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. Three (3) copies of the formal subdivision plans, Administration Sheet and relevant Instrument Sheet (if applicable for the stage) must be provided to Council. All three (3) copies of the Administration Sheet and relevant Instrument Sheet (if applicable for the stage) 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 for each stage 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.

51. Private assets

Any private services which are located within the created Public Open Space reserves must be shown within an appropriate easement to be registered. Any such easements must be shown on the formal subdivision plans prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate for each relevant stage.

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

52. Prior to the issue of Subdivision Works Certificate for Stage 1, the Applicant must provide sufficient evidence to Council outlining that legal agreement has been reached between the Lot owners of Lot 11 DP 701453 (development site) and Lot 2 DP 1191295 (containing Rich River Golf Club) regarding the construction of the chain wire protective screen fence (safety fence) or other appropriate buffer/protective measure. The legal agreement must outline where the fence or buffer/protection measure is to be erected (i.e. site plan), along with who is responsible for its maintenance/replacement. The safety fence is required to remain in perpetuity during the use of Lot 2 DP 1191295 as a golf course. The agreement must also outline that Council holds no responsibility for the erection/maintenance/replacement of such fencing.

Reason: To ensure agreement is reached regarding the construction of required safety fence or other buffer/protection measure between the development site and the existing golf course.

53. Appropriate fencing along the created public open space reserves must be erected as per approved “Twenty Four Lane Moama – Central Reserve” DWG: 1133 G04.3; sheet 3 of 22 (Dated 10/03/20) prepared by Development Outcomes prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate for Stages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9

The “Standard fencing” referred to in this plan must:

a) not be higher than 1.5m above ground level.

The “Open fence” referred to in this plan must:

a) be a ‘rural style’ (open style fence) constructed using post and wire or post and rail, and

b) not be higher than 1.5m above ground level.

The applicable fencing must be constructed to the satisfaction of Council prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate for each relevant stage.

Reason: To ensure that the amenity of the area is not adversely impacted upon.

54. Conveyancing Act 1919 Instruments

The proponent 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 for each relevant stage.

The instrument must contain the following:

· The creation and registration of a “Restriction on the Use of Land” on proposed lots 132, 43, 44, 17, 16, 15, 14, 68, 69, 97, 250, 148, 147, 207, 208, 221, 279, 291, 278, and 292 outlining that a dwelling house, outbuilding or any other structure must be setback a minimum of 3 metres from the adjoining public open space. The restriction must be in favour of Murray River Council.

· No additional fencing other than approved under Condition 54 is permitted on the boundary of the created Public Open Space Reserves and proposed lots 132, 43, 44, 17, 16, 15, 14, 68, 69, 97, 250, 148, 147, 207, 208 and 221. The restriction must be in favour of Murray River Council.

· Council holds no responsibility for the maintenance/replacement of fencing on the boundary of the created Public Open Space Reserves and proposed lots 132, 43, 44, 17, 16, 15, 14, 68, 69, 97, 250, 148, 147, 207, 208, 221, 279, 291, 278, and 292. The restriction must be in favour of Murray River Council.

· A restrictive covenant on proposed lots which abut the Rich River Golf Club (Lot 2 DP 1191295) outlining that lot owners and occupiers of the subject land, recognise that they live adjacent to the existing Rich River Golf Club located on Lot 2 DP 1191295 and Council holds no responsibility for any wayward golf balls which may enter the property.

· The chain wire protective screen fence (safety fence) or appropriate buffer/protection measure established as required by Condition 52 must be maintained for the asset life of the protective fence (estimated 20 years) by the responsible party outlined in the agreement. Council holds no responsibility for the maintenance/replacement of such fencing.

· A restrictive covenant on all residential allotments requiring that the floor level of all habitable rooms be constructed at least the height of the Flood Planning Level (500mm above the 1 in 100 flood event level) applying to the site. The restriction must be in favour of Murray River Council.

The wording of the covenants/restrictions must be to the satisfaction of Council prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate for each relevant stage.

Reason: To ensure that a copy of an instrument is provided to Council for review and endorsement.

55. Adjoining agricultural activities

Prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate for each relevant stage, the proponent must provide evidence that the recommendations of the Impact Assessment and Mitigation of Off-Target Agricultural Spray Drift report as prepared by Advanced Environmental Systems P/L (AES) (Dated February 2020); have been implemented.

Reason: To ensure that the impact of the adjoining agricultural activity is addressed.

56. Compliance Certificate

The Proponent must submit an approved Compliance Certificate with the application for Subdivision Certificate for each stage.

Reason: To ensure the development is appropriately constructed and to comply with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

57. Civil construction and landscape maintenance deposit

A 5% Deposit of Construction costs of roads, stormwater drainage, water, sewer, landscaping and any other required infrastructure is applicable and must be paid with the Subdivision Certificate application for each stage. This deposit will be held by Council for the defects liability period of 12 months and will be used in the circumstance of needing to repair any defects. The deposit will be refunded when a Final Release Certificate is issued by Council’s Engineering Department.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Council’s Engineering Department.

58. Defects liability period

The proponent must maintain all landscaping and civil works for a period of 12 months. During this defect liability period, landscape inspections must be undertaken every 3 months with Council and works completed based on Council’s instructions. After this 12 month period, the proponent must contact Council and arrange a Final Release inspection of all civil and landscape works, at which stage all defects must be rectified.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Council’s Engineering Department.

59. CCTV Footage

The Proponent must supply Council with appropriate CCTV footage of all sewer and stormwater assets. This must include highlighted defects before and after repair.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Council’s Engineering Department.

60. Electricity

The Proponent must provide all allotments with electricity, at their own cost. The proponent must consult with the relevant electricity provider and must obtain suitable written correspondence/evidence from this provider stating that electricity has been provided to each allotment.

Alternatively, written correspondence/evidence that final agreement has been made between the electricity provider and the Proponent to provide electricity to each allotment must be obtained.

It is the Proponent’s responsibility to make the appropriate application with Essential Energy for the supply of electricity to the subdivision, which may include the payment of fees and contributions.

The submitted written correspondence/evidence must be to the satisfaction of Council.

Reason: To satisfactorily service the lots created.

61. Natural gas

The Proponent must provide all allotments with natural gas, at their own cost. The proponent must consult with the relevant natural gas provider and must obtain suitable written correspondence/evidence from this provider stating that natural gas services have been provided to each allotment.

Alternatively, written correspondence/evidence that final agreement has been met between the relevant natural gas provider and the Proponent to provide natural gas services to each allotment must be obtained.

The submitted written correspondence/evidence must be to the satisfaction of Council.

Reason: To satisfactorily service the lots created.

62. Telecommunications and fiber-ready facilities

The Proponent must provide all allotments with fibre-ready telecommunication connection, at their own cost. Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate, the Proponent must consult with the relevant telecommunications carrier and must provide evidence satisfactory to Council that arrangements have been made for:

(i) the installation of fibre-ready facilities to all individual lots in the subdivision so as to enable fibre to be readily connected to any premises that is being or may be constructed on those lots. The development must demonstrate that the carrier has confirmed in writing that they are satisfied that the fibre ready facilities are fit for purpose, and

(ii) the provision of fixed-line telecommunications infrastructure in the fibre-ready facilities to all individual lots in the subdivision demonstrated through an agreement with a carrier.

Alternatively, written correspondence/evidence that final agreement has been met between the telecommunications carrier and the Proponent to provide fibre-ready telecommunications services to each allotment must be obtained.

The submitted written correspondence/evidence must be to the satisfaction of Council.

Reason: To satisfactorily service the lots created and to comply with the Commonwealth Telecommunications Act 1997.

63. Section 7.11 and Section 64 charges

The payment of Section 7.11 Development Contributions and Section 64 sewerage and water headworks charges and Engineering Fees are applicable and must be paid prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate for each stage. Contributions are calculated per allotment created. The fees will be charged and calculated in accordance with Council’s Adopted Fees and Charges at the time the application for Subdivision Certificate is lodged with Council for each stage.

Section 64 Servicing Charges

DEVELOPMENT	Standard Residential Lot (450m2 - 2000m2) x 368
CONTRIBUTION RATE (% OF ET)	100%
SEWER	Rate at time of SC lodgement per lot x 368
FILTERED WATER	Rate at time of SC lodgement per lot x 368
RAW WATER	Rate at time of SC lodgement per lot x 368

Section 7.11 Development Contributions (Murray)

DEVELOPMENT	Conventional lot x 368
CONTRIBUTION RATE (% OF ET)	100%
ROAD UPGRADE	Rate at time of SC lodgement per lot x 368
OPEN SPACE	Rate at time of SC lodgement per lot x 368
COMMUNITY FACILITIES	Rate at time of SC lodgement per lot x 368
WASTE	Rate at time of SC lodgement per lot x 368
STORMWATER	Rate at time of SC lodgement per lot x 368

The subject Section 7.11 Development Contributions are imposed under the former Murray Shire Council Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2011, of which is available for inspection on Council’s website at www.murrayriver.nsw.gov.au.

Reason: To comply with Council’s Development Contribution policies.

64. Access

Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate a formed driveway access to Council specifications must be provided to relevant allotments as outlined on the approved Subdivision Works Certificates. 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 Proponent – Subdivisions

It is noted a request for bonding of works will be treated on its merits and a Bank Guarantee may also be required. Bonding of works may be accepted where actual construction works cannot be undertaken due to wet weather or other delays.120% of actual costs of works will be charged. Section 64 and 7.11 Contributions must be paid direct to Council prior to release of Subdivision Certificate.

Reason: To advise of information regarding bonding of works.

NOTE: Compliance Certificate

Once works have been completed, the proponent is required to ascertain a Compliance Certificate from Council. Please contact Council’s Engineering Department for more information.

Reason: To ensure the development is appropriately constructed and to comply with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Advice to Applicant

The land subject to this consent may have restrictive private covenants applying to it. It is the responsibility of the proponent and owner/builder to ensure that private covenants are adhered to. Council does not enforce or regulate private 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 Standard Instrument.

Reason: To protect underground assets.

It is the responsibility of the Proponent 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.

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 Proponent’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 Commission (phone (02) 9284 9600) in respect of your application.

Reason: To comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

Attachments

1. ATTACHMENT – A – Engineering Plans (under separate cover)

2. ATTACHMENT – B – Written Submissions x 7 ⇩

3. ATTACHMENT – C –Transport for NSW Conditions of Consent ⇩

4. ATTACHMENT – D – NSW Department of Primary Industries Conditions of Consent ⇩


AGENDA Ordinary Council Meeting Tuesday, 26 May 2020
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary Meeting of Murray River Council will be held on:
Date:	Tuesday, 26 May 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	6	2	38
Start-up		1					3%
Scoping					1		3%
Design					3		8%
Planning							0%
Procurement		1					3%
Construction	4	1	1	4	2	1	33%
Complete	5	4	6	3		1	50%
Summary
% in progress	44%	43%	14%	57%	100%	100%
% complete	56%	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

MRC – Moama Office Refurbishment MRC – Smart Water Meter Replacement Program				MRC $4,800,000		Projects 2
Program Health	Program Trend		Actual Spend /Budget	At Risk Projects		Last updated

Water Meter Replacement Program Stage 1 Status On track Stage Construction Budget $2,900,000 MRC Actual $$ 37%		Moama HQ refurbishment Stage 1 Status Complete Stage Defect stage Budget $1,900,000 MRC Actual $$ 100%			Comments: 3381 x V200HT meters. Site identified for 2nd receiver in Moama. MiWater remote training sessions underway. UAT plans received to be progressed. Next steps: Complete MiWater training sessions. Continuation of Meter installations by addressing COVID-19 Risks. Planning installation of second Receiver in Moama to cover for blackspot. Work in progress for getting approval by 27th of May for the ordering of 2,408 additional Aquiba meters. Compile requirements for MiWater Public Portal