Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

23 February 2021

8.2.3 Quarterly Budget Review - Period Ended 31 December 2020

File Number: -

Author: Kris Kershaw, Manager Finance

Authoriser: Terry Dodds, Chief Executive Officer

Recommendation

1. That the Officer’s report be received and noted by the Council.

2. That the budget variations as detailed within the report and any subsequent changes made to those votes be included in Council’s estimates of income and expenditure for 2020/2021

Background

Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (the Regulations) requires a Council’s responsible accounting officer to prepare and submit a quarterly budget review statement to the governing body of Council. The quarterly budget review statement must show, by reference to the estimated income and expenditure that is set out in the operational plan adopted by council for the relevant year, a revised estimate of income and expenditure for that year.

It also requires the budget review statement to include a report by the responsible accounting officer as to whether or not they consider the statement indicates council to be in a satisfactory financial position (with regard to its original budget) and if not, to include recommendations for remedial action.

Legislative requirements together with the implementation of a formal reporting mechanism will ensure that councils have a robust and transparent budget reporting framework.

Discussion

Budget Position as at 31 December 2020

Overall net budget position, or working capital, has continued to improve on the 2020/21 Original Budget deficit of ($1,209,938) to a 2020/21 Revised Budget deficit of ($511,665) – an overall improvement of $698,273 as at end of 31 December 2020.

INCOME STATEMENT – CONSOLIDATED

The December 2020 quarter review has revised the estimated operating surplus as at September 2020 of $10,162,413 to $10,604,091. This is predominantly due to an increase in Capital Grants, which has a corresponding increase in Capital Expenditure.

Total budget result improves on the original 2020/21 deficit of ($1,209,938) to ($511,665) as at 31 December 2020. This is an overall net reduction in budgeted deficit of $698,273. The information below shows the movements for the September and December 2020 quarters, as well as the net budget variances resolved by Council outside the quarterly review process.

Income from Continuing Operations

Projected 2020/21 financial year budgeted revenues are estimated to increase by a further $680,908 to $58,125,780. Detailed breakdown of each variation is shown in Attachment A. A summary of the net variations is shown below:

Legend:increase in budget decrease in budget no change in budget

By fund, the revenue is split based on actual and budget remaining as follows:

Expenses from Continuing Operations

Projected 2020/21 financial year budgeted operating expenditures are estimated to increase by ($239,230) to ($47,521,690). Detailed breakdown of each variation is shown in Attachment A. A summary of the net variations is shown below:

Legend:increase in budget decrease in budget no change in budget

By fund, the operating expenditure is split based on actual and budget remaining as follows:

Other Funding Movements

Projected 2020/21 financial year budgeted capital expenditure and other funding movements are estimated to increase by a further $727,880 to $11,982,991. Detailed breakdown of each variation is shown in Attachment A. A summary of the net variations is shown below:

By fund, the non-operating and capital expenditure is split based on actual and budget remaining as follows:

ALL FUNDS STATEMENT

The following statement is made in accordance with Clause 203(2) of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005.

It is in my opinion that the Quarterly Budget Review Statement for Murray River Council for quarter ended 31/12/2020 indicates that Council’s projected financial position at 30/06/21 will be satisfactory / ~~unsatisfactory~~ at year end, having regard to the projected estimates of income and expenditure and the original budgeted income and expenditure.

Name: Kris Kershaw

Responsible Accounting Officer, Murray River Council

Date: 10^th February 2021

Strategic Implications

5 - Strategic Theme 5: Leadership and Governance

5.1 - An effective, efficient and progressive Council that provides leadership to the community

5.1.2 - Council acts in a financially responsible manner to ensure delivery of safe and sustainable services to the community

Budgetary Implications

Refer to annual budget.

Policy Implications

Nil.

Legislative Implications

Local Government Act 1993

Risk Analysis

· What can happen?

Inability to manage council financial resources

· How can it happen?

Inadequate financial reporting and checks and balances

· What are the consequences of the event happening?

Risk that council will not know if it is managing its financial resources effectively

· What is the likelihood of the event happening?

Unlikely

· Adequacy of existing controls?

Adequate

· Treatment options to mitigate the risk?

Adequate and timely financial planning and reporting

Conclusion

Murray River’s budget and financial performance is adequate as at the end of December 2020.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - Dec 2020 Qtr Budget Review - Detailed Movement ⇩

2. Attachment 2 - Dec 2020 Qtr Budget Review - Council Resolution ⇩

3. Attachment 3 - 2020-21 Crown Reserves Improvement Fund ⇩

4. Attachment 4 - Apporved Work Schedule LRCI Phase 2 ⇩

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

23 February 2021

8.3 Director Operations and Major Projects Report and Supplementary Matters

8.3.1 Draft Murray River Council Drinking Water Quality Policy

File Number: -

Author: Scott Barber, Director Operations & Major Projects

Authoriser: Terry Dodds, Chief Executive Officer

Recommendation

That Council approve the draft Drinking Water Quality Policy for public exhibition.

Background

This Policy is based on a Framework for Management of Drinking Water Quality developed for the water industry under the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG).

Council is reviewing its Drinking Water Management System (DWMS) to ensure it is consistent with the Framework for Management of Drinking Water Quality.

The DWMS is mandated by the NSW Public Health Act 2010 and Public Health Regulation 2012. The intent of the DWMS is to effectively facilitate the management of risks to drinking water quality.

Discussion

The purpose of this policy is to demonstrate Council’s commitment to providing drinking water that is consistent with the requirements of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG), except to the extent that NSW Health specifies otherwise, and other regulatory requirements.

This Policy:

1. Documents Council’s commitment to providing continuous supply of safe high-quality drinking water by implementing a Drinking Water Management System (DWMS).

2. Applies to all elected members of Council, all personnel employed by Council, any person or organisation contracted to or acting on behalf of Council, any person or organisation employed to work on Council premises or facilities, and all activities of the Council.

All managers, employees, and contractors involved in the supply of drinking water are responsible for understanding, implementing, maintaining and continuously improving the DWMS.

To achieve this, in collaboration and consultation with stakeholders and relevant agencies, Council will:

· implement, maintain and periodically revise the DWMS in alignment with the ADWG

· use multiple barrier and risk-based approaches to identify and appropriately manage potential threats to water quality

· manage water quality at all points along the delivery chain from the source to the consumer

· maintain regular monitoring of the quality of drinking water at appropriate locations and effective reporting mechanisms to provide relevant and timely information, and promote confidence in the water supply and its management

· participate in relevant research and development activities and join professional associations and industry peak organisations to ensure continued understanding of drinking water quality issues and improvement of performance

· maintain appropriate contingency planning and incident response capability, including investigation of incidents and review of response plans, procedures and protocols

· contribute to the development and setting of industry regulations and guidelines, and other standards relevant to public health and the water cycle

· provide training to employees associated with the catchment, water resources and drinking water systems

· integrate the needs and expectations of our consumers, stakeholders, regulators and employees into our planning and decision-making process

· continually improve our practices by regularly assessing performance against regulatory requirements, corporate commitments and stakeholder expectations

Strategic Implications

5 - Strategic Theme 5: Leadership and Governance

5.1 - An effective, efficient and progressive Council that provides leadership to the community

5.1.2 - Council acts in a financially responsible manner to ensure delivery of safe and sustainable services to the community

Budgetary Implications

Nil

Policy Implications

Murray River Council Code of Conduct (POL100).

Legislative Implications

Local Government Act 1993.

Public Health Act 2010.

Risk Analysis

· What can happen?

Council’s are required to have a Drinking Water Quality Management Policy in place to demonstrate commitment to safe drinking water, otherwise it may be perceived that this is not considered a high priority for our community.

· How can it happen?

Risks associated with the delivery of a safe drinking water product and service may not be given due consideration of priority.

· What are the consequences of the event happening?

Under-investment, decreased oversight or performance monitoring

· What is the likelihood of the event happening?

Low

· Adequacy of existing controls?

High

· Treatment options to mitigate the risk?

Council implementation of this Policy demonstrates intent and commitment to ensure the provision of a safe water quality product and services to our consumers.

Conclusion

Council approves this policy for public exhibition to demonstrate commitment to the provision of a safe drinking water product and service.

Attachments

1. Draft MRC Drinking Water Quality Policy ⇩

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

23 February 2021

8.4.2 Development Application 10.2020.59.1 - 266 Lot Subdivision 'Arthurs Estate' - Boyes Street, Moama

File Number: -

Author: Christopher O'Brien, Senior Town Planner

Authoriser: David Wilkinson, Director Planning & Environment

Applicant: North East Survey Design

Owner: RF Arthur

Proposal: 266 Lot Subdivision, including ancillary earthworks

Location: Lots 131-132 DP 751152, Lots 74-76 DP 751159, Lot 1301 DP 1186616 – Boyes Street, Moama NSW 2731

Recommendation

1) That the Officer’s report be received and noted; and

2) That Development Application (DA) 10.2020.59.1 be granted development consent subject to the attached conditions of consent.

Background

The Application seeks permission for a 266 lot subdivision, including ancillary earthworks of the subject land. The subject land of the proposed development is Lots 131-132 DP 751152, Lots 74-76 DP 751159, Lot 1301 DP 1186616, located at Boyes Street, Moama NSW 2731.

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.

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. The proposal is considered appropriate for the location, will respect the natural 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 Development Consent subject to appropriate conditions of consent attached to this report.

Discussion

Subject Site

The site subject to this development application is located on Lots 131 & 132 DP 751152, Lots 74, 75, 76 DP 7511159, and Lot 130 DP 1186616. The land is surrounded by Kiely Road to the north, Lignum Road to the west, Boyes Street to the south, and Kirchhofer Street to the east. The site is zoned R1 General Residential and is mapped as Murray Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Riverine Land and Urban Release Area. The site is partially mapped as Bush Fire Prone Land and Terrestrial Biodiversity (Native Vegetation). The site is not mapped as Flood Prone Land, Key Fish Habitat (Aquatic Biodiversity), Wetlands, RAMSAR Wetlands, a Watercourse, mining resources or contaminated land. The site does not contain any known items of environmental heritage significance. The site is irregular in shape whilst most of the site is cleared. Please see the NSW Planning Portal website for more information.

Proposal

The proposed development is a 266 Lot Subdivision of the land, including ancillary earthworks. Please see submitted layout plan for more information.

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

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: Part of the land is mapped as Bush Fire Prone Land, therefore the application is classed as Integrated Development with NSW RFS.

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 NSW RFS.

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

Application history/timeline

Application lodged	05/03/2020
DA Panel	11/03/2020
Neighbour Notification	6/4/2020 – 12/5/2020
Further information requested	3/4/2020
Further information received	20/1/2021
Site Inspection	2/4/2020

2.3 Referrals and Owners Consent

Internal Referrals	DA Panel Engineering Department Waste Department
External Referrals	Integrated Development – NSW RFS Murray REP2 Agencies - 26 STORMWATER DRAINAGE SCHEME
Advertised	Yes
Public Notification	The proposed development was notified to adjoining property owners in accordance with Integrated Development, Murray REP2 and Murray DCP 2012 requirements.
Owners Consent	Provided.

2.4 Contributions

Section 7.11 (formerly Section 94) Development Contributions are required.

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

Section 64 contributions are 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

1.2 Aims of Plan

Comment: It is considered that the proposed development is not inconsistent with the aims of Murray LEP 2011.

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

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 development is not inconsistent with the objectives of the R1 zone of the Murray LEP 2011.

2.6 Subdivision—consent requirements

Comment: Noted.

Part 4 Principal development standards

4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size

Comment: Complies.

Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions

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 condition regarding protection of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.

Part 6 Urban release areas

Comment: The site is mapped as an Urban Release Area.

6.1 Arrangements for designated State public infrastructure

Comment: The subject site is mapped as an urban release area. Council has previously received confirmation from the Director-General/Planning and Infrastructure Department (currently known as the Planning Secretary of the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment) that satisfactory arrangements have been made to contribute to the provision of designated State public infrastructure. The proposed development will be assessed against the Murray DCP 2012 which provides appropriate criteria to ensure that any development is suitable for the site.

6.2 Public utility infrastructure

Comment: Council is satisfied that any public utility infrastructure that is essential for the proposed development is available.

6.3 Development control plan

Comment: A suitable Development Control Plan has been developed for land mapped as an Urban Release Area within the Council. The Murray DCP 2012 addresses all required details. The current development application will be assessed against these criteria which are detailed in this report.

6.4 Relationship between Part and remainder of Plan

Comment: Noted.

Part 7 Additional local provisions

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,	Available.
(b) the supply of electricity,	Electricity is available.
(c) the disposal and management of sewage,	The proposed subdivision is required to connect to Council’s existing sewer main. Any upgrades to infrastructure will be required to be constructed to satisfaction of Council at the expense of the Proponent.
(d) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,	The Proponent will be required to construct a stormwater drainage basin located in the south west corner of the land and comply with the requirements of the submitted preliminary stormwater report. This will form a condition of any consent issued.
(e) suitable road access	Road access is available via Boyes Street, Kiely Road, Lignum Road and Kirchhofer Street. Access roads will be required to be constructed in accordance with Council’s Engineering Guidelines (including any upgrades to access the subject site).

7.2 Earthworks

Comment: Development consent is required for the earthworks to facilitate the proposed development. It is considered that any earthworks work required as part of this proposal are ancillary to the proposed subdivision of land and can be approved subject to conditions. It is noted that the subject site is not mapped as Flood Prone Land, Key Fish Habitat, or as land containing Wetlands.

7.3 Biodiversity protection

Comment: Part of the land is mapped as Terrestrial Biodiversity. It is considered that the proposed development is not inconsistent with the requirements of this clause.

7.8 Flood planning

Comment: The subject land is not mapped as flood prone land.

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

2 Aims of the plan

Comment: The proposed development is consistent with the aims of this plan. The proposal is unlikely to detrimentally impact upon the riverine environment of the River Murray and is well setback from any watercourse (900m).

3 Objectives of the plan

Comment: The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of this plan.

Part 2 Planning principles

9 General principles

Comment: The proposed development is consistent with the general principles of this plan. The proposed development is unlikely to significantly adversely affect the River Murray.

10 Specific principles

Comment: The proposed development is consistent with the specific principles of this plan. The proposed development is unlikely to significantly adversely affect the River Murray.

Part 3 Planning requirements and consultation

13 Planning Control and Consultation Table

Comment: The Application was referred in accordance with the requirements stormwater drainage scheme.

14 Building setbacks—special provisions

Comment: The proposed development is set well back from the Murray River (in excess of 900m) which is considered an acceptable outcome.

3.2(a)(i)c State Environmental Planning Policy (Koala Habitat Protection) 2020

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

3.2(a)(i)d 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)e State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Comment: The proposal was notified to Transport for NSW (Roads) in accordance with Section 104 and Schedule 3 ‘Traffic-generating development to be referred to Roads and Maritime Services’ of this Policy.

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

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

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 applies to the proposal.

Chapter 6 Strategic Land Use Plan

Comment: The proposed development is consistent with the SLUP.

Chapter 7 Subdivision

The proposed subdivision is consistent with the purpose of this Chapter.

Subchapter	Objectives	Controls	Comment
7.1 Context	Consistent	Consistent	The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the subchapter, and suitable for its context. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the recommendations of the Moama North West Masterplan (2008).
7.2 Neighbourhood Character	Consistent	Consistent	The proposed subdivision is generally consistent and compatible with the theme and neighbourhood character of the area. The character for existing residents within adjoining existing estates will not be adversely impacted. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the envisaged future character of the area. The proposed subdivision is not inconsistent with the recommendations of the Moama North West Masterplan (2008).
7.3 Staging	Consistent	Consistent	A staging plan has been submitted and considered appropriate. The subject land is in proximity of all required services. The proposal is not inconsistent with Council’s Strategic Land Use Plan.
7.4 Movement Network	Consistent	Consistent	It is considered that the proposed design is appropriate. The proposed movement network as part of the proposed development promotes easy movement for vehicles and pedestrians. The design of the proposed subdivision provides for integration with future developments to the north and west. The internal road design is satisfactory, whilst no cul-de-sacs are proposed. The proposed design is consistent with the Moama North West Masterplan (2008).
7.5 Activity Centres and Community Facilities	Consistent	Consistent	Not applicable. The land is not identified by Council’s Strategic Land Use Plan or Moama North West Masterplan for use as an Activity Centre or Community Facility.
7.6 Public Open Space	Consistent	Consistent	No public open space is proposed as part of this application (with exception of stormwater retention basin). The site is near the Moama Recreation Reserve however which is considered an appropriate outcome.
7.7 Landscaping	Consistent	Consistent	Preliminary details have been provided in correspondence in respect to landscaping. Any development consent will include a condition of consent requiring a detailed landscaping plan to be prepared and submitted prior to the release of the Subdivision Works Certificate for each stage.
7.8 Lot Design	Consistent	Consistent	The proposed subdivision is consistent with the objectives of the subchapter. The proposed allotments provide sufficient room for the construction of future dwelling houses which are appropriately sited, whilst allowing for solar access, private open space, vehicle access and parking, water management, easements and the retention of significant native vegetation and site features. The proposed allotment design is satisfactory and comprises mainly rectangular allotments that promote the objectives of this section. All proposed allotments can contain a 10m by 15m building envelope. The proposed subdivision is compliant with Council’s Engineering Guidelines for Subdivisions and Development Standards and is not inconsistent with the recommendations of the Moama North West Masterplan (2008).
7.9 Infrastructure and Services	Consistent	Consistent	Preliminary engineering plans were submitted with the application which Council’s Engineering Department have considered to be satisfactory. Preliminary details have been discussed under Clause 7.1 of Murray LEP 2011 within this report. Further investigation and engineering details will be required prior to the release of any Subdivision Works Certificate for each stage which will form a condition of development consent.
7.10 Natural Hazards	Consistent	Consistent	The land is partially mapped as Bush Fire Prone, therefore was referred to NSW RFS as Integrated Development. NSW RFS did not object to the granting of consent subject to conditions. The land is not mapped as Flood Prone and is not known to be contaminated.
7.11 Site Management	Consistent	Consistent	The proposed subdivision is consistent with this subchapter. Stormwater Management and Sediment Erosion Control Plans will be required in accordance with any development consent issued.

Chapter 8 Urban Release Areas

URA DCP Requirement	Requirements for Compliance	Comment
A staging plan for the timely and efficient release of urban land making provision for necessary infrastructure and sequencing.	Satisfactory response to Section 7.3 of Chapter 7 of this DCP.	The proposed development is consistent with this requirement. The application is for a multistage residential subdivision and complies with Section 7.3 of Chapter 7 of this DCP.
An overall transport movement hierarchy showing the major circulation routes and connection to achieve a simple and safe movement system for private vehicles, public transport, pedestrians and cyclists.	Satisfactory response to Section 7.4 of Chapter 7 of this DCP.	The proposal satisfactorily responded to Section 7.4 of Chapter 7 of this DCP. The proposed subdivision provides for integration with future development. The proposed movement network promotes easy movement for vehicles and pedestrians. The proposed subdivision provides for pedestrian and cycle movement through the proposed residential estate.
An overall landscaping strategy for the protection and enhancement of riparian areas and remnant vegetation, including visually prominent locations, and detailed landscaping requirement for both public and private domain.	Satisfactory response to Section 7.7 of Chapter 7 of this DCP.	The proposal satisfactorily responds to Section 7.7 of Chapter 7 of this DCP.
A network of passive and active recreational areas.	Satisfactory response to Section 7.6 of Chapter 7 of this DCP.	The proposal satisfactorily responds to Subchapter 7.6 of Chapter 7 of this DCP.
Stormwater and water quality management controls.	Satisfactory response to Section 7.9 of Chapter 7 of this DCP.	The proposal satisfactorily responds to Subchapter 7.9 of Chapter 7 of this DCP. Stormwater will be directed via kerb and channel into underground drainage infrastructure and will ultimately discharge into Council’s stormwater infrastructure to the satisfaction of Council’s Engineering Department.
Amelioration of natural and environmental hazards, including bushfire, flooding and sire contamination and, in relation to natural hazards, the safe occupation of, and the evacuation from, any land so affected.	Satisfactory response to Section 7.10 of Chapter 7 of this DCP.	The proposal satisfactorily responds to Section 7.10 of Chapter 7 of this DCP.
Detailed urban design controls for significant development sites.	The only “significant development sites” within the URA is land zoned B2 north of the Perricoota Road/Cobb Highway intersection. Satisfactory response to Chapter 4 of this DCP.	The subject land does not contain any significant sites.
Measure to encourage higher density living around transport, open space and service nodes.	Satisfactory response to Section 2.1 of Chapter 2 of this DCP.	The proposal satisfactorily responded to the existing residential character of the area consistent with the Murray LEP 2011 and Murray DCP 2012.
Measures to accommodate and control appropriate neighbourhood commercial and retail uses.	Satisfactory response to Section 4.1 of Chapter 4 of this DCP.	Not applicable.
Suitably located public facilities and services, including the provisions for appropriate traffic management facilities and parking.	Satisfactory response to Sections 7.4 and 7.5 of Chapter 7 of this DCP.	The proposal satisfactorily responds to Section 7.4 and 7.5 of Chapter 7 of this DCP. The Moama township contains adequate public facilities to cater for increased residential development. Development Contributions from the current proposed development will assist in expanding these services to cater for an increased demand.

Chapter 9 Vegetation Removal

Comment: The proposal is not inconsistent with this chapter. Any consent issued in respect of this proposal will include conditions with respect to vegetation removal, vegetation retention and vegetation management.

Chapter 12 Notification Policy

Comment: The application was notified to adjoining property owners.

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

Natural Environment

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

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 has the potential to create positive economic effects to the community.

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

Comment: The subject site is considered suitable for the proposed development. The subject site is suitably located and has appropriate access to facilities and amenities within the Moama Township. It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with all relevant planning legislation and controls, including the Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011, the Murray Development Control Plan 2012, and the Murray Strategic Land Use Plan.

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

Agency	Response
Natural Resources Access Regulator	No objections, comments received.
WaterNSW	No objections.
DPIE - Biodiversity Conservation Division	No objections subject to conditions.
NSW EPA	No objections subject to conditions.
Transport for Victoria	No response received.
Murray-Darling Basin Authority	No objections, comments received.
DPI Fisheries	No objections, comments received.
Transport for NSW – Roads	No objections subject to conditions.
NSW Crown Lands	No objections, comments received.
NSW Rural Fire Service	No objections subject to conditions.
Essential Energy	No objections subject to conditions.

Public Submissions

No public submissions were received.

3.6(e) The public interest.

The public’s interest has been taken into consideration in the assessment of this development application. It is considered that the proposed development will have a net community benefit.

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 satisfactory. The proposed development will not adversely impact upon Murray River Council, whilst the application can be determined under delegated authority as per Council’s Policy. It is therefore recommended that development consent be granted subject to the relevant conditions of development consent (attached).

Attachments

1. Appendix 1 (NSW RFS response) ⇩

2. Appendix 2 (TfNSW response) ⇩

3. Appendix 3 (EPA response) ⇩

4. Appendix 4 (Essential Energy response) ⇩

5. Submitted Layout Plan ⇩

6. Conditions of consent ⇩

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

23 February 2021

8.4.3 Planning Proposal - 142 Swan Hill Road, Murray Downs - Rezoning to R1 General Residential

File Number: -

Author: Melanie Squires, Strategic Planner

Authoriser: David Wilkinson, Director Planning & Environment

Recommendation

That Council

1. Endorse the planning proposal in conjunction with Murray River Council’s Addendum effecting Lots 1 – 16 DP286903, 142 Swan Hill Road, Murray Downs.

2. Approve staff to undertake all required steps to complete an amendment to the Wakool Local Environmental Plan 2013 (or the relevant operating Local Environmental Plan at the time) to:

(a) Rezone the land from RE2 Private Recreation to R1 General Residential.

Background

This Planning Proposal applies to the land known as Lots 1 – 16 DP286903, 142 Swan Hill Road, Murray Downs. These parcels of land are currently zoned RE2 Private Recreation under the Wakool Local Environmental Plan 2013.

The following timeline of information provides background to this Planning Proposal:

· Application to rezone the whole site (previously known as Lot 1 DP1134973) from RU1 Primary Production to R5 Large Lot Residential was refused at the Wakool Shire Council meeting in September 2014 based on inconsistency with the Wakool Land Use Strategy Report 2009 which identified the site as a tourism area.

· Application to rezone the whole site from RU1 Primary Production to RE2 Private Recreation (for the purposes of a Manufactured Homes Estate) was endorsed by Wakool Shire Council at the February 2015 meeting and the amendment to the Wakool Local Environmental Plan 2013 was formally published in February 2018.

· The development application was approved by Murray River Council as a “Manufactured Home Estate” (Community Title 12 Lots) on 10 October 2018, which only allowed manufactured homes to be constructed offsite and transported to the site for installation (DA18/16).

· An amendment to this development consent was approved on 26 July 2019 to add 4 lots, resulting in a 16-lot Community Title subdivision.

Discussion

The sixteen new lot owners have agreed to pursue a planning proposal together to rezone each lot from RE2 Private Recreation to R1 General Residential to allow traditional dwellings to be applied for and developed. A Planning Proposal has been prepared Roy Costa Planning and Development to facilitate the Gateway process, and Council have prepared an addendum providing further clarity in relation to this proposal (see Attachments). The Planning Proposal is to be considered in conjunction with the Addendum.

· Limitations of the manufactured homes regulations

The applicable legislation for the manufactured home estate is the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005.

There are limitations on how a manufactured home can be constructed and installed as per Section 135 cited below.

135 Relocatable homes to be constructed and assembled off-site

(1) A relocatable home must not be installed on a dwelling site unless each major section of the home has been constructed and assembled at, and transported to the caravan park from, a place of manufacture outside the caravan park.

(2) However, the fixing of cornices, the setting of wall lining joints, the fitting of skirting boards and architraves and the grouting of tiles may be done on the dwelling site.

The definition for major section is outlined at Section 4 of the regulations as below.

major section means a single portion of a manufactured home or relocatable home, being a portion—

(a) that contains a total living space (excluding the living space contained in any associated structure) of at least 20 cubic metres, and

(b) that comprises all of the major components of that portion of the home, including the chassis or frame, the external and internal walls, the roof and ceilings, the floors, the windows and doors, the internal plumbing and wiring, the tiling, the kitchen, bathroom and laundry fittings (other than stoves, refrigerators, washing machines and other whitegoods) and the built-in cupboards and cabinets.

The Planning Proposal outlines how the Swan Hill Bridge infrastructure cannot cater for the transport of major sections. This is an issue for the current lot owners to construct manufactured homes onsite as the major sections are sourced from Victoria. Alternative transport routes via Moama for example significantly increases costs. As outlined in the Murray River Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) “the Swan Hill Bridge is due to be upgraded in the coming years as the first priority of investment”. However, the specific timing of this upgrade is still unknown. The lot owners therefore wish to pursue being able to construct traditional dwellings.

The legislation stipulates that a manufactured home cannot be installed outside of a manufactured home estate or caravan park. Council is reviewing planning controls to enable manufactured homes to be recognised as a form of dwelling houses in Murray River Council. The aim would be to allow a manufactured home to be erected anywhere a dwelling house is permissible (subject to assessment). In the event that a future lot owner wishes to construct a manufactured home on the rezoned site, Council may be able to consider this.

· Risk management

For the construction of traditional dwellings there is a higher level of engineering and planning controls to mitigate risks, as opposed to the construction/installation process of manufactured homes.

It is noted that as per the development consent for the subdivision, the infrastructure is privately owned and managed. Council is only responsible for infrastructure connections to the boundary of Council owned land. Vehicle access is via a private accessway, and Council has no intention of taking over management of the existing road network within the subdivision.

· Strategic studies or reports

The Planning Proposal references Planning Priority 4 of the LSPS which identifies housing growth in our LGA and the need to supply a variety of housing types to meet demographic needs. The proposed rezoning to R1 will allow for a further variety of housing types than what is permissible within the current RE2 zone.

Residential land supply and demand will be investigated in the upcoming housing strategy (Action 4.1 of the LSPS). This will include review of the current residential development within Murray Downs. The area around the subject land could be favourable for residential development, infilling the current gaps between the township. The strategic merit of this potential will be tested as part of the upcoming strategy. Council cannot provide any guarantees as to the eventual outcomes of the final strategy. The findings from the housing strategy will inform the future land use strategy for the whole LGA.

Consultation

It is also noted that public consultation and referral to state government agencies of the planning proposal will occur through the Gateway process.

Strategic Implications

1 - Strategic Theme 1: Built/Physical Environment

1.3 - Improve and maintain community infrastructure

1.3.5 - Encourage greater housing choice and development to meet our changing population needs

Budgetary Implications

The Planning Proposal was funded solely by the lot owners via Roy Costa Planning and Development.

Policy Implications

Nil.

Legislative Implications

Local Government (Manufactured Homes Estate, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds & Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005.

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

Wakool Local Environmental Plan 2013

Risk Analysis

· What can happen?

The lot owners experience cost and time delays in an attempt to develop their land or the land may not be developed..

· How can it happen?

Council does not resolve to support the Planning Proposal and therefore it cannot proceed to Gateway.

· What are the consequences of the event happening?

The lot owners will be limited to building only manufactured homes which are cost prohibitive as detailed above and could devalue the land. This also limits the type of housing product to be constructed. This could also be a reputation issue for Council.

· What is the likelihood of the event happening?

Possible.

· Adequacy of existing controls?

Rezoning is considered the best approach to allow traditional dwellings to be applied for on the subject lots, as it is not permissible within the current zoning.

· Treatment options to mitigate the risk?

Support the Planning Proposal and resolutions of this report.

Conclusion

Council officers have reviewed the planning proposal received from Roy Costa Planning & Development and provided additional comments in the addendum that supports the rezoning proposal.

The Planning Proposal (including Addendum) is consistent with all relevant assessment provisions as well as local and regional strategy. The proposal seeks an alternative approach to a logistical issue surrounding construction of manufactured homes specific to these lots. Additionally, it provides further housing choice for the lot owners which aligns with our strategic aims.

Attachments

1. Planning Proposal - Rezoning to R1 - 142 Swan Hill Road, Murray Downs (under separate cover)

2. Murray River Council Addendum to Planning Proposal - Rezoning to R1 - 142 Swan Hill Road, Murray Downs (under separate cover)

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

23 February 2021

8.5.4 In-Principle support for slow Echuca Moama's application to be accredited as a slow city.

File Number: -

Author: Beck Hayward, Economic Development Officer

Authoriser: John Harvie, Director Community and Economic Development

Recommendation

That Council provide in-principle support for Echuca Moama to become a Candidate Member of Cittaslow Australasia, (and eventually a Certified Slow City), and the Mayor sign the Candidate Member Application and Declaration of Commitment form.

Background

Following a report to Council in September 2020, representatives of the Love Echuca Moama movement presented to the pre-council meeting briefing in November 2020, to discuss Echuca Moama becoming a Candidate Member of Cittaslow Australasia.

See below the background information that was provided in the report to Council in September 2020:

Just over two years ago, a small group of passionate Echuca Moama (EM) residents committed to going through the extensive accreditation process, through Cittaslow International, to become an accredited Slow City.

The Italian based Cittaslow (translated as ‘slow city’) Slow City movement began as part of the ‘slow food’ movement in 1990 and is embodied by a logo of a snail carrying a modern-day city on its back.

The internationally recognised organisation, with a small Australasian arm, aims to highlight and improve the quality of life in certified towns around the world. The official Cittaslow label applies to 252 cities across 30 countries and territories around the world, there are currently only three in Australia – Goolwa (SA), Katoomba (NSW) and Yea (Vic) – and it is hoped that Echuca Moama will be the fourth.

Katoomba explains in its website that “Cittaslow towns take the time to identify what is important and special about that town and its surrounding area and put in place strategies to preserve their unique qualities, making life better for everyone.”

Slow City philosophies also encourage diversity, support local culture and traditions, value a more sustainable environment, healthy living and locally grown produce.

Importantly, becoming a Slow City does not mean opposing progress or technology in EM or reinventing a complete new image, but aims to focus on all positive aspects of life here, celebrate the good already happening in the community, and also highlight areas for improved living and connectedness.

EM is somewhere locals and visitors love to relax, unwind and fully enjoy the simple things in life in a stunning natural environment. Becoming a certified Slow City enhances this image, with the potential for ‘slow living’ to become an unofficial brand.

Some of the benefits of Cittaslow certification for EM include, but are not limited to:

ü A universal marketing tool for the region

ü Greater community engagement and involvement

ü Increased town pride and ownership of successes and challenges

ü Greater awareness and care of our natural environment

ü Improved mental and physical health

ü Decreased disconnect = less time on screens and more time spent in the community

ü A much-needed antidote to our fast-paced world

The areas covered in the accreditation process include:

ü Energy and Environmental policies

ü Infrastructure and Transport policies

ü Town and Landscape policies

ü Quality of Everyday life policies

ü Economy, Industry and Tourism policies

ü Culture, Heritage and Social Cohesion

ü Partnerships

Council’s economic development officer and Campaspe Shire Council staff and Councillors have provided some support to the group over the past two years.

Discussion

Since the inaugural meeting (over two years ago) where local residents met with representatives from Cittaslow Australasia, (where they declared that EM already has 95% of the attributes needed for accreditation), a lot has happened.

In the past two years the Slow Echuca Moama Movement has achieved the following:

• Slow Echuca Moama logo created by local artist Bronwyn Morton (see attached)

• Slow Echuca Moama endorsed by and made a sub-committee of Echuca Moama Tourism

• Received Campaspe Shire funding for postcards to promote the Slow Echuca Moama movement (approx. $700)

• Gained private enterprise sponsorship funding for production of Slow Echuca Moama tea towels - $1000 from Moama Bakery

• The Slow Echuca Moama Repair Cafe was established (3 events held before being halted by COVID-19). These began in late 2019 in conjunction with the official launch of the Slow Echuca Moama Movement.

• Collaborated with local businesses including Coolabah Turf, both local bike shops On Your Bike and Ash Hall Cycles, and South Fabrics for repair café equipment, which were hosted by Echuca Moama Tourism at the Tourist Information Centre and the Foundry Arts Space.

• The most recent Repair Café (in March 2020) focussed on mending clothes and well-being where we provided free mental health checks via local counselling business Thrive Wellness and Consulting and also free yoga classes.

• Collaborated with Boomerang Bag Echuca Moama for the clothes mending Repair Cafes, as well as the Community Living and Respite’s Collaborate Crew from Moama’s Murray River Team Rooms.

• Held discussions with Moama based upcycling business HRJ’s Upcycling about them hosting a Repair Café in the future – it’s the perfect fit.

• The official launch of Slow Echuca Moama and Repair Café received widespread media coverage, including local radio, newspaper coverage and a piece on Win TV (Bendigo)

• Letters of support have been received from Echuca Moama Tourism, Murray River Council, Campaspe Shire and the Committee for Echuca Moama (C4EM)

• The community education process has including speaking to the local Women in Business group, Get Connect about Slow Echuca Moama and its benefits

• Engaged with St Joseph's College Echuca about its Year Nine Passion Project for students and how Slow Echuca Moama could become involved (Repair Cafe or Community Garden space)

• Currently working towards gathering evidence for accreditation and have spoken with many groups and individuals about creating case studies as examples for each topic area (see notes below) including a local Active Transport Group and Gunbower native tree farm.

• Are in discussions with Local Community Radio (EMFM 104.7) about a weekly health and well-being radio show based around the accreditation criteria - possibly in conjunction with Echuca Regional Health or other local community organisations.

• The Slow Echuca Moama (loveEM) Facebook (1128 followers) and Instagram (974 follower) pages are used to promote the movement and provide education about what Slow EM means and how the local community can benefit. These are the links to the social media pages:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/loveem_echucamoama/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/loveEchucaMoama/

The committee has support and involvement from numerous Campaspe Shire Council staff and Councillors. Campaspe Shire is currently in care-taker mode and once that is finished, the Slow EM group will ask Campaspe Shire for to officially sign the form to show their in-principle support also.

Strategic Implications

3 - Strategic Theme 3: Social Wellbeing

3.3 - Support and enable our community

3.3.2 - Provide opportunities for the development and well-being of children and young people

Budgetary Implications

No budget is required. The request is for Council’s in-principle support only.

Policy Implications

Nil.

Legislative Implications

Risk Analysis

· What can happen?

N/A

· How can it happen?

N/A

· What are the consequences of the event happening?

N/A

· What is the likelihood of the event happening?

N/A

· Adequacy of existing controls?

N/A

· Treatment options to mitigate the risk?

N/A

Conclusion

The Slow EM group are seeking Council’s in-principal support to help their application to become accredited as an official Cittaslow Slow City, which may bring many benefits to the Echuca Moama Community. Providing in-principal support does not require financial commitment from Council. And the same support will be requested from Campaspe Shire Council.

Slow City philosophies encourage diversity, support local culture and traditions, value a more sustainable environment, healthy living and locally grown produce. The Love EM movement wish to progress an application for accreditation to become officially recognised as a Slow City.

Attachments

1. Candidate Member Application Form ⇩

2. Letter of support for Slow EM from Cittaslow Australasia Board ⇩

3. Letter of support from Echuca Moama Tourism ⇩

4. Letter of support from COuncil for Slow EM's grant application in Sept 2018 ⇩

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

23 February 2021

8.7 Sundry Delegates Report

8.7.1 Sundry Delegates Report

File Number: -

Author: Lindy Leyonhjelm, Executive Assistant

Authoriser: Terry Dodds, Chief Executive Officer

Recommendation

That the Sundry Delegates Report of the Mayor and Councillors for the period 19 January 2021 to 22 February 2021 be noted by the Council; and reasonable out of pocket expenses be met by Council.

Discussion

The Mayor, Councillor Chris Bilkey reported on his attendance at the following meetings and functions:

· 19 Jan Community meeting with Susan Ley, Pre-Briefing and Ordinary Meeting of

Council – Moama

· 25 Jan Meet with Ambassador for MRC, Mr Ron Delezio – Barham

· 26 Jan Attend Australia Day Breakfast with Ambassador - Moulamein

· 27 Jan Interview with 2QN – Echuca & EMT Board meeting - Echuca

· 1 Feb Morning tea at Murray River Council Offices to introduce new CEO & meeting

with new CEO

· 2 Feb Moama Maya/MRC meeting – Moama

· 3 Feb Interview with 2QN- Echuca & BAP meeting C4EM

· 4 Feb Local Traffic Committee meeting Moama

· 5 Feb Riverine Herald interview & Meeting with Terry Dodds – Moama

· 9 Feb Parks & Open spaces workshop – Moama

· 10 Feb Interview with 2QN – Echuca & weekly Council update - Moama

· 17 Feb Interview with 2QN- Echuca & Councillor update – Teams

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Nikki Cohen reported on her attendance at the following meetings and functions:

· 19 Jan Community meeting with Susan Ley, Pre-Briefing and Ordinary Meeting of

Council – Moama

· 26 Jan Australia Day Breakfast Community Event – Mathoura

· 2 Feb Friends of Old Moama meeting - Moama

· 8 Feb Audit and Risk Committee – Moama

· 9 Feb Moama Recreation Reserve Meeting, Presentation by CT management - Moama

· 10 Feb CEO Destination NSW Murray River Covid Recovery Update – online &

Councillor update – Teams

· 12 Feb Meeting with CEO MRC – Moama & Interview with EM Community Radio –

Echuca

Councillor Tony Aquino reported on his attendance at the following meetings and functions:

· 13 Jan Tourism meeting Bowling Club – Moama

· 19 Jan Tourism meeting with Susan Ley, Pre-briefing and Ordinary Council meeting –

Moama

· 26 Jan Australia Day breakfast – Tooleybuc

· 8 Feb Meeting with new CEO – Moama

· 9 Feb Parks & Open spaces workshop – Moama

· 10 Feb Councillor update – Teams & Business Support meeting

Councillor Gen Campbell reported on her attendance at the following meetings and functions:

· 19 Jan Pre-briefing and Ordinary Council Meeting of Council – Moama

· 4 Feb Local Traffic Committee meeting & Lions Discussion – Moama

· 9 Feb Parks & Open spaces workshop – Moama

· 10 Feb Steve Cox – CEO Destination NSW & Moama Preschool AGM - Moama

· 11 Feb Meeting with new CEO Terry Dodds - Moama

Councillor Alan Mathers reported on his attendance at the following meetings and functions:

· 19 Jan Pre-briefing and Ordinary Council Meeting of Council – Moama

· 2 Feb MRC Planning Surgery Workshop – Teams & Dinner with new CEO Terry Dodds

- Barham

· 9 Feb Parks & Open spaces workshop – Moama

· 10 Feb Murray Region COVID update – Teams & MRC Issues update - Teams

· 17 Feb MRC Issues update - Teams

Councillor Ann Crowe reported on her attendance at the following meetings and functions:

· 19 Jan Pre-briefing and Ordinary Council Meeting of Council – Teams

· 11 Jan Inaugural Meeting – Murray Downs Club, Murray Downs Riverside Park

Committee meeting.

· 26 Jan Australia Day Breakfast – Tooleybuc

· 1 Feb Murray Downs Advancement Group Inc General meeting – Ken Smith & Glenys

Horte

· 9 Feb Open Spaces Planning Workshop – Teams

· 17 Feb Murray Downs Riverside Park Committee Meeting – Federal Hotel

· 17 Feb Councillor update - Teams

Councillor Neil Gorey reported on his attendance at the following meetings and functions:

· 8 Feb Audit Committee meeting

· 9 Feb Parks & Open spaces workshop – Moama

· 10 Feb Councillor update – Teams

· 11 Feb Meeting with new CEO Terry Dodds

· 17 Feb Councillor update – Teams

Councillor Thomas Weyrich reported on his attendance at the following meetings and functions:

· 19 Jan Community meeting with Susan Ley, Pre-Briefing and Ordinary Meeting of

Council – Moama

· 26 Jan Australia Day Breakfast – Mathoura

· 9 Feb Meeting with CEO Terry Dodds - Moama

Councillor Geoff Wise reported on his attendance at the following meetings and functions:

· 13 Jan Crisis meeting Bowling Club – Moama

· 19 Jan Tourism meeting with Susan Ley, Pre-briefing and Ordinary Council meeting –

Moama

· 26 Jan Australia Day Breakfast - Wakool

· 9 Feb Parks & Open spaces workshop – Moama

· 10 Feb Mathoura Recreation Reserve Meeting

Attachments

Nil


AGENDA Ordinary Council Meeting Tuesday, 23 February 2021
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary Meeting of Murray River Council will be held on:
Date:	Tuesday, 23 February 2021
Time:	6:00pm
Location:	Council Chambers Moama Administration Office 52 Perricoota Road, Moama
Terry Dodds Chief Executive Officer

Location	Project Title	Construction Complete
Barham	Community Hub – Stage 1	July 2020
Barham	Recreation Reserve Skate Park	March 2019
Barham	Bridge Road Access	December 2019
Barham	Riverside Park Development – Pontoon	October 2020
Barham	Lawson Pavilion Refurbishment 1-2	February 2021
Mathoura	Recreation Reserve Pavilion Ext, Kitchen & Bar	May 2019
Mathoura	Picnic Point Development (footbridges)	June 2020
Mathoura	Picnic Point Boat Ramp	July 2020
Moama	Recreation Reserve Zone 4 Lights / Criterion Track/ Landscape	March 2019
Moama	New Office Car Park Upgrade	December 2019
Moama	Recreation Reserve Road Sealing and Drainage	December 2019
Moama	HQ refurbishment Stage 1	January 2020
Moama	Rec Reserve Zone 2 – Installation of sports field lighting, car park upgrade, field extension (Eddy Oval)	August 2020
Moama	Rec Reserve Zone 3 – Off Leash Area (due for completion end of August)	August 2020
Moama	Moama Recreation Reserve – Showground Stimulus Funding	October 2020
Moulamein	Merran Creek Bridge - Moulamein-Swan Hill Road	June 2020
Moulamein	Pre-School	October 2020
Moulamein	South Rec Reserve renewal surface and lights and shelter shed / Tennis courts	June 2020
Tooleybuc	Recreation Reserve Irrigation System Upgrade	January 2020
Tooleybuc	Foreshores Development - Pontoon	November 2019
Tooleybuc	Mensforth Park Footpath and Lighting	November 2019
Tooleybuc	Mensforth Park Upgrade	March 2020
Tooleybuc	Recreation Reserve Amenities Building	October 2020
Wakool	New Toilet Block	July 2020
Wakool	Ezy Dump installation – Wakool Recreation Reserve	February 2021
Various	Playgrounds – Wakool Rec Reserve, Moulamein South Rec Reserve, Tooleybuc Mensforth Park, Moama Adventure Playpark, Wakool Township Exercise Equipment	July 2019