The Mayor and Councillors

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL PO Box 21 Mathoura NSW 2710 Ph 03 5880 3500 Fax 03 5884 3417 [email protected] www.murrayriver.nsw.gov.au

NOTICE OF MEETING

NOTICE is hereby given that the JUNE ORDINARY MEETING of MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL, will be held TUESDAY 28TH JUNE 2016, commencing at 1.00pm in the MOULAMEIN BOWLING CLUB, Endeavour Drive, Moulamein.

MARGOT STORK INTERIM GENERAL MANAGER

1 of 251

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY 28TH JUNE 2016

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

2. OPENING PRAYER

3. LEAVE OF ABSENCE / APOLOGIES

4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

6. DEPUTATIONS

7. MAYOR’S MINUTE

8. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

9. NOTICES OF MOTION

10. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT & SUPPLEMENTARY MATTERS

11. OFFICER’S REPORTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY MATTERS

12. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

13. CORRESPONDENCE REPORT

14. SUNDRY DELEGATES REPORTS

15. BIRTHS & CONDOLENCES

16. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

17. NOTICE OF URGENT BUSINESS

18. CLOSE OF MEETING

2 of 251

CONTENTS PAGE

ITEM PAGE SUBJECT NO. NO. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS Minutes of the Murray Shire Extraordinary Council Meeting 9th June 4-7 2016

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 1 Appeals & Donations 8 2 2016 Local Government NSW Annual Conference 9 3 Swan Hill Rural City Council Appreciation of Support Letter 10

OFFICERS REPORTS CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT 4 Bank Balances 11-12 5 Key Performance Indicators Greater Murray & Moama Wards 13-16 6 Monthly Budget Review Items 17 7 Electricity Tenders 18 8 Rural Fire Service Levy 19-23 9 Insurance Renewals 24-25 10 Budget 2016/17 26-27 11 Greater Wakool Ward – Financial Statements & Investments 31st May 28-33 2016

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT 12 Planning Proposal – Addition of ‘Model Clauses’ into Murray LEP 2011 34-84 & Minor Corrections 13 DA 23/16 – Dwelling House & Building (Storage Shed) – Lot 10 DP 85-106 59813, 17 Kidman Reid Drive, Murray Downs 14 Murray LEP 2011 Planning Proposal – Lot 11 DP 285511 – Perricoota 107-126 Road, Moama 15 Murray LEP 2011 Planning Proposal – Ran 6 Clifton Street Mathoura 127-142 16 Murray LEP 2011 Planning Proposal – Lot 26 DP 751152 & Lot 2 DP 143-162 509954 – Boundary Road, Moama 17 Submission to Previously Approved Development Application (DA 163-228 175/14)

ENGINEERING SERVICES REPORT 18 Floodplain Risk Management Committee Representation 229-230 19 Upgrade of Tooleybuc Bridge 231-232 20 Engineering Operations – Greater Wakool Ward 233-235 21 Development Applications Lodged & Approved May 2016 Greater 236-237 Wakool Ward

CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS 22 Debt Write Off 238-245 23 Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011 / Wakool Local Environmental 246-249 Plan 2013 – Clauses 7.6 & 6.6 Respectively 24 Deep Creek Sewage Treatment Plant 250 25 General Manager's Performance Assessment 251

3 of 251

Extraordinary Meeting MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Mathoura Visitor & Business Centre 9 June 2016

TIME: 1.00pm

PRESENT Administrator David Shaw occupied the Chair.

IN ATTENDANCE Margot Stork – Interim General Manager; Phil Higgins – Director of Corporate Services; Peter Arthur – Director of Corporate Services; Sunil Prakash – Director of Technical Services; Simon Arkinstall – Director of Environmental Services; and Frederik Groenewald – Acting Director of Engineering.

APOLOGIES Leigh Robins – Director of Engineering.

010616 COUNCIL PRAYER

A Council prayer will be decided upon at a future date.

020616 APOLOGY

RESOLVED (Mr Shaw) that the apology tendered on behalf of Mr L Robins be accepted and that leave of absence from the meeting be granted.

030616 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest from the Administrator or Staff on any matter within the meeting.

040616 BIRTHS & CONDOLENCES

There were no notices of births or condolences tendered to the meeting.

050616 MINUTES

RESOLVED (Mr Shaw) that the minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting held on 26 May 2016 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

060616 PRESENTATIONS

There were no presentations made on any matter within the meeting.

This is Page No 1 of the Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL held in the Multi‐Function Room, Mathoura Visitor & Business Centre on Thursday 9 June 2016.

4 of 251

Extraordinary Meeting MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Mathoura Visitor & Business Centre 9 June 2016

OFFICER’S REPORTS

INTERIM GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT

070616 CLAUSE 1. MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL – COMMON SEAL OF COUNCIL

RESOLVED (Mr Shaw) that the Council adopt the interim Common Seal of Council, as per the example attached to the report, for use on legal documents and the like for the Murray River Council.

080616 ADOPTION

RESOLVED (Mr Shaw) that subject to the foregoing resolutions, the Interim General Manager’s Report be adopted.

STAFF REPORT

090616 CLAUSE 1. MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL – GREATER MURRAY AND MOAMA WARDS BUDGET SUBMISSION

RESOLVED (Mr Shaw) that the Council advises the community organisations/individuals that have made a submission to the 2016/2017 Budget of the outcome of their request.

100616 CLAUSE 2. MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL – GREATER MURRAY AND MOAMA WARDS RATES

RESOLVED (Mr Shaw) that the Council adopts Rating Option 3 to be considered in Council’s Draft Operational Plan for 2016/2017.

110616 CLAUSE 3. MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL – GREATER MURRAY AND MOAMA WARDS DRAFT OPERATIONAL PLAN 2016/2017

RESOLVED (Mr Shaw) that the Draft Operational Plan 2016/2017 to 2025/2026 be placed on public exhibition for submissions to be considered at the Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on 19 July 2016.

120616 CLAUSE 4. OPERATIONAL PLAN AND BUDGET WORKSHOP

Information noted.

130616 ADOPTION

RESOLVED (Mr Shaw) that subject to the foregoing resolutions, the Staff Report be adopted.

This is Page No 2 of the Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL held in the Multi‐Function Room, Mathoura Visitor & Business Centre on Thursday 9 June 2016.

5 of 251

Extraordinary Meeting MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Mathoura Visitor & Business Centre 9 June 2016

DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT

140616 CLAUSE 1. INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK – DRAFT COMBINED DELIVERY PROGRAM 2013-2017 AND OPERATIONAL PLAN 2016-2017

RESOLVED (Mr Shaw) that:

i. The Officer’s report be received and noted. ii. The Draft Vision 2023, Combined Draft Delivery Program 2013-2017 & Operational Plan 2016-2017 and the Draft Resourcing Strategy 2016-2026 be placed on exhibition for a period of 28 days in the townships of Moama, Mathoura, Barham, Moulamein, Tooleybuc, Wakool, Murray Downs and Koraleigh and on Council’s website for public comment. iii. Submissions and any other matters considered relevant prior to final adoption of the 2016/2017 Operational Plan to be considered at the Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on 19 July 2016.

150616 ADOPTION

RESOLVED (Mr Shaw) that subject to the foregoing resolutions, the Director of Corporate Services Report be adopted.

ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT

160616 CLAUSE 1. ADMINISTRATOR’S MINUTE – LOCAL REPRESENTATION COMMITTEES

RESOLVED (Mr Shaw) that the adoption of the memberships of Katarni Lipp, Alan Mathers, Neil Gorey, Lois Lockhart, Jason Russell, Clint Flanigan, Heidi Glenn and Jo Hearn to the Local Representation Committees be noted.

170616 ADOPTION

RESOLVED (Mr Shaw) that subject to the foregoing resolutions, the Administrator’s Report be adopted.

180616 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

RESOLVED (Mr Shaw) that as provided by Section 10A(2), Subsection (a) being, personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors), and the public interest in protecting confidential information outweighs the public interest in ensuring accountability through open meetings, Council move into Committee of the Whole at 1:10pm.

This is Page No 3 of the Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL held in the Multi‐Function Room, Mathoura Visitor & Business Centre on Thursday 9 June 2016.

6 of 251 Extraordinary Meeting MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Mathoura Visitor & Business Centre 9 June 2016

INTERIM GENERAL MANAGER’S CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

190616 CLAUSE 1. MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL – STAFFING MATTER

RECOMMENDED (Mr Shaw) that the Council adopt the recommendation of the Interim General Manager, as contained in the report.

200616 ADOPTION

RESOLVED (Mr Shaw) that Council move into Open Council at 1:18pm.

The Interim General Manager, on behalf of the Administrator, advised the decisions of the Confidential Committee in Open Council.

RESOLVED (Mr Shaw) that the recommendations of the Confidential Committee be adopted.

THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS THE MEETING CLOSED AT 1.19PM.

THESE MINUTES ARE SIGNED AS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL HELD ON 9 JUNE 2016, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL ON 28 JUNE 2016.

...... ADMINISTRATOR

This is Page No 4 of the Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL held in the Multi‐Function Room, Mathoura Visitor & Business Centre on Thursday 9 June 2016.

7 of 251 MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28TH JUNE 2016

1. APPEALS & DONATIONS

AUTHOR: Margot Stork – Interim General Manager VENUE: Moulamein Bowling Club TRIM Reference:

Issues Considered in writing report: Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program, Council Policy, Legislation, Resources (financial, community & staff), Environmental issues, Risk Issues & Options – issues applicable have been reported on.

RECOMMENDATION

i. That the information be noted.

REPORT INFORMATION

I report that since the month of May action in respect of the following appeals and donations has been taken:

Donations/Sponsorships Approved Mathoura 2016 Quick Shear Cancer Fundraiser...... $2,000 (Sponsorship)

Appeals Approved 28 Aug to 3 Sept 2016...... National Legacy Week (Echuca Legacy Group)

Shire Hall 1-2 July 2016...... Federal Election

Soldiers Memorial Gardens Nil

Kerrabee Soundshell 26 June; 10 July 2016...... Moama Market 29 June; 6, 13, 20 & 27 July; 3, 10, 17, 24 & 31 August 2016...... Tai Chi 27 & 30 June; 4, 7, 11, 14, 18 & 21 July ...... Megan Johnson PT 27, 28 & 30 June; 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26 & 28 July 2016 …..Tara Fisher Grp Fitness 29 June; 6 & 13 July 2016...... FITmob Group Fitness

Moama Wharf Nil

8 of 251 MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28TH JUNE 2016

2. 2016 LOCAL GOVERNMENT NSW ANNUAL CONFERENCE

AUTHOR: Margot Stork – Interim General Manager VENUE: Moulamein Bowling Club TRIM Reference:

RECOMMENDATION

i. That Council be represented at the 2016 Local Government NSW Annual Conference by Administrator Shaw and the Interim General Manager.

REPORT INFORMATION

Local Government NSW (LGNSW) has formally advised Council that the 2016 LGNSW Annual Conference will be held from Sunday 16 to Tuesday 18 October 2016 at WIN Entertainment Centre, Wollongong.

The Conference is the annual policy-making event for councils in NSW, LGNSW Associate members and the NSW Aboriginal Land Council. It is the principal event of the local government year where ideas are shared and sector-wide issues are debated.

It has been the general practice of the former Murray Shire Council and former Wakool Shire Council to be represented at the Conference by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, one other Councillor and the General Manager. Due to the formation of the new Murray River Council, it is suggested that Council be represented at the Conference by Administrator Shaw and the Interim General Manager.

9 of 251 MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28TH JUNE 2016

3. SWAN HILL RURAL CITY COUCIL APPRECIATION OF SUPPORT LETTER FOR WAKOOL SHIRE COUNCIL

AUTHOR: Margot Stork – Interim General Manager VENUE: Moulamein Bowling Club TRIM Reference:

RECOMMENDATION

i. That the information be received and noted.

10 of 251 MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28TH JUNE 2016

4. BANK BALANCES

AUTHOR: Phil Higgins – Director Corporate Services VENUE: Moulamein Bowling Club TRIM Reference: N/A

RECOMMENDATION

i. That the Statement of Balances for the month ending 31 May 2016 be adopted; and

ii. That the Council endorse the actions of staff in investing $5 million with one Australian affiliated Bank in a Term Deposit for 90 days.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Statement of Balances for the month ending 31 May 2016 is attached.

Risk

The investments that Council holds are all with Australian affiliated Banks in Term Deposits of less than 90 days or On Call Accounts. The investments are for no more than $1 million each. The only Banks that hold greater than $2 million are Westpac $3m, National $2.5m and Bendigo $2.8m.

On 15 June 2016 the Council received its transition funding for the merger of the two Councils. $10 million is being held in the Wakool Ward Council accounts and $5 million in the Greater Murray and Moama Ward Council accounts. The $5 million was invested for 90 days with one institution for 90 days on term deposit.

Return

A comparison on interest rates obtained to the BBSW is shown in the following Clause 2.6. The interest earned compared to the budget is shown in the following Clause 3.

Recommendation

That the Statement of Balances for the month ending 31 May 2016 be adopted.

11 of 251 12 of 251 MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28TH JUNE 2016

5. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

AUTHOR: Phil Higgins – Director Corporate Services VENUE: Moulamein Bowling Club TRIM Reference: N/A

RECOMMENDATION

i. That the Officer’s report be received and noted.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Council’s Key Performance Indicators are:

1. Rates Outstanding %:

Graph Explanation – This graph shows what percentage of rates Council has collected for the current year as against the last fourteen (14) years.

Rates Outstanding % 120.00

100.00

80.00 Actual 15/16 60.00 %

40.00 UCL

20.00

0.00 LCL

Current Analysis – The result for May is 9.30%.

13 of 251 2. Correspondence Response Rate:

Graph Explanation – This graph shows what percentage (%) of Council’s correspondence that is responded to in accordance with the agreed time.

Correspondence Response %

100

70 Response % % 60 UCL 50 LCL 40

Current Analysis – For May it is 54.67%.

3. Liquidity:

Graph Explanation – This graph shows the level of bank account and investment funds held over the past twelve (12) years. It reflects Council’s funds that are available to pay accounts and fund budgeted works. It would also include reserve and unspent grant funds.

Liquidity Position

21,000,000 19,000,000 17,000,000 15,000,000 15/16 13,000,000 UCL 11,000,000 LCL 9,000,000 7,000,000 Mean 5,000,000 3,000,000

Current Analysis – The position for May is $18.687 million, which is above the UCL.

14 of 251 4. Debtors Outstanding:

Graph Explanation – This graph shows the level of Council’s debtors as against the amount Council raised this month, plus an allowance for a further 30 days worth of debtors. This should show how Council’s debt collection is performing.

Debtors 60 day goal

1000000.00

500000.00

15/16 0.00 UCL

$ LCL -500000.00 Target -1000000.00

-1500000.00 Month

Current Analysis – May debtors are $40K above the 60 day goal.

5. Information Technology (IT) Speed:

Graph Explanation – This graph shows the speed of Council’s IT network from sending a packet of information from Mathoura across the network in Mathoura and Moama. This should show how Council’s network is performing.

I.T. Network Speed

230.00

s 210.00 d

n 190.00 Network o

c Speed

e 170.00 s i

l 150.00 l i UCL

m 130.00 / 110.00 d e

e 90.00

p LCL

s 70.00 t

e 50.00 k 5 6 6 6 c 1 1 1 1 a 0 0 0 0 P 2 2 2 2 / / / / 1 1 3 5 1 0 0 0 / / / / 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

Current Analysis – this is the second lot of data across the whole network.

15 of 251 6. Bank Bill Interest Rate:

Graph Explanation – This graph shows the level of Council’s average monthly investment rate obtained as against the applicable 90 day bank bill rate. The aim is to preserve our capital on investments and if we can obtain an interest rate around the applicable 90 day bank bill rate, then that is a bonus.

Interest on Investment Yield

4 3.5 Bank Bill Swap 3 Rate 2.5 2 Council % Investment 1.5

1 Difference 0.5 0 4 5 6 1 1 1 - - - n n n a a a J J J

Current Analysis – The rate obtained is better than the BBSW by 79 points.

Recommendation

That the information be noted.

16 of 251 MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28TH JUNE 2016

6. MONTHLY BUDGET REVIEW ITEMS

AUTHOR: Phil Higgins – Director Corporate Services VENUE: Moulamein Bowling Club TRIM Reference: N/A

RECOMMENDATION

i. That the Officer’s report be received and noted.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The monthly review of Council’s key budget items to 31 May 2016 reveals:

Original Revised Expend to Previous Years Description % Spent Budget Budget 31/05/2016 ($'000)

12/13 13/14 14/15 Interest -474,776 -474,153 -516,779 108.99% -674 -632 -549 Depot Expenses 76,586 76,586 80,977 105.73% 87 90 84 Staff Training 195,218 195,218 192,754 98.74% 229 189 185 Town Planning - Legal costs 29,249 49,249 77,568 157.50% 48 100 59 Parks & Gardens 617,430 617,430 648,726 105.07% 616 673 652 Maintenance Moama Recreation Reserve 176,501 176,501 145,904 82.66% 149 171 178 Promotion / Donations 41,328 41,328 27,775 67.21% 33 30 39 Private Works -18,574 -18,574 -218,884 1178.44% -192 -229 -156 General -capital works 7,752,206 12,982,031 8,861,315 68.26% 5,144 6,029 6941 Water - consumption sales -829,500 -1,138,250 -1,024,925 90.04% -1102 1035 -1181 Water - capital works 717,300 776,090 160,442 20.67% 264 1192 459 Sewerage User Consumption -175,792 -196,491 -206,655 105.17% -208 -245 -258 Charges Sewer - capital works 478,576 798,505 269,164 33.71% 290 242 221 Treatment Works - Other 93,978 93,978 58,324 62.06% 81 58 75 costs

17 of 251 MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28TH JUNE 2016

7. ELECTRICITY TENDERS

AUTHOR: Phil Higgins & Peter Arthur – Director Corporate Services VENUE: Moulamein Bowling Club TRIM Reference: N/A

RECOMMENDATION

i. That the Officer’s report be received and noted; and

ii. The actions of staff in signing the Stage 2 Supply of Electricity for Small Sites be endorsed.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Council received a report on Electricity Tenders at it’s meeting on 23 May 2016. This report outlined the tenders that had been signed in relation to Stage 1 for the Supply of Electricity for Buildings and Facilities, Unmetered Street Lighting and Green Power.

The resolution committed Council to Stage 2 of the Local Government Procurement (LGP) tender. Stage 2 is actually for small sites, although in the previous report it mentioned the Stage 1 components which has been finalised.

The Stage 2 tender has been finalised resulting in a 28% on average discount from the retailer’s standard tariff. The recommended tenderer is Origin Energy.

LGP requested a sign off by Wednesday 22nd June 2016, and this has been organised.

18 of 251 MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28TH JUNE 2016

8. RURAL FIRE SERVICE LEVY

AUTHOR: Phil Higgins & Peter Arthur – Director Corporate Services VENUE: Moulamein Bowling Club TRIM Reference: N/A

RECOMMENDATION

i. That the Officer’s report be received and noted;

ii. That further information be obtained from the RFS before any further representations are made on this issue.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) have notified Council that the methodology for the calculation of the annual contribution by councils is changing.

The former methodology was complex and did involve the payment of 11.7% of the actual costs of providing the service. One of the difficulties with this methodology was that capital expenditure spikes did have a significant impact on the contribution.

The other major difficulty with the previous methodology was that costs, particularly state wide costs regularly were greater than both CPI and rate pegging.

The new methodology is based around equating the Council’s twenty year average of overall state wide costs, and developing the Council contribution on that percentage of total costs. This should reduce some of the variability due to the spiked capital expenditure in certain years.

What the new method will not do, is fix any issues with RFS costs being greater than CPI or rate pegging, and this will need to be monitored.

Based on the figures in the attached letter the following contributions are payable

19 of 251

Assessed Wards Budget 15/16 Budget 16/17 contribution Greater Murray $128,470 $131,039 - and Moama Wakool $160,383 $138,862 -

Murray River - - $363,675

Total $288,853 $269,901 $363,675

The initial bid for the Greater Murray and Moama Wards is currently above the budget ($160,029 - $131,039 = $28,990). The basis of budget bids was to be in line with CPI and rate pegging. Although it does need to be noted that the $160K figure is a bid at this stage, and this does not always become the actual cost.

The other factor with this issue is that currently the councils receive a reimbursement for the current year claimable operating expenses and reimbursement for other program costs from the previous year as a Bush Fire Grant. The current letter makes no mention of this issue.

It is mentioned that the issue has been discussed with LG NSW. It is clearly a matter that needs discussion at a local and regional level. At the time of writing this report further information was being sought from the RFS.

20 of 251 21 of 251 22 of 251 23 of 251 MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28TH JUNE 2016

9. INSURANCE RENEWALS

AUTHOR: Phil Higgins and Peter Arthur – Director Corporate Services VENUE: Moulamein Bowling Club TRIM Reference: N/A

RECOMMENDATION

i. That the Officer’s report be received and noted; and

ii. That the Insurance renewals be enacted for 2016/17.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Detailed below are the insurance renewals undertaken for 2016/17, as compared to last years’ premiums and the 2016/17 budget.

MSC WSC Total MSC WSC Total MRC Insurance 15/16 15/16 15/16 16/17 16/17 Budget 16/17 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget 16/17 C&OL 20,573 25,938 46,511 21,600 28,000 49,600 45,483 C&OL – - 1,000 1,000 - 1,200 1,200 1,100 Companion Motor 79,012 44,576 123,588 80,592 50,000 130,592 128,631 Vehicle Personal 1,999 2,881 4,880 2,039 3,000 5,039 2,199 Accident Property 94,917 132,433 227,350 96,815 145,000 241,815 230,449 PLPI 74,239 100,219 174,458 75,586 110,000 185,586 186,450 Crime 6,139 6,016 12,155 6,262 6,500 12,762 12,820 Casual 2,680 3,350 6,030 2,872 3,500 6,372 6,633 Hirers Journey 1,921 1,651 3,572 1,959 2,000 3,959 3,460 Injury Anzac Day - 367 367 - 400 400 - Combined Liability ------2,579 Pack TOTAL 281,480 318,431 599,911 287,725 349,600 637,325 619,804

The above information shows that there has been a net saving with the merged entity.

24 of 251 The combining of the insurance across the new shire has been assisted by the fact that both former Councils had similar insurance portfolios and were with the one broker.

There is a new insurance policy in the above quotations for Combined Liability Pack. This insurance covers all personal injury, property damage and advertising liability in relation to Performers, Stallholders, Artists, Street Stallholders, Buskers, Tutors and Instructors. It also covers Permit Holders like Local Traders and Community Gardens Permit Holders.

The only insurance that the Council may wish to consider into the future is an Environmental Liability Coverage. This would cover the Council in the event of one of it’s activities such as Water Supply, Sewerage or Waste Management having a detrimental impact on the environment.

To enact the insurance for 2016/17 the Council needs to sign a declaration, which will be done following the Council’s decision to take out the insurance

25 of 251 MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28TH JUNE 2016

10. BUDGET 2016/17

AUTHOR: Phil Higgins and Peter Arthur – Director Corporate Services VENUE: Moulamein Bowling Club TRIM Reference: N/A

RECOMMENDATION

i. That the Council adopt the Interim draft Budget for 2016/17 to cover the period 1 July 2016 until the Council’s Operational Plan is adopted for 2016/17.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

At the Council’s meeting on 9 June 2016 the draft Operational Plan for 2016/17 was placed on public exhibition. The public exhibition period ends on 8 July 2016.

The draft Operational Plan will be submitted to the Council meeting on 19 July 2016.

From 1 July 2016 until 19 July 2016 the Council will not have any formally voted expenditure. Attached is a draft budget to cover this period until the draft Operational Plan is adopted.

Generally unless there is more specific information, the draft budget represents one twelfth of the draft budget that is on public display.

26 of 251 Murray River Interim Budget

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL Interim INCOME STATEMENT – CONSOLIDATED Budget 2016/2017 – Draft Budget 2016/17 Greater Greater Murray Murray Murray Wakool & Moama River River Ward Wards Council Council Combined Revenue from continuing operations $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 Rates and annual charges $6,620 $8,308 $14,928 - User charges & fees $1,143 $3,431 $4,574 $231 Interest & Investment Revenue $497 $473 $970 $81 Grants & contributions provided for operating purposes $14,477 $9,175 $23,652 $971 Grants & contributions provided for capital purpose $2,521 $916 $3,437 $186 Net gain from disposal of assets ---- Other revenues from ordinary activities $504 $411 $915 $76

Total revenue from continuing operations $25,762 $22,714 $48,476 $1,546

Expenses from continuing operations Employee benefits and on-costs $6,079 $6,935 $13,014 $1,085 Borrowing costs $134 $50 $184 $15 Materials & contracts $6,587 $3,344 $9,931 $828 Depreciation and amortisation $5,762 $6,421 $12,183 $1,015 Impairment Costs ---- Net loss from the disposal of assets ---- Other expenses $1,263 $2,711 $3,974 $331

Total expenses from continuing operations $19,825 $19,461 $39,286 $3,274

Operating results from continuing operations $5,937 $3,253 $9,190 ($1,728)

Operating results from discontinuing operations ----

Net operating result for the year $5,937 $3,253 $9,190 ($1,728)

Net operating result for the year before grants and $3,416 $2,337 $5,753 ($1,915) contributions provided for capital purposes

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL NETT CASH MOVEMENT Interim NON OPERATING & CAPITAL ACTIVITES CONSOLIDATED Budget 2016/2017 – Draft Budget 2016/17 Greater Greater Murray Murray Murray Wakool & Moama River River Ward Wards Council Council Combined $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 SURPLUS(DEFICIT) FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES $5,937 $3,253 $9,190 ($1,728) ADD BACK NON CASH EXPENSES Depreciation $5,762 $6,421 $12,183 $1,015 Depreciation Capitalised ----

SUB-TOTAL $5,762 $6,421 $12,183 $1,015 ADD CAPITAL FUNDS Loan Funds Utilised ---- Assets Sold (Gross Value) $170 $1,115 $1,285 $107 Repayment of Long Term Debtors $21 $58 $79 $7 Increase/(Decrease) Employee Leave Entitlements ($100) - ($100) ($8)

SUB-TOTAL $91 $1,173 $1,264 $105 LESS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE Infrastructure Assets (Roads/Bridges/Water/Sewerage/Land & Buildings Etc)$10,031 $8,757 $18,788 $1,566 Purchase Other Assets (Plant & Equipment etc) $2,350 $1,779 $4,129 $344 Loan Principal Repayments $577 $386 $963 $80

SUB-TOTAL $12,958 $10,922 $23,880 $1,990 NET CASH BEFORE TRANSFER OF RESTRICTED ASSETS ($1,168) ($75) ($1,243) ($2,598)

PLUS TRANSFER FROM RESTRICTED ASSETS $1,355 $1,252 $2,607 -

LESS TRANSFER TO RESTRICTED ASSETS $100 $1,158 $1,258 - NET WORKING CAPITAL MOVEMENT - POSITIVE/(NEGATIVE) $87 $19 $106 ($2,598) 27 of 251 Page 1 of 1 MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28TH JUNE 2016

11. GREATER WAKOOL WARD – FINANCIAL STATEMENTS & INVESTMENTS – 31ST MAY 2016

AUTHOR: Peter Arthur – Director Corporate Services VENUE: Moulamein Bowling Club TRIM Reference:

Recommendation

i. That the Officer’s report be received and noted.

ii. That the report detailing Council’s cashbook balance of $14,053,756.15 as at 31st May 2016 is received.

iii. That the report detailing Council’s investment balance of $15,345,008.98 as at 31st May 2016 is received.

REPORT - BANK RECONCILIATION

Shown below are the Financial Statements, Bank Reconciliations and Investments for the period ending 31st May 2016.

STATEMENT OF BANK BALANCES AS AT 31st MAY 2016 OF COUNCIL’S COMBINED ACCOUNTS

DETAILS MARCH 2016 APRIL 2016 MAY 2016

Cash Book Balance B/Fwd $1,044,384.86 ($14,628.73) $787,049.75

Addincomeformonth $725,664.56 $1,555,495.50 $3,300,315.51

Deductexpenditureformonth $1,842,210.37 $1,233,227.16 $2,264,395.84

CASH AVAILABLE ($72,160.95) $307,639.61 $1,822,969.42

LoanFunds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Redeem/(Purchase) Investments $57,532.22 $479,410.14 ($1,523,039.41)

CASH BOOK BALANCE ($14,628.73) $787,049.75 $299,930.01

Add investments $14,301,379.71 $13,821,969.57 $15,345,008.98

INTERIMCASHPOSITION $14,286,750.98 $14,609,019.32 $15,644,938.99

Less Retirement Village Funds ($111,690.98) ($555,263.17) ($57,440.96)

CASH POSITION $14,175,060.00 $14,053,756.15 $15,587,498.03

AsperBankStatements $71,465.98 $903,226.87 $537,223.79

28 of 251 OVERDRAFT LIMITS: Bank Overdraft - $400,000.00.

I hereby certify that I have reconciled the cashbook of the various funds of Council, with the appropriate Pass Sheets as at 31st May 2016.

PHIL HIGGINS RESPONSIBLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER

TOTAL CASH POSITION - AS AT 31st MAY 2016.

External Accounts APRIL 2016 MAY 2016 Investments $13,821,969.57 $15,345,008.98 Cash at Bank $903,226.87 $537,223.76 Unpresented Deposits/Prepaid Cheques $1,781.50 $66,535.78 Plus/(Minus) Retirement Village Funds ($555,263.17) ($57,440.96) $14,171,714.77 $15,891,327.56 Less Unpresented Cheques $117,958.62 $303,829.53 $14,053,756.15 $15,587,498.03

Represented by Internal Accounts APRIL 2016 MAY 2016 Cash Reserve - General Fund Internal $7,416,158.00 $7,416,158.00 - Shares $2,010.00 $2,010.00 - Grant & Contributions $330,453.55 $330,453.55 - Provisions Insurance $45,287.00 $45,287.00 - Section 94 Contributions $266,276.80 $266,276.80 - Water Fund Capital Works $865,000.00 $865,000.00 - Water Fund S64 Cont $24,507.37 $24,507.37 - Sewerage Fund Capital Works $1,128,000.00 $1,128,000.00 - Sewerage Fund S64 Cont $182,836.56 $182,836.56 Unspent Loans & Advances - General $767,500.00 $767,500.00 General Revenue Investments $2,793,940.29 $4,316,979.70 Cash Book Accounts - General (over drawn) ($1,226,161.23) ($1,439,759.69) - Water $437,072.84 $577,867.76 - Sewerage $1,020,874.97 $1,104,380.98 TOTAL $14,053,756.15 $15,587,498.03

FUNDS BREAKDOWN APRIL 2016 MAY 2016 General $10,395,464.41 $11,704,905.36 Water Supply $1,326,580.21 $1,467,375.13 Sewerage $2,331,711.53 $2,415,217.54 TOTAL $14,053,756.15 $15,587,498.03

LOANBORROWINGSBALANCE Fund Balance Principal Balance Borrowings 30-Jun-15 Repaid YTD 31-M ay-16 GeneralOperations $3,431,346.29 $554,570.20 $2,876,776.09 WaterSupply $32,348.21 $9,104.58 $23,243.63 SewerageOperations $6,623.00 $1,242.24 $5,380.76 Total $3,470,317.50 $564,917.02 $2,905,400.48

29 of 251 REPORT - INVESTMENTS AS AT 31st MAY 2016

As required by Clause 16(1) (a) (b) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1999, attached are the details of Council’s surplus funds invested, totalling $15,345,008.98 at 31st May 2016 in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act, 1993.

INVESTMENTS - MONTH BY MONTH COMPARISON OF FINANCIAL YEARS

MONTH 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 July $9,825,111 $11,669,714 $13,704,742 $13,440,696 $14,414,231 August $10,687,577 $12,905,372 $14,050,759 $15,148,382 $15,716,887 September $11,164,691 $13,329,672 $15,515,582 $14,142,985 $15,201,880 October $10,573,741 $12,811,687 $16,976,697 $13,491,909 $14,761,503 November $11,078,741 $13,008,109 $16,397,179 $14,315,819 $15,483,065 December $9,630,864 $12,821,443 $15,404,579 $13,747,743 $14,273,392 January $10,372,709 $12,693,673 $15,043,677 $13,575,331 $13,790,737 February $11,749,838 $12,756,509 $15,955,199 $15,116,227 $14,358,912 March $10,867,485 $12,884,345 $15,350,044 $14,817,917 $14,301,380 April $10,457,320 $11,099,447 $15,957,394 $13,717,358 $13,824,970 May $10,808,491 $12,755,477 $15,418,451 $14,821,112 $15,345,009 June $12,539,333 $14,291,268 $14,429,690 $14,006,508 Av. Monthly $10,812,992 $12,752,226 $15,350,333 $14,195,165 $14,679,269

30 of 251 INVESTMENT RECONCILIATION AS AT 31st MAY 2016

DATE DATE BANK TYPE AMOUNT INTEREST TERM INTEREST TOTAL DUE No START MATURE INVESTED RATE DAYS DUE BY DATE P3 02-Feb-2016 06-Jun-2016 NAB TD $200,000.00 3.03% 125 $2,075.34 $202,075.34 P6 08-Jun-2015 07-Jun-2016 WAWCU TD $514,948.63 3.10% 365 $15,944.41 $530,893.04 P3 02-Feb-2016 20-Jun-2016 NAB TD $500,000.00 3.03% 139 $5,769.45 $505,769.45 P3 02-Jul-2015 22-Jun-2016 NAB TD $600,000.00 3.07% 356 $17,965.81 $617,965.81 P3 17-Feb-2016 30-Jun-2016 NAB TD $500,000.00 3.03% 134 $5,561.92 $505,561.92 P3 02-Jul-2015 30-Jun-2016 NAB TD $400,000.00 3.07% 364 $12,246.36 $412,246.36 P3 28-Sep-2015 04-Jul-2016 NAB TD $500,000.00 2.98% 280 $11,430.14 $511,430.14 P6 17-Aug-2015 07-Jul-2016 WAWCU TD $513,265.75 2.90% 325 $13,232.45 $526,498.20 P5 14-Mar-2016 18-Jul-2016 BANKWEST TD $512,115.96 3.00% 126 $5,289.07 $517,405.03 P5 22-Oct-2015 18-Jul-2016 BANKWEST TD $506,164.38 2.75% 270 $10,268.50 $516,432.88 P3 04-Jan-2016 01-Aug-2016 NAB TD $470,527.97 3.04% 210 $8,229.73 $478,757.70 P3 15-Feb-2016 15-Aug-2016 NAB TD $200,000.00 3.03% 182 $3,021.70 $203,021.70 P6 04-Jan-2016 15-Aug-2016 WAWCU TD $287,797.05 3.00% 224 $8,633.91 $296,430.96 P8 31-Aug-2015 22-Aug-2016 B&AB TD $513,956.16 2.80% 357 $14,075.36 $528,031.52 P6 30-Oct-2015 29-Aug-2016 WAWCU TD $500,000.00 2.90% 304 $12,050.45 $512,050.45 P8 19-Nov-2015 12-Sep-2016 B&AB TD $500,000.00 2.90% 298 $11,838.36 $511,838.36 P5 08-Dec-2015 26-Sep-2016 WAWCU TD $321,021.07 2.90% 293 $7,454.38 $328,475.45 P8 19-Nov-2015 30-Sep-2016 B&AB TD $200,000.00 2.90% 316 $5,021.37 $205,021.37 P3 07-Dec-2015 10-Oct-2016 NAB TD $202,036.72 3.00% 308 $5,114.57 $207,151.29 P3 07-Dec-2015 10-Oct-2016 NAB TD $403,040.44 3.00% 308 $10,203.00 $413,243.44 P8 08-Feb-2016 19-Dec-2016 BAB TD $650,000.00 3.05% 315 $17,109.25 $667,109.25 P3 11-Apr-2016 24-Oct-2016 NAB TD $310,368.18 3.14% 196 $5,233.23 $315,601.41 P3 09-May-2016 07-Nov-2016 NAB TD $513,078.36 3.06% 182 $7,828.59 $520,906.95 P3 23-May-2016 21-Nov-2016 NAB TD $504,060.59 3.00% 182 $7,540.19 $511,600.78 P3 11-Apr-2016 21-Nov-2016 NAB TD $305,883.05 3.14% 224 $5,894.41 $311,777.46 P3 18-May-2016 05-Dec-2016 NAB TD $500,000.00 3.00% 201 $8,260.27 $508,260.27 P6 31-Dec-2015 30-Dec-2016 WAWCU TD $272,084.66 2.95% 365 $8,026.50 $280,111.16 P8 26-Feb-2016 03-Jan-2017 B&AB TD $500,000.00 3.05% 312 $13,035.62 $513,035.62 P3 18-May-2016 16-Jan-2017 NAB TD $500,000.00 2.97% 243 $9,886.44 $509,886.44 P6 26-Feb-2016 30-Jan-2017 WAWCU TD $500,000.00 3.05% 339 $14,128.42 $514,128.42 P6 14-Mar-2016 13-Feb-2017 WAWCU TD $432,472.47 3.05% 336 $12,113.57 $444,586.04 P6 01-Mar-2016 27-Feb-2017 WAWCU TD $500,000.00 3.10% 363 $15,379.68 $515,379.68 P6 01-Mar-2016 13-Mar-2017 WAWCU TD $500,000.00 3.10% 377 $15,974.20 $515,974.20 P3 26-Apr-2016 27-Mar-2017 NAB TD31 of 251 $510,177.54 3.16% 335 $14,796.55 $524,974.09 DATE DATE BANK TYPE AMOUNT INTEREST TERM INTEREST TOTAL DUE No START MATURE INVESTED RATE DAYS DUE BY DATE P8 09-May-2016 08-May-2017 B&AB TD $500,000.00 3.00% 364 $14,958.90 $514,958.90 Shares SP Shares $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Shares WAWCU Shares $10.00 $10.00 $15,345,008.98 3.01% $355,592.08 $15,700,601.06

Amounts per Percentage of Average Interest Average Number S&P Long S&P Short Financial Institutions Institution Investment Rates Days Invested Term Term BANKWEST $1,018,280.34 6.64% 2.88% 198 AA- A-1+ NAB $7,119,172.85 46.39% 3.04% 207 AA- A-1+ B&AB $2,863,956.16 18.66% 2.95% 327 A- A-2 WAWCU $4,341,599.63 28.29% 3.01% 329 Unrated SP $2,000.00 0.01% Unrated TOTAL $15,345,008.98 100.00% 3.01% 275

Government % Not Covered Not Covered Total Guaranteed Deposits Covered TD Principle $1,000,000.00 $14,345,008.98 $15,345,008.98 93.48% TD Interest - $355,592.08 $355,592.08 100.00% TOTAL $1,000,000.00 $14,700,601.06 $15,700,601.06 93.63% 6.37% 93.63% 100.00%

Credit Rating Principle % AIR Performance Benchmark – 31/05/2016 AAA - 0.00% RBA Cash Rate 1.75% AA $8,137,453.19 53.03% 2.96% S&P/ASX Bank Bill Index - 1 year 2.16% A $2,863,956.16 18.66% 2.95% S&P/ASX Bank Bill Index - 3 years 2.50% BBB - 0.00% 0.00% S&P/ASX Bank Bill Index - 5 years 3.11% Unrated $4,343,599.63 28.31% 3.01% $15,345,008.98 100.00% 3.01%

32 of 251 S&P Local Long Term S&P Local Short Maximum Credit Ratings Term Credit Ratings Holdings

AAA Category A-1+ 70% AA Category A-2 70% A Category A-2 50% BBB Category A-3 15% Unrated ADI’s 15% Membership of Credit WAW Credit Union Union Financial Support 30% System

I certify that the above investments have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act, 1993, Clause 16(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations, 1999 and Council’s investment policies.

______PHIL HIGGINS - RESPONSIBLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER

33 of 251 MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28TH JUNE 2016

12. PLANNING PROPOSAL – ADDITION OF ‘MODEL CLAUSES’ INTO MURRAY LEP 2011 AND MINOR CORRECTIONS

DIRECTOR: Simon Arkinstall- Director of Environmental Services AUTHOR: Christopher O’Brien – Town Planner VENUE: Moulamein Bowling Club TRIM Reference:

Issues Considered in writing report: Murray Strategic Land Use Plan, State, Regional and local planning directions, Council Policy, Legislation, Natural Environment, Built Environment, Social Environment, Economic Environment – issues applicable have been reported on.

RECOMMENDATION

i. That the Officer’s report be received and noted. ii. That the subject Planning Proposal be sent to NSW DPE for Gateway Determination.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The process for preparing and amending a Local Environmental Plan (LEP) is stipulated in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and covered within the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) document entitled: ‘A guide to preparing local environmental plans’, tabled as Tabled Document 1’.

The plan making process normally involves the following key components:-  The preparation of a Planning Proposal  The issuing of a Gateway determination  Community and other consultation on the Planning Proposal (as required)  Finalising the Planning Proposal  Drafting of the LEP (plan)  Making the plan  Notifying the LEP on the NSW Government Legislation website

A Planning Proposal is a document that explains the intended effect of the proposed LEP and provides the justification for making it. ‘A guide to preparing planning proposals’ provides detailed advice on the preparation of a Planning Proposal.

34 of 251 Proposed amendment(s) to the Murray LEP 2011 At Council’s Ordinary Meeting held 3 March 2015, Council heard a report which compiled recommendations of suggested areas for review under a proposed Amendment of the Murray LEP 2011. A copy of the subject report and resolutions are tabled as Tabled Document 2’.

The suggested areas for review of the Murray LEP 2011 were brought about from Council’s periodic review of the Murray LEP 2011. Further information of the events leading up Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 3 March 2015 is outlined below:

Date Event 20 May2014 Public meeting held at the Moama Bowling Club calling for public submissions regarding suggested areas for review via a future amendment of the Murray LEP 2011. 9 December 2014 Report summarising the public submissions received requesting Murray LEP 2011 review heard at Council’s Ordinary Meeting. 3 March 2015 Report setting out investigations and recommendations regarding the various areas for review nominated by public submissions (the subject report has been tabled for reference).

The requests as a result of this public consultation and which are relevant to this Planning Proposal are detailed below, which are taken from Council’s Ordinary Meeting Agenda held on 3 March 2015: a) Brian Mitsch and Associates Request “The submission maker feels that there are a number of permissible uses in the RU1 zone that are unable to be carried out due to the minimum lot size requirements. Examples given by the submission maker include animal boarding establishments, aquaculture, bed and breakfast accommodation, farm stay accommodation, freight transport facilities, home based child care, home industry and veterinary hospitals. The submission maker feels that reduction in the minimum lot size to cater for subdivisions for the purposes of business should be catered for in the LEP as this would allow those within the zone to subdivide off a viable business (which may only require a small parcel of land to operate) and retain the remainder of the property without requiring the minimum lot size of 120 hectares to do so.

The submission maker also notes their disappointment that the minimum lot sizes from the previous 1989 LEP were not transferred to the current document, whereby lots could be subdivided to 40 hectares if water was available to the proposed lot. The submission maker also notes that the Land Use Table for the RU1 zone is negative rather than positive as any activity not specified as “permitted with consent”, or “permitted without consent” is automatically classified as prohibited. The submission maker feels that this layout stifles innovation within the zone”.

35 of 251 b) Blueprint Planning submission – Lot 5 DP 778438, Grimison Road, Moama “Blueprint Planning & Development have based their submission on the current requirements for boundary realignment under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008. Under these requirements, a realignment of boundaries may be undertaken as exempt development without the requirement for formal consent from Council if the development is for realignment:- (i) that is not carried out in relation to land on which a heritage item or draft heritage item is situated, and (ii) that will not create additional lots or the opportunity for additional dwellings, and (iii) that will not result in any lot that is smaller than the minimum size specified in an environmental planning instrument in relation to the land concerned (unless a lot or lots whose boundaries are being realigned is or are already smaller than the minimum size and that lot or those lots will only increase in size at the completion of the subdivision), and (iv) that will not adversely affect the provision of existing services on a lot, and (v) that will not result in any increased fire risk to existing buildings, and (vi) if located in Zone RU1, RU2, RU3, RU4, RU6, E1, E2, E3 or E4—that will not result in more than a minor change in the area of any lot, and (vii) if located in any other zone—that will not result in a change in the area of any lot by more than 10%, Lot 5 DP 778438, Grimison Road, Moama is zoned E3 Environmental Management with a minimum lot size of 120 hectares. The subject lot was unable to be realigned under these provisions as it conflicted with provision (iii), and all the requirements must be satisfied in order for the exempt development to take place.

Under the Murray LEP 2011, Clause 4.6 provides some exemption to the development standards in order to provide and appropriate degree of flexibility, however subdivision of E3 zoned land which will result in development set out in (a) and (b) below is expressly excluded from the operation of the Clause:- (a) the subdivision will result in 2 or more lots of less than the minimum area specified for such lots by a development standard, or (b) the subdivision will result in at least one lot that is less than 90% of the minimum area specified for such a lot by a development standard.

As the subdivision was unable to comply with Clause 4.6(6)(a) and (b), development consent for this minor realignment of boundaries was unable to go ahead.

The submission maker has requested that Council amend the Murray LEP 2011 to include suitable enabling provisions which would allow existing lots less than the minimum lot size in the E3 zone to be subdivided or realigned”.

36 of 251 c) Clause 4.2A(3) – Erection of Dwelling Houses on land in certain rural and environmental protection zones “In accordance with the recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environment dated 24 September 2014, it is suggested that the wording of Clause 4.2A(3) be amended.

Clause 4.2A(3) currently states that: 3) Development consent must not be granted for the erection of a dwelling house on land in a zone to which this clause applies, and on which no dwelling house has been erected, unless the land is: (a) a lot that is at least the minimum lot size specified for that land by the Lot Size Map, or (b) a lot created under an environmental planning instrument before this Plan commenced and on which the erection of a dwelling house was permissible immediately before that commencement, or (c) a lot resulting from a subdivision for which development consent (or equivalent) was granted before this Plan commenced and on which the erection of a dwelling house would have been permissible if the plan of subdivision had been registered before that commencement, or (d) an existing holding.

It is suggested by the Department of Planning & Environment to remove the words “…and on which no dwelling house has been erected…”. This amendment aims to remove the ambiguity associated with this clause and the difficulties associated with its application to properties where dwellings may have been erected in the past on the land however have been subsequently demolished but not replaced to date”.

As a result of the above requests and discussions held between Council’s Environmental Services Department and the NSW Department of Planning and Environment, the below planning proposal has been developed.

Part 1 - Objectives or Intended Outcomes The intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal are to:  To permit the subdivision of land in rural areas to create lots of an appropriate size to meet the needs of current permissible uses other than for the purpose of residential accommodation.  To provide additional flexibility and clarity for boundary adjustment subdivisions in RU1 Primary Production and E3 Environmental Management zoned land.  To remove the ambiguity associated with Clause 4.2A(3) of the Murray LEP 2011.  To provide easier assessment of Clause 7.4 of the Murray LEP 2011.

37 of 251 Part 2 - Explanation of Provisions (The following proposed clauses recommended to be inserted into the Murray LEP 2011 were obtained/suggested by the DPE) The proposed outcomes are to be achieved by:  Inserting the following clause into the Murray LEP 2011, under Part 4 Principal development standards:

Exceptions to minimum lot sizes for certain rural subdivisions (1) The objective of this clause is to enable the subdivision of land in rural areas to create lots of an appropriate size to meet the needs of current permissible uses other than for the purpose of residential accommodation. (2) This clause applies to land in Zone RU1 Primary Production. (3) Land to which this clause applies may, with development consent, be subdivided 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, if the consent authority is satisfied that the use of the land after the subdivision will be the same use (other than residential accommodation) permitted under the existing development consent for the land. (4) Development consent must not be granted for the subdivision of land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that: (a) the subdivision will not adversely affect the use of the surrounding land for agriculture, and (b) the subdivision is necessary for the ongoing operation of the permissible use, and (c) the subdivision will not increase rural land use conflict in the locality, and (d) the subdivision is appropriate having regard to the natural and physical constraints affecting the land.  Inserting the following clause into the Murray LEP 2011, under Part 4 Principal development standards:

Boundary adjustments in certain rural and environmental protection zones (1) The objective of this clause is to facilitate boundary adjustments between lots in certain rural and environmental protection zones where one or more resultant lots do not meet the minimum lot size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land but the objectives of the relevant zone can be achieved. (2) This clause applies to land in the following zones: (a) Zone RU1 Primary Production, (b) Zone E3 Environmental Management. (3) Despite clause 4.1 (3), development consent may be granted to subdivide land by way of a boundary adjustment between adjoining lots where one or more resultant lots do not meet the minimum lot size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land if the consent authority is satisfied that: (a) the subdivision will not create additional lots or the opportunity for additional dwelling houses, and

38 of 251 (b) the number of dwelling houses or opportunities for dwelling houses on each lot after subdivision will remain the same as before the subdivision, and (c) the potential for land use conflict will not be increased as a result of the subdivision, and (d) if the land is in Zone RU1 Primary Production—the subdivision will not have a significant adverse effect on the agricultural viability of the land, and (e) if the land is in Zone E3 Environmental Management—the subdivision will result in the continued protection and long-term maintenance of the land, and (f) the subdivision will not result in any increased bush fire risk to existing buildings. (4) Before determining a development application for the subdivision of land under this clause, the consent authority must consider the following: (a) the existing uses and approved uses of other land in the vicinity of the subdivision, (b) whether or not the subdivision is likely to have a significant impact on land uses that are likely to be preferred and the predominant land uses in the vicinity of the development, (c) whether or not the subdivision is likely to be incompatible with a land use on any adjoining land, (d) whether or not the subdivision is appropriate having regard to the natural and physical constraints affecting the land, (e) whether or not the subdivision is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environmental values of the land. (5) This clause does not apply: (a) in relation to the subdivision of individual lots in a strata plan or community title scheme, or (b) if the subdivision would create a lot that could itself be subdivided in accordance with clause 4.1.  Amend Clause 4.2A(3) of the Murray LEP 2011 to read: (3) Development consent must not be granted for the erection of a dwelling house on land in a zone to which this clause applies, unless the land is: (a) a lot that is at least the minimum lot size specified for that land by the Lot Size Map, or (b) a lot created under an environmental planning instrument before this Plan commenced and on which the erection of a dwelling house was permissible immediately before that commencement, or (c) a lot resulting from a subdivision for which development consent (or equivalent) was granted before this Plan commenced and on which the erection of a dwelling house would have been permissible if the plan of subdivision had been registered before that commencement, or (d) an existing holding. Note. A dwelling cannot be erected on a lot created under clause 9 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 or clause 4.2, Clause xx and Clause xx (proposed additional clauses).  Insert the definition of ‘river front area’ into Clause 7.4 ‘Development on river front areas’ of the Murray LEP 2011.

39 of 251 Part 3 – Justification

Section A – Need for the planning proposal Q1. Is the planning proposal a result of any strategic study or report? Comment: The planning proposal is not a result of any strategic study or report, but instead is the outcome of a review of the Murray LEP 2011, discussions with DPE, and comparison with other Local Environmental Plans developed in accordance with the Standard Instrument.

Q2. Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way? Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes. The proposed amendments will continue to allow appropriate development (with additional consent) and will not significantly adversely impact upon the natural, built, social or economic environment.

Section B – Relationship to strategic planning framework Q3. Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions of the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy (including the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and exhibited draft strategies)? Comment: It is noted that an amended Draft Riverina Murray Regional Plan was released by NSW DPE in April 2016. It is considered that the Planning Proposal is consistent with the Draft Plan. Please see below for assessment against relevant Directions outlined within the Draft Plan.

Direction 1.1 – Grow the economic potential of the agribusiness sector Action 1.1.1 – Provide enabling planning controls to facilitate diversification and attract investment in the agribusiness sector Comment: The Planning Proposal is consistent with this action. The Planning Proposal will provide flexible planning controls which will have the potential to provide diversification and attract investment in the agribusiness sector.

Action 1.1.2 – Encourage value- add manufacturing opportunities across the region to increase regional economic diversification Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action. The Planning Proposal does not pose an adverse impact to value-added manufacturing of agriculture opportunities, the export of regional agricultural commodities, the strategic positioning of future value-add enterprises, or manufacturing and intensive operations. The planning proposal will not inhibit the encouragement of value-add manufacturing opportunities to increase regional economic diversification in agriculture and agribusiness, and will not adversely affect the factors which enable future agricultural enterprise to harness innovation technologies or agricultural research.

Direction 2 – Manage productive agricultural lands in a sustainable way Action 1.2.1- Identify and protect regionally important productive agricultural lands

40 of 251 Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action. The proposal is not considered to pose a significant adverse impact to resource availability and is not predicted to adversely affect agricultural efficiency or pose fragmentation of productive rural lands. The Proposal does not seek to rezone any rural land, and is not considered to adversely affect the agricultural supply chain or State significant agricultural lands.

Action 1.2.2 – Establish a strategic planning framework that protects the productive values of agricultural land and manages land use conflict Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action. The proposal will not inhibit the delivery of strategic plans and policies to protect rural land uses, natural resources, developing industries, or dependent industries and communities, and is not predicted to result in land use conflict.

Action 1.2.3 – Encourage the increased use of biosecurity measures to protect the regions agricultural assets Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action. The Planning Proposal is not considered to present a biosecurity risk to the region or locality.

Direction 1.3 – Manage and use the regions natural resource sustainably Action 1.3.1 – Support the sustainable use and conservation of water resources Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action. The Proposal is not considered to adversely impact water resources, water catchments, watercourses or riparian areas. The planning proposal will not generate significant pressure on urban water supply.

Action 1.3.2 – Protect areas of mineral and energy, extractive and renewable energy potential Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action, and will have no affect on the aim of the plan to protect the regions natural resource base and renewable energy infrastructure potential.

Action 1.3.3 – Avoid urban expansion and rural residential development on productive agricultural land identified mineral resource and energy resources Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action. The Planning Proposal does not propose the rezoning of any RU1 Primary Production zoned land.

Action 1.3.4 – Implement the NSW Renewable Energy Plan to increase renewable energy generation Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the implementation of this plan.

Action 1.3.5 – Support the protection of native and plantation forests from encroachment Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action. The planning proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

41 of 251 Direction 2.1 – Enhance the regions freight networks through coordinated investment Action 2.1.1 - Identify and prioritise pinch points in the freight network Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action. The Proposal is not considered to pose any impact to freight efficiency, future bypasses or bridge crossings (including the Moama Echuca Bridge Crossing upgrade).

Action 2.1.2 - Identify and protect intermodal freight terminals to facilitate growth in the freight and logistics sector Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action. The planning proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Action 2.1.3 - Identify and prioritise opportunities to improve regionally significant local road connections Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Action 2.1.4 – Work with the Australian Government on the proposed Melbourne-Brisbane inland rail corridor Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action, and has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Direction 2.2 – Improve inter-regional transport services Action 2.2.1 – Implement local planning controls that protect regional airports from the encroachment of incompatible land uses Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action, and has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Action 2.2.2 – Identify and protect future rail corridors Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action, and has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Direction 2.3 – Coordinate infrastructure delivery to facilitate economic opportunities Action 2.3.1 – Coordinate the delivery of infrastructure to support the future needs if residents, business and industry Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action, and is not considered to pose an impact with respect to supply of energy, waste services, water, or telecommunication within the region and locality. Action 2.3.2 – Establish monitoring mechanisms to enable better demand forecasting to inform infrastructure coordination Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Direction 3.1 – Grow the regional cities of Albury, Wagga Wagga and Griffith

42 of 251 Action 3.1.1 – Develop a regional cities strategies for Albury, Wagga Wagga and Griffith Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action and has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Action 3.1.2 – Implement an industrial land monitoring program to maintain a supply of well-located and serviced industrial land Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action and has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Action 3.1.3 – Develop and deliver strategies that strengthen the commercial function of the CBDs and town centres Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action and has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Direction 3.2 – Enhance the liveability and economic prosperity of the region’s towns and villages Action 3.2.1 – Deliver improved tools and partnerships to build community capacity in towns and villages to strengthen community resilience Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action and will not adversely impact on Community resilience or the alleviation of skill shortage, particularly in the agribusiness sector.

Action 3.2.2 – Support the continued identification and protection of the region’s heritage Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action. The Proposal will not impact the consideration of the heritage within the planning system, heritage protection, promotion, or management of heritage assets.

Action 3.2.3 – Deliver enabling planning controls to diversify regional tourism markets and increase tourism opportunities Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action. The Proposal will not impact local or regional tourism, tourism markets or tourism events.

Action 3.2.4 – Deliver regionally specific urban design guidelines Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action and will not impact the delivery of such guidelines.

Action 3.2.5 – Identify opportunities to provide improved and increased transport connections between the region’s town and villages to the regional cities Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action.

Direction 3.3 – Enhance the economic self-determination of Aboriginal communities Action 3.3.1 – Conduct a strategic assessment of land held by the region’s Local Aboriginal Land Councils to identify priority sites for further investigation of their economic opportunities

43 of 251 Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Direction 3.4 – Provide a continuous supply of appropriate housing to suit the different lifestyles and needs of the region’s population Action 3.4.1 – Deliver enabling planning controls that facilitate an increased range of housing options including infill housing close to existing jobs and services Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the implementation of considerations discussed within this action.

Action 3.4.2 - Facilitate a more diverse range of housing for seniors Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action.

Action 3.4.3 Develop a framework to facilitate a range of accommodation options for itinerant workers Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action and has little effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Action 3.4.4 – Develop and implement principles for rural residential development Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action and has little effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Action 3.4.5 – Facilitate the delivery of more affordable housing options through improved planning policies Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action and has little effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Direction 3.5 – Enhance connections and planning between cross- border communities to improve service quality and infrastructure delivery Action 3.5.1 – Investigate opportunities to improve cross-border planning outcomes, including infrastructure and service delivery Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action and will have little impact on the delivery of infrastructure or services.

Action 3.5.2 – develop a cross-border land monitoring program

Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action and will not inhibit improved tracking and forecasting of housing and employment of land release within the region.

Direction 4.1 – Protect the nationally significant Murray River Action 4.1.1 – Actively manage settlement and competing land uses along the Murray River Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action.

44 of 251 Direction 4.2- Protect the region’s environmental assets and biodiversity values

Action 4.2.1 – Facilitate improved access to quality information relating to high environmental values, to avoid, minimise and mitigate the impacts of development on significant environmental assets Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action. All development applications will continue to be assessed on their merits against the requirements of Section 79C of the Act.

Action 4.2.2 – Maintain healthy waterways and wetlands, including downstream environments Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action.

Direction 4.3 – Increase the region’s resilience to natural hazards Action 4.3.1 – Review and map natural hazard risks to inform land use planning decisions Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action and has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Action 4.3.2 – Support communities to build resilience to the impacts of natural hazards and climate change Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action.

Action 4.3.3 – Minimise the potential impacts of naturally occurring asbestos on communities Comment: The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this action.

Q4. Is the planning proposal consistent with a Council’s local strategy or other local strategic plan? Comment: Council has developed the Murray Strategic Land Use Plan 2010- 2030 (SLUP). See below for more information. “The overall purpose of the SLUP is to guide the future development and use of land within the Shire for the next 20 years and beyond. More specifically the purpose of the SLUP is to assist in:  preparing a new Shire-wide Local Environmental Plan;  providing the community with a degree of certainty for the location of various land uses in the future;  maintaining in production agricultural land not required for urban expansion;  protecting the riverine environment from use and development detrimental to it;  separating incompatible land uses;  reducing development speculation;  considering tourist development proposals; and  discouraging development on flood prone land. It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with the overall purpose and specific purposes on the Murray SLUP. The planning proposal will allow for the future development and use of land within the Council for the next 20 years and beyond, and will provide the community with a degree of

45 of 251 certainty for the location of various land uses in the future. The planning proposal will assist in maintaining in production agricultural land not required for urban expansion, and will not result in adverse impacts upon the riverine environment.

It is also noted that the planning proposal is not inconsistent with the Moama North West Master Plan 2008 (MNWMP) or Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2015/2016 – 2024/25.

Q5. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable State Environmental Planning Policies? It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with all applicable State Environmental Planning Policies. Please see below:

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 Comment: Not applicable to the subject planning proposal. No additional opportunities for affordable rental housing will be created as a result of the planning proposal.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 Comment: Not applicable to the subject planning proposal. No additional opportunities for BASIX affected development will be created as a result of the planning proposal.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 Part 1 General Clause 1.3 Aims of Policy This Policy aims to provide streamlined assessment processes for development that complies with specified development standards by: (a) providing exempt and complying development codes that have State- wide application, and (b) identifying, in the exempt development codes, types of development that are of minimal environmental impact that may be carried out without the need for development consent, and (c) identifying, in the complying development codes, types of complying development that may be carried out in accordance with a complying development certificate as defined in the Act, and (d) enabling the progressive extension of the types of development in this Policy, and (e) providing transitional arrangements for the introduction of the State-wide codes, including the amendment of other environmental planning instruments. Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with the aims and intent of this Policy. The planning proposal does not adversely affect existing exempt and complying development requirements, but instead will permit additional development subject to development consent being issued. It is noted that the planning proposal has been developed in addition to the exemptions outlined in Subdivision 38 ‘Subdivision’ within Part 2, Division 1 of this Policy. Please see below:

46 of 251 Subdivision 38 Subdivision Clause 2.75 Specified development The subdivision of land, for the purpose only of any one or more of the following, is development specified for this code: (a) widening a public road, (b) a realignment of boundaries: (i) that is not carried out in relation to land on which a heritage item or draft heritage item is situated, and (ii) that will not create additional lots or the opportunity for additional dwellings, and (iii) that will not result in any lot that is smaller than the minimum size specified in an environmental planning instrument in relation to the land concerned (unless a lot or lots whose boundaries are being realigned is or are already smaller than the minimum size and that lot or those lots will only increase in size at the completion of the subdivision), and (iv) that will not adversely affect the provision of existing services on a lot, and (v) that will not result in any increased fire risk to existing buildings, and (vi) if located in Zone RU1, RU2, RU3, RU4, RU6, E1, E2, E3 or E4— that will not result in more than a minor change in the area of any lot, and (vii) if located in any other zone—that will not result in a change in the area of any lot by more than 10%, (c) (Repealed) (d) rectifying an encroachment on a lot, (e) creating a public reserve, (f) excising from a lot land that is, or is intended to be, used for public purposes, including drainage purposes, rural fire brigade or other emergency service purposes or public toilets.

Clause 2.76 Development standards Note. (At the commencement of this clause no standards were specified.)

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 Comment: Not applicable to the subject planning proposal. No additional opportunities for Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability will be created as a result of the planning proposal.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 Part 1 Preliminary Clause 2 Aim of Policy The aim of this Policy is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State by: (a) improving regulatory certainty and efficiency through a consistent planning regime for infrastructure and the provision of services, and (b) providing greater flexibility in the location of infrastructure and service facilities, and

47 of 251 (c) allowing for the efficient development, redevelopment or disposal of surplus government owned land, and (d) identifying the environmental assessment category into which different types of infrastructure and services development fall (including identifying certain development of minimal environmental impact as exempt development), and (e) identifying matters to be considered in the assessment of development adjacent to particular types of infrastructure development, and (f) providing for consultation with relevant public authorities about certain development during the assessment process or prior to development commencing. Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with the aim and intent of this Policy. The planning proposal does not adversely affect existing requirements outlined within the Policy.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Kosciuszko National Park—Alpine Resorts) 2007 Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Kurnell Peninsula) 1989 Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 Part 1 Preliminary Clause 2 Aims of Policy The aims of this Policy are, in recognition of the importance to New South Wales of mining, petroleum production and extractive industries: (a) to provide for the proper management and development of mineral, petroleum and extractive material resources for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the State, and (b) to facilitate the orderly and economic use and development of land containing mineral, petroleum and extractive material resources, and (b1) to promote the development of significant mineral resources, and (c) to establish appropriate planning controls to encourage ecologically sustainable development through the environmental assessment, and sustainable management, of development of mineral, petroleum and extractive material resources, and (d) to establish a gateway assessment process for certain mining and petroleum (oil and gas) development: (i) to recognise the importance of agricultural resources, and (ii) to ensure protection of strategic agricultural land and water resources, and (iii) to ensure a balanced use of land by potentially competing industries, and (iv) to provide for the sustainable growth of mining, petroleum and agricultural industries.

Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with the aims and intent of this Policy. The planning proposal does not adversely affect existing requirements outlined within the Policy.

48 of 251 State Environmental Planning Policy (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions) 2007 Part 1 Preliminary Clause 3 Aims of Policy The aims of this Policy are as follows: (a) to provide that the erection of temporary structures is permissible with consent across the State, (b) to ensure that suitable provision is made for ensuring the safety of persons using temporary structures, (c) to encourage the protection of the environment at the location, and in the vicinity, of temporary structures by specifying relevant matters for consideration, (d) to provide that development comprising the subdivision of land, the erection of a building or the demolition of a building, to the extent to which it does not already require development consent under another environmental planning instrument, cannot be carried out except with development consent. Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with the aims and intent of this Policy. The planning proposal does not adversely affect existing requirements outlined within the Policy.

Part 3 Subdivision, demolition, change of use and fire alarm communication links Clause 13 Land to which Part applies (1) This Part applies to land other than land to which a standard plan applies. (2) In this clause, standard plan means a local environmental plan (whether made before or after the commencement of this clause) that has been made as provided by section 33A (2) of the Act. Comment: This Part is not applicable. All land within Murray River Council is land to which a standard plan applies.

Clause 14 Subdivision of land

(1) A person may subdivide land to which this Part applies, but only with development consent. (2) Development consent must not be granted for the subdivision of land on which a secondary dwelling is situated that would result in the secondary dwelling being on a different lot of land to the principal dwelling unless each proposed lot on which those dwellings would be situated would comply with the minimum lot size (if any) required by an environmental planning instrument applying to the land. Note. The standard instrument prescribed by the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 contains the following definitions of secondary dwelling and principal dwelling: secondary dwelling means a self-contained dwelling that: (a) is established in conjunction with another dwelling (the principal dwelling), and (b) is on the same lot of land as the principal dwelling, and

49 of 251 (c) is located within, or is attached to, or is separate from, the principal dwelling. Comment: Not applicable. See Clause 13.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Penrith Lakes Scheme) 1989 Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 Part 1 Preliminary Clause 2 Aims of Policy The aims of this Policy are as follows: (a) to facilitate the orderly and economic use and development of rural lands for rural and related purposes, (b) to identify the Rural Planning Principles and the Rural Subdivision Principles so as to assist in the proper management, development and protection of rural lands for the purpose of promoting the social, economic and environmental welfare of the State, (c) to implement measures designed to reduce land use conflicts, (d) to identify State significant agricultural land for the purpose of ensuring the ongoing viability of agriculture on that land, having regard to social, economic and environmental considerations, (e) to amend provisions of other environmental planning instruments relating to concessional lots in rural subdivisions. Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with the aims of this policy. The planning proposal will allow for the orderly and and economic use and development of rural lands for rural and related purposes, and will assist in the proper management, development and protection of rural lands for the purpose of promoting the social, economic and environmental welfare of the State. Land use conflicts can continue to be avoided through the implementation of the planning proposal, whilst State significant agricultural land will not be compromised.

Part 2 Rural Planning Principles Clause 7 Rural Planning Principles The Rural Planning Principles are as follows: (a) the promotion and protection of opportunities for current and potential productive and sustainable economic activities in rural areas, Comment: The planning proposal will continue to allow the Murray LEP 2011 to be consistent with this subclause.

(b) recognition of the importance of rural lands and agriculture and the changing nature of agriculture and of trends, demands and issues in agriculture in the area, region or State, Comment: The planning proposal will continue to allow the Murray LEP 2011 to be consistent with this subclause.

(c) recognition of the significance of rural land uses to the State and rural communities, including the social and economic benefits of rural land use and development,

50 of 251 Comment: The planning proposal will continue to allow the Murray LEP 2011 to be consistent with this subclause.

(d) in planning for rural lands, to balance the social, economic and environmental interests of the community, Comment: The planning proposal will continue to allow the Murray LEP 2011 to be consistent with this subclause. The planning proposal will allow for a more flexible approach to rural land considerations, whilst protecting the importance of rural land in Murray River Council.

(e) the identification and protection of natural resources, having regard to maintaining biodiversity, the protection of native vegetation, the importance of water resources and avoiding constrained land, Comment: The planning proposal will continue to allow the Murray LEP 2011 to be consistent with this subclause.

(f) the provision of opportunities for rural lifestyle, settlement and housing that contribute to the social and economic welfare of rural communities, Comment: The planning proposal does not create additional residential opportunities, but instead provides for a variety of additional development within RU1 and E3 zoned land which is considered an appropriate outcome.

(g) the consideration of impacts on services and infrastructure and appropriate location when providing for rural housing, Comment: Not applicable. See above.

(h) ensuring consistency with any applicable regional strategy of the Department of Planning or any applicable local strategy endorsed by the Director-General. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with the draft Riverina Murray Regional Plan. See relevant section of this report for more information.

Note. Under section 117 of the Act, the Minister has directed that councils exercise their functions relating to local environmental plans in accordance with the Rural Planning Principles. Under section 55 of the Act, the Minister may also direct a council to prepare a local environmental plan. Comment: Noted.

Part 3 Rural subdivisions and dwellings Note. This Policy does not change the minimum lot size provision in existing environmental planning instruments. This Policy does permit variation of minimum lot sizes for agricultural purposes (see clause 9). Comment: Noted.

Clause 8 Rural Subdivision Principles The Rural Subdivision Principles are as follows: (a) the minimisation of rural land fragmentation,

51 of 251 Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal will continue to minimise the chance of rural land fragmentation. The proposed additional clause to permit subdivisions to accommodate existing permitted land uses will not fragment rural land, as each application will be required to be assessed on its merits.

(b) the minimisation of rural land use conflicts, particularly between residential land uses and other rural land uses, Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal will not create the chance of rural land use conflicts, particularly between residential land uses and other rural land uses.

(c) the consideration of the nature of existing agricultural holdings and the existing and planned future supply of rural residential land when considering lot sizes for rural lands, Comment: The planning proposal is not proposing to alter the minimum lot size provisions outlined in the Council.

(d) the consideration of the natural and physical constraints and opportunities of land, Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is not inconsistent with this requirement. Any subsequent development application submitted to Council will be required to adhere to all relevant considerations as outlined in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(e) ensuring that planning for dwelling opportunities takes account of those constraints. Comment: The planning proposal is not proposing to alter the opportunities for dwellings to be constructed. Note. Under section 117 of the Act, the Minister has directed that councils exercise their functions relating to changes in minimum lot sizes under local environmental plans in accordance with the Rural Planning Principles and the Rural Subdivision Principles. Under section 55 of the Act, the Minister may also direct a council to prepare a local environmental plan. Comment: Noted.

Clause 9 Rural subdivision for agricultural purposes (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 planning proposal will allow the Murray LEP 2011 to provide flexibility for subdivision in rural zones to allow land owners a greater chance to achieve the objectives for development in the relevant zone.

(2) Land in a rural zone may, with consent, be subdivided for the purpose of primary production to create a lot of a size that is less than the minimum size otherwise permitted for that land.

52 of 251 Comment: The planning proposal does not propose to alter these existing requirements.

(3) However, such a lot cannot be created if an existing dwelling would, as the result of the subdivision, be situated on the lot. Comment: The planning proposal does not propose to alter these existing requirements.

(4) A dwelling cannot be erected on such a lot. Comment: The planning proposal does not propose to alter these existing requirements.

(5) State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards does not apply to a development standard under this clause. Comment: Noted.

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP 53 Transitional Provisions) 2011 Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 Part 1 Preliminary Clause 3 Aims of Policy The aims of this Policy are as follows: (a) to identify development that is State significant development, (b) to identify development that is State significant infrastructure and critical State significant infrastructure, (c) to confer functions on joint regional planning panels to determine development applications. Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with the aims and intent of this Policy. The planning proposal does not adversely affect existing requirements outlined within the Policy.

State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005 Comment: The planning proposal does not affect State Significant Precincts.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011 Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Three Ports) 2013 Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

53 of 251 State Environmental Planning Policy (Urban Renewal) 2010 Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Western Sydney Employment Area) 2009 Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Western Sydney Parklands) 2009 Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

Murray Regional Environmental Plan No 2—Riverine Land Part 1 Introduction Clause 2 Aims of the plan The aims of this plan are to conserve and enhance the riverine environment of the River Murray for the benefit of all users. Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is not inconsistent with the aims of the plan. The planning proposal will continue to protect the importance of the River Murray.

Clause 3 Objectives of the plan The objectives of this plan are:- (a) to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to development with the potential to adversely affect the riverine environment of the River Murray, and (b) to establish a consistent and co-ordinated approach to environmental planning and assessment along the River Murray, and (c) to conserve and promote the better management of the natural and cultural heritage values of the riverine environment of the River Murray. Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with the objectives of the plan.

Part 2 Planning principles Clause 8 When planning principles should be applied This Part applies when: (a) a council prepares any local environmental plan, or (b) a consent authority determines a development application, or (c) a public authority or person proposes to carry out development which does not require development consent but which has the potential to adversely affect the riverine environment of the River Murray. Comment: Noted.

Clause 9 General principles When this Part applies, the following must be taken into account:- (a) the aims, objectives and planning principles of this plan, (b) any relevant River Management Plan, (c) any likely effect of the proposed plan or development on adjacent and downstream local government areas, (d) the cumulative impact of the proposed development on the River Murray.

54 of 251 Comment: The aims, objectives and planning principles of this plan have been considered in the assessment of this planning proposal. No relevant River Management Plan applies in this instance. The planning proposal is unlikely to have any adverse impact upon adjacent and downstream local government areas, and will not cause any cumulative impact on the River Murray.

Clause 10 Specific principles When this Part applies, the following must be taken into account: Access  The waterway and much of the foreshore of the River Murray is a public resource. Alienation or obstruction of this resource by or for private purposes should not be supported.  Development along the main channel of the River Murray should be for public purposes. Moorings in the main channel should be for the purposes of short stay occupation only.  Human and stock access to the River Murray should be managed to minimise the adverse impacts of uncontrolled access on the stability of the bank and vegetation growth. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with this subclause.

Bank disturbance  Disturbance to the shape of the bank and riparian vegetation should be kept to a minimum in any development of riverfront land. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with this subclause.

Flooding Where land is subject to inundation by floodwater: (a) the benefits to riverine ecosystems of periodic flooding, (b) the hazard risks involved in developing that land, (c) the redistributive effect of the proposed development on floodwater, (d) the availability of other suitable land in the locality not liable to flooding, (e) the availability of flood free access for essential facilities and services, (f) the pollution threat represented by any development in the event of a flood, (g) the cumulative effect of the proposed development on the behaviour of floodwater, and (h) the cost of providing emergency services and replacing infrastructure in the event of a flood.  Flood mitigation works constructed to protect new urban development should be designed and maintained to meet the technical specifications of the Department of Water Resources. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with this subclause. Land degradation  Development should seek to avoid land degradation processes such as erosion, native vegetation decline, pollution of ground or surface water, groundwater accession, salination and soil acidity, and adverse effects on the quality of terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with this subclause.

55 of 251 Landscape  Measures should be taken to protect and enhance the riverine landscape by maintaining native vegetation along the riverbank and adjacent land, rehabilitating degraded sites and stabilising and revegetating riverbanks with appropriate species. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with this subclause. River related uses  Only development which has a demonstrated, essential relationship with the river Murray should be located in or on land adjacent to the River Murray. Other development should be set well back from the bank of the River Murray.  Development which would intensify the use of riverside land should provide public access to the foreshore. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with this subclause.

Settlement  New or expanding settlements (including rural-residential subdivision, tourism and recreational development) should be located: (a) on flood free land, (b) close to existing services and facilities, and (c) on land that does not compromise the potential of prime crop and pasture land to produce food or fibre. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with this subclause. Any subsequent development application received by Council will be required to be assessed on its merits.

Water quality  All decisions affecting the use or management of riverine land should seek to reduce pollution caused by salts and nutrients entering the River Murray and otherwise improve the quality of water in the River Murray. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with this subclause.

Wetlands  Wetlands are a natural resource which have ecological, recreational, economic, flood storage and nutrient and pollutant filtering values. Land use and management decisions affecting wetlands should: (a) provide for a hydrological regime appropriate for the maintenance or restoration of the productive capacity of the wetland, (b) consider the potential impact of surrounding land uses and incorporate measures such as a vegetated buffer which mitigate against any adverse effects, (c) control human and animal access, and (d) conserve native plants and animals. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with this subclause.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards Comment: Not applicable to the Murray LEP 2011.

56 of 251 State Environmental Planning Policy No 14—Coastal Wetlands Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 15—Rural Landsharing Communities Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 19—Bushland in Urban Areas Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 21—Caravan Parks Clause 3 Aims, objectives etc. (1) The aim of this Policy is to encourage: (a) the orderly and economic use and development of land used or intended to be used as a caravan park catering exclusively or predominantly for short-term residents (such as tourists) or for long- term residents, or catering for both, and (b) the proper management and development of land so used, for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community, and (c) the provision of community facilities for land so used, and (d) the protection of the environment of, and in the vicinity of, land so used. (2) The strategies by which that aim is to be achieved are: (a) (Repealed) (b) by requiring that development consent be obtained from the local Council for development for the purposes of caravan parks, and (c) by providing that development consent may be granted that will authorise the use of sites for short-term stays (whether or not by tourists) or for long-term residential purposes, or for both, and (d) by requiring that development consent be obtained from the local Council for the subdivision of land for lease purposes under section 289K of the Local Government Act 1919. Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with the aims and intent of this Policy. The planning proposal does not adversely affect existing requirements outlined within the Policy.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 26—Littoral Rainforests Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 29—Western Sydney Recreation Area Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 30—Intensive Agriculture Clause 2 Aims, objectives etc. (1) The aims of this Policy are: (a) to require development consent for cattle feedlots having a capacity to accommodate 50 or more head of cattle, and piggeries having a capacity to accommodate 200 or more pigs or 20 or more breeding sows, and

57 of 251 (b) to provide for public participation in the consideration of development applications for cattle feedlots or piggeries of this size, and (c) to require that, in determining a development application for cattle feedlots or piggeries of this size, the consent authority is to take into consideration: (i) the adequacy of information provided, and (ii) the potential for odour, water pollution and soil degradation, and (iii) measures to mitigate potential adverse impacts, and (iv) measures for the health and welfare of animals, and (v) relevant guidelines, so as to achieve greater consistency in environmental planning and assessment for cattle feedlots and piggeries. (2) This Policy also aims to extend the definition of the term rural industry where used in environmental planning instruments so as to include within the meaning of that term composting facilities and works, including facilities and works for the production of mushroom substrate. Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with the aims and intent of this Policy. The planning proposal does not adversely affect existing requirements outlined within the Policy.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 32—Urban Consolidation (Redevelopment of Urban Land) Comment: No urban land is to be affected by the planning proposal.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 33—Hazardous and Offensive Development Part 1 Preliminary Clause 2 Aims, objectives etc. This Policy aims: (a) to amend the definitions of hazardous and offensive industries where used in environmental planning instruments, and (b) to render ineffective a provision of any environmental planning instrument that prohibits development for the purpose of a storage facility on the ground that the facility is hazardous or offensive if it is not a hazardous or offensive storage establishment as defined in this Policy, and (c) to require development consent for hazardous or offensive development proposed to be carried out in the Western Division, and (d) to ensure that in determining whether a development is a hazardous or offensive industry, any measures proposed to be employed to reduce the impact of the development are taken into account, and (e) to ensure that in considering any application to carry out potentially hazardous or offensive development, the consent authority has sufficient information to assess whether the development is hazardous or offensive and to impose conditions to reduce or minimise any adverse impact, and (f) to require the advertising of applications to carry out any such development.

58 of 251 Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with the aims, objectives etc. of this Policy. The planning proposal will not adversely impact upon the requirements of this Policy. Any subsequent development application which seeks consent for hazardous and or offensive development, or potentially hazardous and offensive development will continue to be required to adhere to all relevant legislation.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 36—Manufactured Home Estates Comment: Not applicable. Manufactured Home Estates are not permitted on E3 or RU1 Zoned land.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 39—Spit Island Bird Habitat Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 44—Koala Habitat Protection Part 1 Preliminary Clause 3 Aims, objectives etc. This Policy aims to encourage the proper conservation and management of areas of natural vegetation that provide habitat for koalas to ensure a permanent free-living population over their present range and reverse the current trend of koala population decline: (a) by requiring the preparation of plans of management before development consent can be granted in relation to areas of core koala habitat, and (b) by encouraging the identification of areas of core koala habitat, and (c) by encouraging the inclusion of areas of core koala habitat in environment protection zones. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with the aims, objectives etc. of this Policy. The planning proposal will not adversely impact upon the requirements of this Policy. The consideration of Koala Habitat Protection will continue to be provided.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 47—Moore Park Showground Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 50—Canal Estate Development Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with the aims, objectives etc. of this Policy. The planning proposal will not adversely impact upon the requirements of this Policy.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 52—Farm Dams and Other Works in Land and Water Management Plan Areas Clause 2 Aims of Policy (1) This Policy aims to require environmental assessment under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 of development for the purpose of artificial waterbodies (other than minor works in restricted locations) that will be carried out under farm plans that implement land and water management plans. Consequently, that development will be able to be lawfully carried out only with development consent granted by the council of the local

59 of 251 government area in which it will be carried out and only after a statement of environmental effects or (in the case of large works or those on environmentally sensitive land) only after an environmental impact statement has been considered by the council. (2) This Policy also aims to allow the carrying out of development without development consent for the purpose of the following: (a) small artificial waterbodies, such as those used for the purpose of storing water run-off for reuse, but only in locations restricted by this Policy, (b) routine maintenance of irrigation channels, and the use of land for related access, whether or not a land and water management plan applies to the land concerned, (c) emergency work on irrigation channels by irrigation corporations and their use of land for related access, whether or not a land and water management plan applies to the land concerned. (d) (Repealed) Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with the aims of this Policy. The planning proposal will not adversely impact upon the requirements of this Policy.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land

Clause 2 Object of this Policy (1) The object of this Policy is to provide for a Statewide planning approach to the remediation of contaminated land. (2) In particular, this Policy aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purpose of reducing the risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment: (a) by specifying when consent is required, and when it is not required, for a remediation work, and (b) by specifying certain considerations that are relevant in rezoning land and in determining development applications in general and development applications for consent to carry out a remediation work in particular, and (c) by requiring that a remediation work meet certain standards and notification requirements. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with the object of this Policy. The planning proposal will not adversely impact upon the requirements of this Policy.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 59—Central Western Sydney Regional Open Space and Residential Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 62—Sustainable Aquaculture Comment: The planning proposal is not inconsistent with this Policy.

60 of 251 State Environmental Planning Policy No 64—Advertising and Signage Part 1 Preliminary Clause 3 Aims, objectives etc. (1) This Policy aims: (a) to ensure that signage (including advertising): (i) is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, and (ii) provides effective communication in suitable locations, and (iii) is of high quality design and finish, and (b) to regulate signage (but not content) under Part 4 of the Act, and (c) to provide time-limited consents for the display of certain advertisements, and (d) to regulate the display of advertisements in transport corridors, and (e) to ensure that public benefits may be derived from advertising in and adjacent to transport corridors. (2) This Policy does not regulate the content of signage and does not require consent for a change in the content of signage. Comment: The planning proposal is not inconsistent with the aims of this Policy.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development Part 1 Preliminary Clause 2 Aims, objectives etc. (1) This Policy aims to improve the design quality of residential apartment development in New South Wales. (2) This Policy recognises that the design quality of residential apartment development is of significance for environmental planning for the State due to the economic, environmental, cultural and social benefits of high quality design. (3) Improving the design quality of residential apartment development aims: (a) to ensure that it contributes to the sustainable development of New South Wales: (i) by providing sustainable housing in social and environmental terms, and (ii) by being a long-term asset to its neighbourhood, and (iii) by achieving the urban planning policies for its regional and local contexts, and (b) to achieve better built form and aesthetics of buildings and of the streetscapes and the public spaces they define, and (c) to better satisfy the increasing demand, the changing social and demographic profile of the community, and the needs of the widest range of people from childhood to old age, including those with disabilities, and (d) to maximise amenity, safety and security for the benefit of its occupants and the wider community, and (e) to minimise the consumption of energy from non-renewable resources, to conserve the environment and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and (f) to contribute to the provision of a variety of dwelling types to meet population growth, and

61 of 251 (g) to support housing affordability, and (h) to facilitate the timely and efficient assessment of applications for development to which this Policy applies. (4) This Policy aims to provide: (a) consistency of policy and mechanisms across the State, and (b) a framework for local and regional planning to achieve identified outcomes for specific places. Comment: The planning proposal is not inconsistent with the aims of this Policy.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 70—Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 71—Coastal Protection Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

Q6. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s. 117 directions)? It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with all applicable Ministerial Directions (Section 117 Directions). Please see below.

1. Employment and Resources 1.1 Business and Industrial Zones Comment: Not applicable. The planning proposal does not affect land within an existing or proposed business or industrial zone. 1.2 Rural Zones Objective The objective of this direction is to protect the agricultural production value of rural land.

Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with this objective. The agricultural production value of rural land will not be adversely impacted by the planning proposal.

When this direction applies (3) This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will affect land within an existing or proposed rural zone (including the alteration of any existing rural zone boundary). Comment: This direction applies.

What a relevant planning authority must do if this direction applies (4) A planning proposal must: (a) not rezone land from a rural zone to a residential, business, industrial, village or tourist zone.

62 of 251 (b) not contain provisions that will increase the permissible density of land within a rural zone (other than land within an existing town or village). Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with (4)(a). (4)(b) does not apply.

Consistency (5) A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that the provisions of the planning proposal that are inconsistent are: (a) justified by a strategy which: (i) gives consideration to the objectives of this direction, (ii) identifies the land which is the subject of the planning proposal (if the planning proposal relates to a particular site or sites), and (iii) is approved by the Director-General of the Department of Planning, or (b) justified by a study prepared in support of the planning proposal which gives consideration to the objectives of this direction, or (c) in accordance with the relevant Regional Strategy, Regional Plan or Sub-Regional Strategy prepared by the Department of Planning which gives consideration to the objective of this direction, or (d) is of minor significance. Comment: Not applicable. The planning proposal is consistent with the terms of this direction.

1.3 Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries Comment: This direction does not apply. The planning proposal will not have the effect of: (a) prohibiting the mining of coal or other minerals, production of petroleum, or winning or obtaining of extractive materials, or (b) restricting the potential development of resources of coal, other minerals, petroleum or extractive materials which are of State or regional significance by permitting a land use that is likely to be incompatible with such development.

1.4 Oyster Aquaculture Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

1.5 Rural Lands Objectives (1) The objectives of this direction are to: (a) protect the agricultural production value of rural land, (b) facilitate the orderly and economic development of rural lands for rural and related purposes.

63 of 251 Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with these objectives. The agricultural production value of rural land will not be adversely impacted by the planning proposal, whilst the inclusion of the relevant clauses into the Murray LEP 2011 will facilitate the orderly and economic development of rural lands for rural and related purposes.

Where this direction applies Comment: This direction applies to Murray River Council.

When this direction applies (3) This direction applies when: (a) a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will affect land within an existing or proposed rural or environment protection zone (including the alteration of any existing rural or environment protection zone boundary) or (b) a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that changes the existing minimum lot size on land within a rural or environment protection zone. Comment: This direction applies.

What a relevant planning authority must do if this direction applies (4) A planning proposal to which clauses 3(a) or 3(b) apply must be consistent with the Rural Planning Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008. (5) A planning proposal to which clause 3(b) applies must be consistent with the Rural Subdivision Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008. Note: State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 does not require a relevant planning authority to review or change its minimum lot size(s) in an existing LEP. A relevant planning authority can transfer the existing minimum lot size(s) into a new LEP. However, where a relevant planning authority seeks to vary an existing minimum lot size in an LEP, it must do so in accordance with the Rural Subdivision Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008. Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with this section. See assessment against State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 for more information.

Consistency (6) A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that the provisions of the planning proposal that are inconsistent are: (a) justified by a strategy which:

64 of 251 i. gives consideration to the objectives of this direction, ii. identifies the land which is the subject of the planning proposal (if the planning proposal relates to a particular site or sites, and iii. is approved by the Director-General of the Department of Planning and is in force, or (b) is of minor significance.

Comment: Not applicable. The planning proposal is consistent with the terms of this direction.

2. Environment and Heritage

2.1 Environment Protection Zones Objective (1) The objective of this direction is to protect and conserve environmentally sensitive areas. Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with this objective. The protection and conservation of environmentally sensitive areas will not be adversely impacted upon by the planning proposal.

Where this direction applies (2) This direction applies to all relevant planning authorities. Comment: This direction applies to Murray River Council.

When this direction applies (3) This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal. Comment: Noted.

What a relevant planning authority must do if this direction applies (4) A planning proposal must include provisions that facilitate the protection and conservation of environmentally sensitive areas. (5) A planning proposal that applies to land within an environment protection zone or land otherwise identified for environment protection purposes in a LEP must not reduce the environmental protection standards that apply to the land (including by modifying development standards that apply to the land). This requirement does not apply to a change to a development standard for minimum lot size for a dwelling in accordance with clause (5) of Direction 1.5 “Rural Lands”. Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with this section. The planning proposal includes provisions that facilitate the protection and conservation of environmentally sensitive areas, whilst the planning proposal will not reduce the environmental protection standards that apply to the land.

65 of 251 Consistency (6) A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that the provisions of the planning proposal that are inconsistent are: b. justified by a strategy which: i. gives consideration to the objectives of this direction, ii. identifies the land which is the subject of the planning proposal (if the planning proposal relates to a particular site or sites), and iii. is approved by the Director-General of the Department of Planning, or (b) justified by a study prepared in support of the planning proposal which gives consideration to the objectives of this direction, or (c) in accordance with the relevant Regional Strategy, Regional Plan or Sub-Regional Strategy prepared by the Department of Planning which gives consideration to the objective of this direction, or (d) is of minor significance. Comment: Not applicable. The planning proposal is consistent with the terms of this direction.

2.2 Coastal Protection Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

2.3 Heritage Conservation Objective (1) The objective of this direction is to conserve items, areas, objects and places of environmental heritage significance and indigenous heritage significance. Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with this objective. The conservation of items, areas, objects and places of environmental heritage significance and indigenous heritage significance will not be adversely impacted upon by the planning proposal.

Where this direction applies (2) This direction applies to all relevant planning authorities. Comment: Noted.

When this direction applies (3) This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal. Comment: Noted.

What a relevant planning authority must do if this direction applies

66 of 251 (4) A planning proposal must contain provisions that facilitate the conservation of: (a) items, places, buildings, works, relics, moveable objects or precincts of environmental heritage significance to an area, in relation to the historical, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic value of the item, area, object or place, identified in a study of the environmental heritage of the area, (b) Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places that are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, and (c) Aboriginal areas, Aboriginal objects, Aboriginal places or landscapes identified by an Aboriginal heritage survey prepared by or on behalf of an Aboriginal Land Council, Aboriginal body or public authority and provided to the relevant planning authority, which identifies the area, object, place or landscape as being of heritage significance to Aboriginal culture and people. Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with this section. The planning proposal does not propose to alter the existing provisions contained within the Murray LEP 2011 which facilitates the conservation of: (a) items, places, buildings, works, relics, moveable objects or precincts of environmental heritage significance to an area, in relation to the historical, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic value of the item, area, object or place, identified in a study of the environmental heritage of the area, (b) Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places that are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, and (c) Aboriginal areas, Aboriginal objects, Aboriginal places or landscapes identified by an Aboriginal heritage survey prepared by or on behalf of an Aboriginal Land Council, Aboriginal body or public authority and provided to the relevant planning authority, which identifies the area, object, place or landscape as being of heritage significance to Aboriginal culture and people.

67 of 251 “Aboriginal object”, “Aboriginal area” and “Aboriginal place” have the same meaning as in the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Heritage conservation is covered by a compulsory clause in the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006. A LEP that adopts the Standard Instrument should identify such items, areas, objects or places of environmental heritage significance or indigenous heritage significance as are relevant to the terms of this direction on the Heritage Map and relevant Schedule of the LEP. Comment: Not applicable. The planning proposal is consistent with the terms of this direction.

2.4 Recreation Vehicle Areas Objective (6) The objective of this direction is to protect sensitive land or land with significant conservation values from adverse impacts from recreation vehicles. Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with this objective. The protection of sensitive land or land with significant conservation values from adverse impacts from recreation vehicles will remain.

Where this direction applies (7) This direction applies to all relevant planning authorities. Comment: Noted.

When this direction applies (8) This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal. Comment: Noted.

What a relevant planning authority must do if this direction applies (9) A planning proposal must not enable land to be developed for the purpose of a recreation vehicle area (within the meaning of the Recreation Vehicles Act 1983): (a) where the land is within an environmental protection zone, (b) where the land comprises a beach or a dune adjacent to or adjoining a beach, (c) where the land is not within an area or zone referred to in paragraphs (4)(a) or (4)(b) unless the relevant planning authority has taken into consideration: (i) the provisions of the guidelines entitled Guidelines for Selection, Establishment and Maintenance of Recreation Vehicle Areas, Soil Conservation Service of New South Wales, September, 1985, and (ii) the provisions of the guidelines entitled Recreation Vehicles Act, 1983, Guidelines for Selection,

68 of 251 Design, and Operation of Recreation Vehicle Areas, State Pollution Control Commission, September 1985. Comment: It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with this section.

Consistency (10) A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that the provisions of the planning proposal that are inconsistent are: (a) justified by a strategy which: (i) gives consideration to the objective of this direction, and (ii) identifies the land which is the subject of the planning proposal (if the planning proposal relates to a particular site or sites), and (iii) is approved by the Director-General of the Department of Planning, or (b) justified by a study prepared in support of the planning proposal which gives consideration to the objective of this direction, or (c) in accordance with the relevant Regional Strategy, Regional Plan or Sub-Regional Strategy prepared by the Department of Planning which gives consideration to the objective of this direction, or (d) of minor significance. Comment: Not applicable. The planning proposal is consistent with the terms of this direction.

2.5 Application of E2 and E3 Zones and Environmental Overlays in Far North Coast LEPs Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

3. Housing, Infrastructure and Urban and Urban Development 3.1 Residential Zones Comment: This direction does not apply. The planning proposal does not affect land within: (a) an existing or proposed residential zone (including the alteration of any existing residential zone boundary), or (b) any other zone in which significant residential development is permitted or proposed to be permitted.

3.2 Caravan Parks and Manufactured Home Estates Objectives (12) The objectives of this direction are: (a) to provide for a variety of housing types, and

69 of 251 (b) to provide opportunities for caravan parks and manufactured home estates. Comment: The planning proposal does not change provisions relating to caravan parks and manufactured home estates.

Where this direction applies (13) This direction applies to all relevant planning authorities. This direction does not apply to: (a) Crown land reserved or dedicated for any purposes under the Crown Lands Act 1989, except Crown land reserved for accommodation purposes, or (b) land dedicated or reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Comment: Noted. When this direction applies (14) This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal. Comment: Noted.

What a relevant planning authority must do if this direction applies (15) In identifying suitable zones, locations and provisions for caravan parks in a planning proposal, the relevant planning authority must: (a) retain provisions that permit development for the purposes of a caravan park to be carried out on land, and (b) retain the zonings of existing caravan parks, or in the case of a new principal LEP zone the land in accordance with an appropriate zone under the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 that would facilitate the retention of the existing caravan park. (16) In identifying suitable zones, locations and provisions for manufactured home estates (MHEs) in a planning proposal, the relevant planning authority must: (a) take into account the categories of land set out in Schedule 2 of SEPP 36 as to where MHEs should not be located, (b) take into account the principles listed in clause 9 of SEPP 36 (which relevant planning authorities are required to consider when assessing and determining the development and subdivision proposals), and (c) include provisions that the subdivision of MHEs by long term lease of up to 20 years or under the Community Land Development Act 1989 be permissible with consent. Comment: The planning proposal does not change provisions relating to caravan parks and manufactured home estates.

Consistency

70 of 251 (17) A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that the provisions of the planning proposal that are inconsistent are: (a) justified by a strategy which: (i) gives consideration to the objective of this direction, and (ii) identifies the land which is the subject of the planning proposal (if the planning proposal relates to a particular site or sites), and (iii) is approved by the Director-General of the Department of Planning, or (b) justified by a study prepared in support of the planning proposal which gives consideration to the objective of this direction, or (c) in accordance with the relevant Regional Strategy, Regional Plan or Sub-Regional Strategy prepared by the Department of Planning which gives consideration to the objective of this direction, or (d) of minor significance. Comment: Not applicable. The planning proposal is consistent with the terms of this direction.

3.3 Home Occupations Objective (1) The objective of this direction is to encourage the carrying out of low-impact small businesses in dwelling houses. Comment: The planning proposal does not change provisions relating to the carrying out of low-impact small businesses in dwelling houses. It is noted that the planning proposal will not increase the possibility of additional dwelling houses.

Where this direction applies (2) This direction applies to all relevant planning authorities. Comment: Noted.

When this direction applies (3) This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal. Comment: Noted.

What a relevant planning authority must do if this direction applies (4) Planning proposals must permit home occupations to be carried out in dwelling houses without the need for development consent.

71 of 251 Comment: The planning proposal does not change provisions relating to permitting home occupations to be carried out in dwelling houses without the need for development consent.

3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport Comment: This direction does not apply. The planning proposal does not create, alter or remove a zone or a provision relating to urban land, including land zoned for residential, business, industrial, village or tourist purposes.

3.5 Development Near Licensed Aerodromes Comment: This direction does not apply. The planning proposal does not create, alter or remove a zone or a provision relating to land in the vicinity of a licensed aerodrome.

3.6 Shooting Ranges Objective (1) The objectives are: (a) to maintain appropriate levels of public safety and amenity when rezoning land adjacent to an existing shooting range, (b) to reduce land use conflict arising between existing shooting ranges and rezoning of adjacent land, (c) to identify issues that must be addressed when giving consideration to rezoning land adjacent to an existing shooting range. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with the objectives of the direction.

Where this direction applies (2) This direction applies to all relevant planning authorities. Comment: Noted.

When this direction applies (3) This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will affect, create, alter or

72 of 251 remove a zone or a provision relating to land adjacent to and/ or adjoining an existing shooting range. Comment: Noted.

What a relevant planning authority must do if this direction applies (4) A planning proposal must not seek to rezone land adjacent to and/ or adjoining an existing shooting range that has the effect of: a. permitting more intensive land uses than those which are permitted under the existing zone; or b. permitting land uses that are incompatible with the noise emitted by the existing shooting range. Comment: The planning proposal does not seek to rezone any land.

Consistency (5) A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that the provisions of the planning proposal that are inconsistent are: (a) justified by a strategy which: i. gives consideration to the objectives of this direction, and ii. identifies the land which is the subject of the planning proposal (if the planning proposal relates to a particular site or sites) and iii. is approved by the Director-General of the Department of Planning and is in force, or (b) justified by a study prepared in support of the planning proposal which gives consideration to the objective of this direction, or (c) is of minor significance. Note: In this direction, an “existing shooting range” means a shooting range the subject of a valid approval issued under the Firearms Act 1996 and Firearms Regulation 2006, and includes the Range Danger Area of that shooting range. Comment: Not applicable. The planning proposal is consistent with the terms of this direction.

4. Hazard and Risk Hazard and Risk 4.1 Acid Sulfate Soils Comment: This direction does not apply. The planning proposal will not apply to land having a probability of containing acid sulfate soils as shown on the Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Maps.

4.2 Mine Subsidence and Unstable Land

73 of 251 Comment: This direction does not apply. The planning proposal will not apply to land within a Mine Subsidence District proclaimed pursuant to section 15 of the Mine Subsidence Compensation Act 1961, or which has been identified as unstable land.

4.3 Flood Prone Land Objectives (1) The objectives of this direction are: (a) to ensure that development of flood prone land is consistent with the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy and the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005, and (b) to ensure that the provisions of an LEP on flood prone land is commensurate with flood hazard and includes consideration of the potential flood impacts both on and off the subject land. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with the objectives of this direction. The existing flood prone land considerations contained within the Murray LEP 2011 will not be affected. Where this direction applies (2) This direction applies to all relevant planning authorities that are responsible for flood prone land within their LGA. Comment: Noted.

When this direction applies (3) This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that creates, removes or alters a zone or a provision that affects flood prone land. Comment: Noted.

What a relevant planning authority must do if this direction applies (4) A planning proposal must include provisions that give effect to and are consistent with the NSW Flood Prone Land Policy and the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005 (including the Guideline on Development Controls on Low Flood Risk Areas). (5) A planning proposal must not rezone land within the flood planning areas from Special Use, Special Purpose, Recreation, Rural or Environmental Protection Zones to a Residential, Business, Industrial, Special Use or Special Purpose Zone. (6) A planning proposal must not contain provisions that apply to the flood planning areas which: (a) permit development in floodway areas, (b) permit development that will result in significant flood impacts to other properties, (c) permit a significant increase in the development of that land,

74 of 251 (d) are likely to result in a substantially increased requirement for government spending on flood mitigation measures, infrastructure or services, or (e) permit development to be carried out without development consent except for the purposes of agriculture (not including dams, drainage canals, levees, buildings or structures in floodways or high hazard areas), roads or exempt development. (7) A planning proposal must not impose flood related development controls above the residential flood planning level for residential development on land, unless a relevant planning authority provides adequate justification for those controls to the satisfaction of the Director-General (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General). (8) For the purposes of a planning proposal, a relevant planning authority must not determine a flood planning level that is inconsistent with the Floodplain Development Manual 2005 (including the Guideline on Development Controls on Low Flood Risk Areas) unless a relevant planning authority provides adequate justification for the proposed departure from that Manual to the satisfaction of the Director-General (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director- General). Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with all requirements outlined above.

Consistency (9) A planning proposal may be inconsistent with this direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Director- General (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that: (a) the planning proposal is in accordance with a floodplain risk management plan prepared in accordance with the principles and guidelines of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005, or (b) the provisions of the planning proposal that are inconsistent are of minor significance. Note: “flood planning area”, “flood planning level”, “flood prone land” and “floodway area” have the same meaning as in the Floodplain Development Manual 2005. Comment: Not applicable. The planning proposal is consistent with this direction.

4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection Objectives (1) The objectives of this direction are: (a) to protect life, property and the environment from bush fire hazards, by discouraging the establishment of incompatible land uses in bush fire prone areas, and (b) to encourage sound management of bush fire prone areas.

75 of 251 Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with the objectives of this direction. The existing bush fire prone areas considerations contained within the Murray LEP 2011 will not be affected. Where this direction applies (2) This direction applies to all local government areas in which the responsible Council is required to prepare a bush fire prone land map under section 146 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EP&A Act), or, until such a map has been certified by the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service, a map referred to in Schedule 6 of that Act. Comment: Noted. When this direction applies (3) This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will affect, or is in proximity to land mapped as bushfire prone land. Comment: Noted.

What a relevant planning authority must do if this direction applies (4) In the preparation of a planning proposal the relevant planning authority must consult with the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service following receipt of a gateway determination under section 56 of the Act, and prior to undertaking community consultation in satisfaction of section 57 of the Act, and take into account any comments so made, (5) A planning proposal must: (a) have regard to Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006, (b) introduce controls that avoid placing inappropriate developments in hazardous areas, and (c) ensure that bushfire hazard reduction is not prohibited within the APZ. (6) A planning proposal must, where development is proposed, comply with the following provisions, as appropriate: (a) provide an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) incorporating at a minimum: (i) an Inner Protection Area bounded by a perimeter road or reserve which circumscribes the hazard side of the land intended for development and has a building line consistent with the incorporation of an APZ, within the property, and (ii) an Outer Protection Area managed for hazard reduction and located on the bushland side of the perimeter road, (b) for infill development (that is development within an already subdivided area), where an appropriate APZ cannot be achieved, provide for an appropriate performance standard, in consultation with the NSW Rural Fire Service. If the provisions of the planning

76 of 251 proposal permit Special Fire Protection Purposes (as defined under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997), the APZ provisions must be complied with, (c) contain provisions for two-way access roads which links to perimeter roads and/or to fire trail networks, (d) contain provisions for adequate water supply for firefighting purposes, (e) minimise the perimeter of the area of land interfacing the hazard which may be developed, (f) introduce controls on the placement of combustible materials in the Inner Protection Area. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with all requirements outlined above. Once any gateway determination is received under section 56 of the Act, Council will consult with the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service, and prior to undertaking community consultation in satisfaction of section 57 of the Act, and take into account any comments so made (where applicable).

Consistency (7) A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that the council has obtained written advice from the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service, to the effect that, notwithstanding the non-compliance, the NSW Rural Fire Service does not object to the progression of the planning proposal. Comment: Not applicable. The planning proposal is consistent with this direction.

5. Regional Planning 5.1 Implementation of Regional Strategies Comment: This direction does not apply. Murray River Council is not affected by the following regional strategies: (a) Far North Coast Regional Strategy (b) Lower Hunter Regional Strategy (c) South Coast Regional Strategy (excluding land in the Shoalhaven LGA) (d) Sydney–Canberra Corridor Regional Strategy (e) Central Coast Regional Strategy, and (f) Mid North Coast Regional Strategy.

5.2 Sydney Drinking Water Catchment Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

5.3 Farmland of State and Regional Significance on the NSW Far North Coast Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

77 of 251 5.4 Commercial and Retail Development along the Pacific Highway, North Coast Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

5.5 Development in the vicinity of Ellalong, Paxton and Millfield (Cessnock LGA) (Revoked 18 June 2010) Comment: Noted.

5.6 Sydney to Canberra Corridor (Revoked 10 July 2008. See amended Direction 5.1) Comment: Noted.

5.7 Central Coast (Revoked 10 July 2008. See amended Direction 5.1) Comment: Noted.

5.8 Second Sydney Airport: Badgerys Creek Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council. 5.9 North West Rail Link Corridor Strategy Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

5.10 Implementation of Regional Plans Objective (6) The objective of this direction is to give legal effect to the vision, land use strategy, goals, directions and actions contained in Regional Plans. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with the objective of this direction.

Where this direction applies (7) This direction applies to land to which a Regional Plan has been released by the Minister for Planning. Comment: No Regional Plan has been released by the Minster for Planning relating to Murray River Council. It is noted that the draft Riverina Murray Regional Plan is currently on exhibition for comment. The planning proposal is not inconsistent with this document.

When this direction applies (8) This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal.

What a relevant planning authority must do if this direction applies (9) Planning proposals must be consistent with a Regional Plan released by the Minister for Planning. Comment: A draft Riverina Murray Regional Plan is currently on exhibition for comment. The planning proposal is not inconsistent with this document.

78 of 251 Consistency (10) A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Secretary), that the extent of inconsistency with the Regional Plan: (a) is of minor significance, and (b) the planning proposal achieves the overall intent of the Regional Plan and does not undermine the achievement of its vision, land use strategy, goals, directions or actions. Comment: Not applicable. The planning proposal is consistent with this direction.

6. LocalPlanMaking 6.1 Approval and Referral Requirements Objective (1) The objective of this direction is to ensure that LEP provisions encourage the efficient and appropriate assessment of development. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with the objectives of this direction. The additions into the Murray LEP 2011 as a result of the planning proposal will continue to encourage the efficient and appropriate assessment of development. Where this direction applies (2) This direction applies to all relevant planning authorities. Comment: Noted.

When this direction applies (3) This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal. Comment: Noted.

What a relevant planning authority must do if this direction applies (4) A planning proposal must: (a) minimise the inclusion of provisions that require the concurrence, consultation or referral of development applications to a Minister or public authority, and (b) not contain provisions requiring concurrence, consultation or referral of a Minister or public authority unless the relevant planning authority has obtained the approval of: (i) the appropriate Minister or public authority, and (ii) the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General), prior to undertaking community consultation in satisfaction of section 57 of the Act, and

79 of 251 (c) not identify development as designated development unless the relevant planning authority: (i) can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that the class of development is likely to have a significant impact on the environment, and (ii) has obtained the approval of the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) prior to undertaking community consultation in satisfaction of section 57 of the Act. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with this section.

Consistency (5) A planning proposal must be substantially consistent with the terms of this direction. Note: In this direction “public authority” has the same meaning as section 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Comment: The planning proposal is substantially consistent with the terms of this direction.

6.2 Reserving Land for Public Purposes Objectives (1) The objectives of this direction are: (a) to facilitate the provision of public services and facilities by reserving land for public purposes, and (b) to facilitate the removal of reservations of land for public purposes where the land is no longer required for acquisition. Comment: The planning proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives of this direction.

Where this direction applies (2) This direction applies to all relevant planning authorities. Comment: Noted.

When this direction applies (3) This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal. Comment: Noted.

What a relevant planning authority must do if this direction applies

(4) A planning proposal must not create, alter or reduce existing zonings or reservations of land for public purposes without the approval of the relevant public authority and the Director-

80 of 251 General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General). Comment: The planning proposal does not create, alter or reduce existing zonings or reservations of land for public purposes.

(5) When a Minister or public authority requests a relevant planning authority to reserve land for a public purpose in a planning proposal and the land would be required to be acquired under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, the relevant planning authority must: (a) reserve the land in accordance with the request, and (b) include the land in a zone appropriate to its intended future use or a zone advised by the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General), and (c) identify the relevant acquiring authority for the land. (6) When a Minister or public authority requests a relevant planning authority to include provisions in a planning proposal relating to the use of any land reserved for a public purpose before that land is acquired, the relevant planning authority must: (a) include the requested provisions, or (b) take such other action as advised by the Director- General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) with respect to the use of the land before it is acquired. (7) When a Minister or public authority requests a relevant planning authority to include provisions in a planning proposal to rezone and/or remove a reservation of any land that is reserved for public purposes because the land is no longer designated by that public authority for acquisition, the relevant planning authority must rezone and/or remove the relevant reservation in accordance with the request. Comment: Not applicable to the subject planning proposal.

Consistency (8) A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that: (c) with respect to a request referred to in paragraph (7), that further information is required before appropriate planning controls for the land can be determined, or (d) the provisions of the planning proposal that are inconsistent with the terms of this direction are of minor significance. Note: Clause 12 of the EP&A Reg 2000 provides that a planning proposal for a proposed local environmental plan: (a) may not contain a provision reserving land for a purpose referred to in section 26 (1) (c) of the EP&A Act, and

81 of 251 (b) may not contain a provision in respect of that reservation as required by section 27 of the EP&A Act, unless the public authority responsible for the acquisition of the land has notified the relevant planning authority of its concurrence to the inclusion of such a provision in the planning proposal. In this direction: LOCAL PLANNING DIRECTIONS Section 117(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 “public authority” has the same meaning as section 4 of the EP&A Act. the use or reservation of land for a public purpose has the same meaning as in section 26(1)(c) of the EP&A Act. Comment: Not applicable. The planning proposal is not inconsistent with this direction.

6.3 Site Specific Provisions Objective (1) The objective of this direction is to discourage unnecessarily restrictive site specific planning controls. Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with the objectives of this direction. The planning proposal will not create unnecessarily restrictive site specific planning controls but instead will permit appropriate development to occur (subject to receiving development consent).

Where this direction applies (2) This direction applies to all relevant planning authorities. Comment: Noted.

When this direction applies (3) This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will allow a particular development to be carried out. Comment: Aspects of the planning proposal will permit additional boundary adjustments/subdivisions from occurring.

What a relevant planning authority must do if this direction applies (4) A planning proposal that will amend another environmental planning instrument in order to allow a particular development proposal to be carried out must either: (a) allow that land use to be carried out in the zone the land is situated on, or (b) rezone the site to an existing zone already applying in the environmental planning instrument that allows that land use without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in that zone, or

82 of 251 (c) allow that land use on the relevant land without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in the principal environmental planning instrument being amended. (5) A planning proposal must not contain or refer to drawings that show details of the development proposal. Comment: The planning proposal is not inconsistent with the requirements of this section.

7. Metropolitan Planning 7.1 Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

7.2 Implementation of Greater Macarthur Land Release Investigation Comment: Not applicable to Murray River Council.

Section C – Environmental, social and economic impact

Q7. Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal? The planning proposal is unlikely to adversely affect critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats. The planning proposal relates to minor variations to the existing Murray LEP 2011. Any future development associated with the planning proposal will be subject to a merit based development application assessment against Section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979 and all other relevant legislation.

Q8. Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the planning proposal and how are they proposed to be managed? It is considered that the planning proposal will not create any adverse environmental effects. The planning proposal relates to minor variations to the current Murray LEP 2011, whilst it is noted that no additional dwelling house opportunities will be created as a result of this planning proposal. Any proposed development which may be permitted as a result of this planning proposal will require subsequent development application consent and must be compliant with all relevant aspects of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations.

83 of 251 Q9. Has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects? It is considered that the planning proposal will not create any adverse social or economic effects. The planning proposal relates to minor variations to the current Murray LEP 2011 and will not adversely impact upon the social or economic environment of Murray River Council. It is noted that no additional dwelling house opportunities will be created as a result of this planning proposal.

Section D – State and Commonwealth interests

Q10. Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal? It is considered that there is adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal to proceed. It is noted that any demand created by future development will be required to provide suitable arrangements with the relevant authority to ensure development can be serviced.

Q11. What are the views of state and Commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with the Gateway determination? The planning proposal is considered to be of a minor nature with regards to State or National significance, and therefore has not been referred to State and Commonwealth public authorities for comment at this preliminary stage. The Gateway determination will determine if any consultation with State and Commonwealth authorities is required (in accordance with Section 57 of the EP & A Act 1979).

Part 4 – Mapping

No mapping is required to be amended.

Part 5 – Community Consultation

Community consultation will be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Director-General of Planning and all relevant legislation. Preliminary public consultation has previously been undertaken by Council in relation to amendments to the Murray LEP 2011. Additional consultation requirements are to be dictated by the Gateway determination.

Part 6 – Project timeline

It is considered that the Planning Proposal is of a ‘minor nature’. The planning proposal will be able to progress once a Gateway Determination is received.

84 of 251 MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28TH JUNE 2016

13. DA 23/16 – DWELLING HOUSE & BUILDING (STORAGE SHED) – LOT 10 DP 859813, 17 KIDMAN REID DRIVE, MURRAY DOWNS

DIRECTOR: Simon Arkinstall- Director of Environmental Services AUTHOR: Jeremy Swan –Town Planning Consultant – Hawes and Swan Planning Pty Ltd VENUE: Moulamein Bowling Club TRIM Reference:

Issues Considered in writing report: Council Policy, Legislation, Resources (financial, community & staff), Environmental Issues, Risk Issues & Options – issues applicable have been reported on.

RECOMMENDATION

i. That the Officer’s report be received and noted.

ii. That Council support the request to vary Clause “6.6 Development on river front areas” standard under Clause 4.6 of the Wakool Local Environmental Plan 2013; and iii. That, with the concurrence of the Director-General, the Development Application DA 23/16 be APPROVED subject to conditions of consent included attached Schedule A and B.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Council consent is sought for the construction of a Dwelling House & Building (Storage Shed) to be sited on the land described as Lot 10 DP 859813, known as 17 Kidman Reid Drive, Murray Downs, with a land size of 2118 m2.

The land to which this application relates is zoned R1– General Residential as outlined in Wakool Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013, and is owned by Dennis & Dianne O’Bryan with both persons being listed as the applicants for this development.

A variation to the development standards listed in Council’s LEP 2013 - Part 6.6 Development on river front areas exists whereby the applicant has sought an exception under part 4.6 of Council’s LEP.

It is recommended that Council note the report, consider the variation to the development standard as being acceptable in this instance, formally support the requested variation and forward the application to the Director-General for concurrence.

85 of 251 Figure 1 - Locality Plan

The Proposal The proposal is to construct a double storey dwelling to be sited on land known as Lot 10 DP 859813, being 17 Kidman Reid Drive Murray Downs. The design incorporates three (3) bedrooms (bedroom 2 with ensuite); separate bathroom, powder room and WC, laundry facility, an open living area and the provision of a double garage all being on the ground floor.

The first floor incorporates the main bedroom (complete with ensuite and walk in robe), study, combined kitchen, meals and family room, powder room and WC, moderately sized balcony addressing the street and a large scale alfresco balcony area fronting the watercourse.

External materials for the dwelling have been identified on plans as being Timber Cladding, Scyon Matrix and render finish to brickwork (for details refer to Sheet No. 5 of 9 dated 13/04/2016). Roof sheeting for the dwelling has been identified as being selected colorbond material at a 10° pitch.

In addition, it is also proposed to construct a detached shed to be sited forward of the intended dwelling being sited 10m off the primary road frontage and 2 metres off the western side boundary. The overall area of the structure is 90m² with the maximum height being 4m.

Matters for consideration In determining an application, the consent authority is to take into consideration the following matters as are of relevance in the assessment of the DA on the subject property.

PROVISIONS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT s79C(1)(a)(i)

(a)(i) The Provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument The Environmental Planning Instruments that relate to the proposed development are:

86 of 251  State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Wakool Local Government Area is identified within the SEPP 44 schedule 1 as having koala habitat. The applicant has not formally addressed the SEPP, however the subject land is a Residential allotment located within the locality of Murray Downs which has an overall area of less than 1 hectare.

Whilst the development would be considered to satisfy the requirements of SEPP 44, due to the property size being less than 1 hectare no further consideration is required.

 Murray Regional Environmental Plan No 2—Riverine Land This plan applies to the land shown on the map that is the riverine land of the River Murray within the City of Albury and the areas of Balranald, Berrigan, Conargo, Corowa, Deniliquin, Hume, Murray, Wakool, Wentworth and Windouran.

Review of the Murray Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 Riverine Land Map 18 of 29 has indicated the land as not being highlighted as vegetated land. The provisions of MURRAY R.E.P. No. 2 apply only to the areas of vegetation shown on the REP maps.

Whilst the proposal is considered consistent with the aims and objectives of the Murray Regional Environmental Plan No. 2, due to the land not identified as vegetation on the associated map, no further consideration is required.

 Wakool Local Environmental Plan 2013 (LEP) An assessment of the proposed modifications against Wakool LEP is detailed below. Permissibility The site is zoned R1 General Residential under the provision of the LEP. The proposed dwelling house and shed is permitted with consent in the zone. Zone Objectives The objectives of the R1 General Residential zone are as follows:  To provide for the housing needs of the community.  To provide for 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 ensure development is ordered in such a way as to encourage walking and cycling in close proximity to settlement.

Officer Comment: The proposed DA satisfies the zone objectives in that it will ensure that additional housing is provided within Wakool.

87 of 251 Relevant Clauses Clause 6.1 Earthworks The objectives of this clause is to ensure that earthworks for which development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land.

The proposed development is for the construction/establishment of a dwelling house and detached storage shed whereby all associated earthworks will be limited to the foundations/footprint of the buildings and associated hard stand areas only.

Whilst the proposal is considered extremely unlikely to generate any detrimental impact a sediment control condition is to form part of this consent requiring the applicant to ensure adequate measures are taken throughout the construction process of this proposal ensuring satisfactory stabilisation of any exposed areas in view of preventing any unnecessary soil erosion.

The proposal is not inconsistent with this part.

Clause 6.2 Flood Liable Land Reference is made to the Murray Downs Flood Study, the subject site is located within an area indicated as land which would not be subject to flood.

Clause 6.6 Development on River Front Areas Clause 6.6 of the LEP requires that dwellings and sheds are not built within a river front area.

River front area in R1 General Residential zones “land within 40 metres of the high bank of the river.” The proposed development does not comply with the 40 metres requirement in that the building is setback 30.6 metres.

88 of 251 Figure 2 – Site Plan

The applicant is relying on the provisions of Clause 4.6 of the Wakool LEP 2013 to seek a variation to the development standard. An assessment against Clause 4.6 is provided in the following table.

Clause 4.6 Requirement Assessment 4.6(4)(a)(i) The application includes a written The applicant must submit a request justifying the proposed written request to vary the contravention of the river front development standard setback development standard on the demonstrating it is unreasonable or following basis: unnecessary to comply, and there  The dwelling to the south on lot 80 are sufficient environmental approved under LEP1992 is set planning grounds to justify the back approximately 31.8m from the contravention. high bank of the river.

Matching this setback provides a much better outcome for the client and is not detrimental to the adjoining properties.

 A reduced setback maximises the amenity for the proposed dwelling by increasing river views and privacy from adjoining neighbours.

89 of 251  A 40m setback would reduce the south western outlook of the proposed dwelling and make the existing dwelling on lot 80 much more prominent.

 The shape of the allotment is wide at the river end and narrow at the road end. The width of the block at the 40m setback is approximately 35m. At the proposed 32m setback the width of the block is approximately 37.2m. This extra width allows more room to have a river view and also enables the client to have a double carport behind the building line.

 A 40m setback would create a privacy issue. The existing dwelling has an elevated outdoor area deck that would overlook the proposed living area of the proposed dwelling. By reducing the setback, the proposed living area is shielded and more private.

 A reduced setback ensures the proposed building is consistent in setback with the adjacent building.

 The proposed reduced setback is also advantageous for the northern neighbour at lot 82. There is currently only a shed on this allotment. A 40m setback reduces their building envelope considerably because of the location of the existing shed. 4.6(4)(a)(ii) The objectives of the development Council must be satisfied that the standard are: proposed development is (a)To support the natural consistent with the objectives of migration of the river channel, the development standard and the including riverine processes, objectives for development within (b) To protect and improve the the zone. bed and bank stability of rivers (c) To maintain or improve the water quality of rivers, (d) To protect the amenity, scenic values and cultural heritage of rivers,

90 of 251 (e) To protect public access to riverine corridors, (f) To conserve and protect riverine corridors, including wildlife habitat. It is considered that because of the existing dwellings either side of the house, which also have a similar setback that the objectives are satisfied. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the R1 Residential zone in which it is located, specifically  To provide for the housing needs of the community.

It is considered that the written statement provided by the applicant has sufficiently justified that strict numerical compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance. For the reasons outlined above, there are sufficient planning grounds to justify the departure from the development standard and it is recommended that a Clause 4.6 exception

Council has received conflicting legal opinion as to whether the request to vary the dwelling setback within the riverfront area is or is not a development standard. In this instance, as indicated through this report the former Wakool Shire Council has utilized both SEPP 1 and Clause 4.6 of the Wakool LEP 2013 to vary this requirement. It is emphasized that the Department of Planning has provided their concurrence to permit this to occur, hence indicating tis clause is a development standard and has the ability to be varied.

In this instance due to the existing development it is suggested that this process be permitted to continue until this legal impasse can be resolved. In addition in reviewing the original subdivision approval issued in 1996 the former Wakool Shire Council provided the following advice:

‘The foreshore setback to the Murray River is 100m (clause 97(9))of Council’s planning scheme, however with the introduction of offsite sewage disposal Council will consider a variation to the 100 metres up to a minimum of 30 metres . Such applications are to made to Council in writing under the requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1.’

Council is advised that the former Wakool Shire Council has utilized Clause 4.6 of the respective Local Environmental Plan to request a variation to Clause 6.6 – Development on Riverfront Areas to enable the required ’river’ setback to be varied and the Department of Planning has provided their required concurrence.

The Department of Planning and Environment recently engaged independent consultants ‘ecological’ to undertake a review based on ’Murray River

91 of 251 Riparian Planning Controls’. In general this review investigated the existing Local Government planning controls that related to the Murray River, including ‘development on river front area’. It is noted that this document has not been formally adopted and is currently on public exhibition.

It is however worth noting that the report indicates that ‘in circumstances river setbacks may be varied to facilitate infill development opportunities. Variation to the standard minimum setback provisions should only be approved where the variation sought applies to a setback in an urban zone to facilitate infill development.

In considering a variation for infill development purposes, the following considerations should be mandatory: - The immediate adjoining property setback distance (new developments are not to be located further forward than the existing neighbouring property setback): Comment: with this application the proposed dwelling will be in line with the existing dwellings that adjoin the property.

- The building line of the immediately adjoining property (New developments are not to be located further forward of the existing building line) Comment: with this application the proposed dwelling will be in line with the existing dwellings that adjoin the property.

- The location and appearance of the structure (new structures should be compatible with the surrounding area) Comment: the proposed development is for a single storey dwelling house located within a residential zone and within an existing residential subdivision (11 riverfront lots). Of the existing development the other 10 residential lots all have a single storey dwelling house erected and therefore it is considered that the design of the proposed dwelling house is compatible with the existing and surrounding development.

- Location of the development( new development is not to be located on the outside bend of a river) Comment: the proposed development will be situated 30m clear of the high bank of the Murray River within an existing residential subdivision, it will not be located on the bank of the Murry River. Components of this approved subdivision could be deemed to be located on the outside bend of the Murray River, however such was approved under previous planning controls.

92 of 251 - Adverse effects on the riverine environment Comment: the site has been cleared of all native vegetation and is located within an approved residential subdivision. The impact is deemed minimal.

Part 6.8 Essential services Development consent must not be granted for development unless the consent authority is satisfied that any of the services that are essential for the development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required: a) The supply of water, b) The supply of electricity, c) The disposal and management of sewage, d) Stormwater drainage or on-site conservation, e) Suitable vehicular access.

The proposed development to which this application relates is for the construction of a Dwelling House and Building (Storage Shed). The subject site has electricity, phone, sewage and water services available for future connection and the ability for the provision of vehicular access available off Kidman Reid Drive.

(a)(ii) The Provision of any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument (that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved)). There is no draft Environmental Planning Instrument applicable to the proposed modifications. (a)(iii) The Provisions of any Development Control Plan Wakool Development Control Plan 2013 The following is an assessment of the proposed development’s compliance with the controls in the DCP. Section B1 – Residential and Ancillary Uses This section applies to all residential accommodation types including dwellings and their related (ancillary) uses including but not limited to driveways, garages, carport, garden sheds, storage shed, storage sheds, fences, landscape and utilities.

The aim of this section is to promote residential development that is sustainable, maximises residential amenity, encourages innovation and quality design, promotes a range of housing choices and affordability, and integrates with the character of each area.

B.1.1 Site Planning 1 Objective: All development must: a) Consider and respond to the environmental opportunities and constraints on the site; b) Avoid, or if it cannot avoid, minimise or mitigate against any environmental impacts or hazards or land use conflicts;

93 of 251 c) Protect and enhance any heritage items or historic streetscapes; d) Integrate with the surrounding building and landscape character.

The proposed dwelling is to be sited on a residential, R1 zoned land, located within the residential sub-division of Murray Downs. The subject land fails to exhibit any significant site constraints which prevent the future development from complying with Council’s current WLEP 2013 setback obligations off the Murray River (river front areas), being 40m.

However, the applicant seeks a formal variation, under WLEP 2013 Part 4.6 Exceptions to development standards, in view of gaining consent for development which contravenes this standard (Part 6.6 Development on river front areas).

B.1.3 Building Setbacks Objective: Buildings should be setback from the lot boundaries: a) To maximise amenity for the proposed dwelling and any adjacent dwellings (including, but not limited to, separation from road noise, adjacent building noise, privacy, reasonable views, and overshadowing); b) To allow for sufficient fire protection and/or address fire requirements; c) To allow an area for landscape on the site for environmental and privacy benefits and to reduce the visual impacts of any building(s); d) To ensure the proposed building is consistent in setback (and the appearance of bulk and scale) with the adjacent buildings whilst defining the street edge and creating desirable street proportions; e) To provide some articulation and/or variation to the building elevations to provide visual interest.

The subject land to which this application relates was created under previous sub-division for the purposes of establishing a dwelling. At that time the required setback distance off the watercourse (Murray River) was 30m.

Since that date Council has drafted, advertised and adopted a new Local Environmental Plan (LEP) which, among other things, increased this river front area exclusion zone (setback distance off Murray River – river front areas) to 40m.

This application seeks variation/exception to this development standard in view to allow the intended dwelling to be constructed 30.6m off the Murray River so to allow for a more sympathetic development when viewed form the river and would be notably consistent those setbacks of the immediate established dwellings located on adjoining lands.

The proposed development is not inconsistent with the objectives of this part.

B.1.4 Outbuildings, Carport & Garages Objective(s): To ensure that outbuildings, sheds, carports and garages are appropriately sized and located to enable suitable ancillary uses to residential development whilst minimising their visual impact on the streetscape and views from adjacent buildings.

94 of 251 The proposed development incorporates a storage shed / triple garage located in the north eastern front corner of the allotment being sited forward of the dwelling with the access to this building being orientated toward the eastern boundary (access doors not visible from street).

Setback: The detached shed is proposed to be located 10 metres off the front boundary (northern) incorporating ample distance to allow vehicle manoeuvring to the garage and the associated dwelling and is intended to be located 2 metres off the side boundary (western). The intended location complies with specified setback controls for Outbuildings forward of the building line on riverfront lots.

Present the Street: The detached shed exhibits building design which compliments that of the proposed dwelling. The choice of external materials resembles render finish which supports that of the intended dwelling and includes a 10° roof pitch which is the same as featured on the dwelling.

Figure 3 – View from Kidman Reid Drive In addition, the dwelling house incorporates an attached double garage facility along the eastern portion of the building. The subject structure, whilst attached to the primary dwelling is less than 50% of the front elevation of the building and does not exceed 6.5 metres in width.

Figure 4 – Front Elevation

Size & Dimensions: The proposed Building (Storage Shed) is consistent with the controls for Outbuildings forward of the building line on riverfront lots.

The proposed development is not inconsistent with this part.

95 of 251 B.1.5 Site Coverage Objective(s): All residential development should provide sufficient site area without buildings or impermeable hard surfaces: a) To avoid overdevelopment of the site and protect the area character; b) To encourage development that responds to the site opportunities and constraints; c) To protect existing significant trees and their root systems; d) To allow for infiltration of water, and significant landscape and plantings; e) To provide ground level open spaces and recreation areas for the development; f) To encourage passive solar design and energy efficiency; and g) To maximise residential amenity and privacy.

The proposed residential development provides sufficient site area without buildings and impermeable hard surfaces (refer to Site Plan) and is deemed consistent with residential development on adjoining land and surrounding area.

This proposal supports the objectives of this part.

B.1.6 Orientation, Solar Access and Cross Ventilation Objective(s): All residential developments should seek to incorporate passive design principles that will contribute to the overall energy efficiency of residential dwellings and reduce energy consumption including management of solar access and natural cross ventilation.

The proposed development is designed to allow for the primary first floor living areas (combined family/meals/kitchen & balcony) of the dwelling to predominantly orientate to the north, providing maximum solar access to these areas during winter.

Natural cross ventilation is created in these living area located in the centre of the residence through the operable windows and sliding doors positioned throughout the room.

The Basix Certificate highlights acceptable passes in both Energy and Thermal Comfort scores, with solar access and natural cross ventilation been incorporated into the design of the proposed dwelling.

Both orientation solar access and cross ventilation are considered satisfactory in this instance.

96 of 251 B.1.9 Building Articulation, Design & Materials 1. Objective(s): Building facades (especially for larger buildings or those facing public spaces such as a public road, reserve, railway or adjoining residential area) must incorporate variations in the façade treatments, roof lines and building materials to avoid large blank walls, reduce bulk and scale of the building, minimise reflective material, and provide visual interest.

The proposed dwelling house incorporates rendered brickwork, horizontal timber cladding and scion matrix to the exterior of the building. These composite materials are non-reflective, complement one another and create an interesting variation in design that reduces bulk and can generate visual interest when the building is to be viewed from afar.

The proposed detached shed incorporates an external finish that mimics that of the primary dwelling and provides windows (x3) to the elevation which fronts the primary road frontage and incorporates a 8° roof pitch which is similar to that of the main dwelling structure.

The proposed development is not inconsistent with this part.

B.1.10 Landscape Objective(s): Landscape design for residential development should address: a) The shading of buildings in summer and their solar access in winter, privacy, security, recreation and amenity of the subject site and adjacent lots; b) Suitability of species to the climate and local ecology and minimising maintenance and watering requirements.

The submitted plans incorporate adequate provision of landscaping along the northern and eastern portion of the property being the boundaries that dominate the street frontage. This vegetation appears strategically placed to restrict partial view of the development softening the overall structure/s when viewed from Kidman Reid Drive.

The proposed landscaping consists of mature sized trees (3.5m wide x 4 – 6m high) x 3 and smaller varieties to be strategically planted along the internal driveway.

Whilst orientation may be questionable, due to the ability to satisfy the requirements of Basix, solar access is considered acceptable in this instance.

The proposal is considered consistent with this part.

(a)(iiia) The Provisions of any Planning Agreement that has been entered into under Section 94F, or any draft Planning Agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under Section 93F. No relevant agreement exists or has been proposed as part of this application.

97 of 251 (a)(iv) The Regulations The Regulations do not prescribe any additional matters that are relevant to the proposed modifications.

(1)(b) The likely impacts of the proposed development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality The applicant seeks an exception/variation to development standards which endeavours to allow a dwelling house to encroach river front area. The desired encroachment is noted on submitted documentation/plans as being 9.4m.

Whilst the associated site incorporates significant land area which could adequately accommodate a suitably designed dwelling without the need to vary any WLEP 2013 development standard, due to the established setback distances noted on adjoining lands being 26.9m (eastern development) and 32.7m (western development) and the submitted request for variation by the owners, it may be considered unreasonable/undesirable for Council to enforce the LEP2013 adopted 40 river front setback in this instance.

Established residential development on adjoining lands has been the subject of assessment under Council’s previous LEP controls, whereby the required 30m setback off the Murray River was considered and strongly enforced.

If the subject development was required to be sited at the required 40m off the watercourse it may be argued that the future dwelling once constructed may create undesirable impacts on private & amenity of that site and adjoining lands.

(1)(c) The suitability of the site The site is suitable for its intended use for the purpose of a dwelling.

(1)(d) Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the Regulations. Notification The proposed development relates to the construction of a Dwelling House (two storey) on land zoned R1 General Residential as per Wakool Local Environmental Plan 2013.

The proposed development was subject to formal neighbour notification due to the variation / exception to development standards requested and the proposal being of double storey design.

Nil submissions were received as part of this notification process.

(1)(e) The public Interest Although this development was neighbour notified, the proposed development is considered to be of minor interest to the wider public due to the relatively localised nature of potential impacts.

98 of 251 Conclusion The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council and the concurrence of the Director General. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed development satisfies the objectives of both the Wakool Local Environment Plan (LEP) 2013 and Wakool Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013.

A non-compliance with LEP - Part 6.6 Development on river front areas has been established whereby a formal request for variation (Part 4.6 Exceptions to development standards) has been submitted by the applicant.

A Section 79C assessment of the proposal, in its entirety, indicates that whilst the development contravenes specific development standards listed in Council’s LEP the objectives of relevant parts has been satisfied. As such it is considered that DA 23/16, be determined by way of APPROVAL.

99 of 251 Schedule A

1. DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS

Development is to take place in accordance with the attached stamped plans (Ref No DA 23/16) and documentation submitted with the application and subject to the conditions below, to ensure the development is consistent with Council’s consent.

NOTE: Any alterations to the approved development application plans must be clearly identified WITH THE APPLICATION FOR A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

The Principal Certifying Authority for the project may request an application for modification of this consent or a new application in the event that changes to the approved plans are subsequently made will be subject to an application to modify the development consent under S96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended and subject to a separate fee.

Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in the manner assessed by Council.

2. WATERCOURSE BUILDING LINE SETBACK

The subject parcel of land, being Lot 10 DP 859813, is to incorporate a minimum 30.6 metre setback from the Murray River. A 30.6 metre building line is to be established on site by a NSW Registered Land Surveyor and clearly marked in a manner as to allow ready confirmation from visual inspection. Such identification is to be undertaken prior to commencement of construction works and be confirmed by the Principle Certifying Authority (PCA) for the development.

Note: The approved development is not permitted to extend within this 30.6m setback area.

Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in the manner assessed by Council.

3. FINISHED FLOOR HEIGHT

The floor height of the dwelling (habitable room) shall be maintained at not less than 500 mm above the 100-Year ARI Flood Level for the site as referenced in Wakool Shire Council Murray Downs Flood Study.

This level must be determined on site by a NSW Registered Land Surveyor, and clearly marked in a manner as will allow ready confirmation that the floor height has been achieved.

A certificate from the NSW Registered Land Surveyor is to be submitted to Council confirming the Finished Floor Height requirement has been met prior to pouring the concrete slab.

100 of 251 Note: Council reserves the right to require a survey report to confirm the floor height if there is any doubt in the matter.

Reason: To ensure adequate protection of habitable buildings is provided in accordance with Council Policy.

4. VERIFICATION OF FLOOR HEIGHT

Prior to the steel reinforcement being placed and after the concrete formwork has been set in place for the concrete raft slab an inspection shall be called for to ensure that the floor level height for the new dwelling complies with the Condition No. 3 of this approval.

The Principal Certifying Authority is to verify the height compliance before any further work proceeds on site.

Reason: To ensure adequate protection of habitable buildings is provided.

5. BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA – AUSTRALIAN STANDARDS

The approved development must meet the relevant Australian Standards and the performance requirements of the Building Code of Australia as in force on the date the application is made for the relevant Construction Certificate. Compliance with the Performance Requirements can only be achieved by:- a) complying with the Deemed to Satisfy Provisions; or b) formulating an Alternative Solution which:- i. complies with the Performance Requirements; or ii. is shown to be at least equivalent to the Deemed to Satisfy Provisions; or iii. a combination of both a) and b).

Reason: To satisfy the Building Code of Australia and relevant Australian Standards.

6. CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

The person having the benefit of this consent is to ensure application for a Construction Certificate has been applied for and issued prior to the commencement of construction works.

Reason: To ensure compliance with Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

7. APPOINTMENT OF PRINCIPAL CERTIFYING AUTHORITY

The person having the benefit of this consent must appoint a Principal Certifying Authority for the development, pursuant to Section 81A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended and advise Council in writing of that appointment BEFORE WORKS COMMENCE.

101 of 251 The Principal Certifying Authority and any other Certifiers appointed by that Authority will be responsible for the post-consent certification of the development. Copies of all certification are to be submitted to Wakool Shire Council referenced by the Development Application Number.

Reason: To ensure compliance with S81A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

8. BASIX CERTIFICATE

All the required commitments shown on the Basix Certificate (No: 718529S) and approved plans are to be completed PRIOR to a Final Occupation Certificate being issued.

Reason: To ensure the dwelling is constructed in the approved manner.

9. ROAD OPENING PERMIT

Prior to any works being undertaken in the road reserve a road opening permit is to be obtained from Council.

The person having the benefit of this consent must contact Wakool Council’s Engineering Department on (03) 5887 5007 prior to undertaking any works within the road reserve.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the Roads Act this requires the road authority to give permission for an activity within the road reserve.

10. HOURS OF OPERATION (CONSTRUCTION)

The hours of operation for building works on the site shall be limited to the daylight hours, between 7.00am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday inclusive, 8.00am and 5.00pm Saturdays. No work shall be carried out on Sundays and Public Holidays without the prior written consent of the Council.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

11. SEPARATE SECTION 68 APPROVAL REQUIRED

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate an application for approval pursuant to Section 68 of the Local Government Act, 1993 to carry out water supply, storm water and sewerage works is to be lodged with Council. The approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act, 1993 is to be obtained prior to any works commencing on site.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the Local Government Act 1993.

102 of 251 12. WASTE BINS FOR CONSTRUCTION

Builders/Developers are to provide on-site waste bins for waste materials generated during construction or they are to remove waste from the site on a daily basis.

Reason: To avoid a public health nuisance.

13. LICENSED PLUMBER

All plumbing and drainage work is to be carried out by a NSW licensed Plumber and Drainer.

Reason: To comply with the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2011.

14. NOTICE OF WORK

The plumber and drainer carrying out the must lodge a “Notice of Work” with Council a minimum of two days prior to commencing work.

Reason: To comply with the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2011.

15. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

On completion of all plumbing and drainage work a “Certificate of Compliance” and a works executed plan shall be lodged with Council by the licensed plumber and drainer responsible for the work.

Reason: To comply with the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2011.

16. ROOFWATER DRAINAGE

All roofwater shall be collected through guttering and down piping and shall be disposed via the required water storage tank/s with the overflow to discharge to the street in a manner so not to cause impact on the structure/s or adjoining land.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory disposal of roof stormwater run-off.

17. SOIL EROSION

Measures are to be taken during the course of development to ensure satisfactory stabilisation of exposed areas and prevent soil erosion.

Reason: To prevent soil erosion during the course of development.

103 of 251 18. PROVISION OF TEMPORARY FACILITIES

A temporary chemical toilet is to be provided on the property while building work is in progress to comply with the requirements of the NSW WorkCover Authority.

Note: This must be on-site prior to the first inspection.

Reason: to provide temporary toilet facilities.

19. STREET NUMBER

Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate the street number allocated to the premise must be clearly displayed so to allow for clear, permanent property identification.

Reason: To ensure adequate numbering of the property for emergency services and other government organisations.

20. OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

The subject development will require an Occupation Certificate PRIOR to occupation/use of the building.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

104 of 251 Schedule B

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 Division 8A Prescribed conditions of development consent 98 Compliance with Building Code of Australia and insurance requirements under the Home Building Act 1989 (cf clauses 78 and 78A of EP&A Regulation 1994) (1) For the purposes of section 80A (11) of the Act, the following conditions are prescribed in relation to a development consent for development that involves any building work: (a) that the work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia, (b) in the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act, that such a contract of insurance is in force before any building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences. (1A) For the purposes of section 80A (11) of the Act, it is prescribed as a condition of a development consent for a temporary structure that is used as an entertainment venue, that the temporary structure must comply with Part B1 and NSW Part H102 of Volume One of the Building Code of Australia. (2) This clause does not apply: (a) to the extent to which an exemption is in force under clause 187 or 188, subject to the terms of any condition or requirement referred to in clause 187 (6) or 188 (4), or (b) to the erection of a temporary building, other than a temporary structure to which subclause (1A) applies. (3) In this clause, a reference to the Building Code of Australia is a reference to that Code as in force on the date the application is made for the relevant: (a) development consent, in the case of a temporary structure that is an entertainment venue, or (b) construction certificate, in every other case. Note. There are no relevant provisions in the Building Code of Australia in respect of temporary structures that are not entertainment venues.

98A Erection of signs (1) For the purposes of section 80A (11) of the Act, the requirements of subclauses (2) and (3) are prescribed as conditions of a development consent for development that involves any building work, subdivision work or demolition work. (2) sign must be erected in a prominent position on any site on which building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out: (a) showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work, and (b) showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and (c) stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

105 of 251 (3) Any such sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed. (4) This clause does not apply in relation to building work, subdivision work or demolition work that is carried out inside an existing building that does not affect the external walls of the building. (5) This clause does not apply in relation to Crown building work that is certified, in accordance with section 109R of the Act, to comply with the technical provisions of the State’s building laws. (6) This clause applies to a development consent granted before 1 July 2004 only if the building work, subdivision work or demolition work involved had not been commenced by that date. Note. Principal certifying authorities and principal contractors must also ensure that signs required by this clause are erected and maintained (see clause 227A which currently imposes a maximum penalty of $1,100).

98B Notification of Home Building Act 1989 requirements (1) For the purposes of section 80A (11) of the Act, the requirements of this clause are prescribed as conditions of a development consent for development that involves any residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989. (2) Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the following information: (a) in the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed: (i) the name and licence number of the principal contractor, and (ii) the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act, (b) in the case of work to be done by an owner-builder: (i) the name of the owner-builder, and (ii) if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit under that Act, the number of the owner-builder permit. (3) If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information notified under subclause (2) becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the updated information. (4) This clause does not apply in relation to Crown building work that is certified, in accordance with section 109R of the Act, to comply with the technical provisions of the State’s building laws.

106 of 251 MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28TH JUNE 2016

14. MURRAY LEP 2011 PLANNING PROPOSAL - LOT 11 DP 285511 – PERRICOOTA ROAD, MOAMA

AUTHOR: Llyan Smith - Planning Support Officer VENUE: Moulamein Bowling Club TRIM Reference:

Issues Considered in writing report: Community Strategic Planning – Proposed amendment of the Murray LEP 2011

RECOMMENDATION

i. That the Officer’s report be received and noted.

ii. That after a review of the submitted Planning Proposal, Council staff are of the opinion that the submission by the Applicant provides sufficient detail to meet the requirements of the Act and ‘A guide to preparing Planning Proposals’.

iii. That the Planning Proposal be sent to NSW DPE for Gateway Determination.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Introduction The process for preparing and amending a Local Environmental Plan (LEP) is stipulated in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and covered within the attached ‘A guide to preparing local environmental plans’, a copy of which has been tabled as Tabled Document 1 for reference.

The plan making process normally involves the following key components:-  The preparation of a Planning Proposal;  The issuing of a Gateway determination;  Community and other consultation on the Planning Proposal (as required);  Finalising the Planning Proposal;  Drafting of the LEP;  Making the plan; and  Notifying the LEP on the NSW Government Legislation website.

107 of 251 Proposed future amendment of the Murray LEP 2011 At Council’s Ordinary Meeting held 3 March 2015, Council heard a report prepared by Council’s Planning Staff compiling recommendations regarding the suggested areas for review under the proposed Amendment of the Murray LEP 2011. A copy of the subject report and resolutions are tabled for reference as Tabled Document 2. A brief summary of the events leading up the meeting of 3 March 2015 is set out in Table 1 below.

It is noted that a subsequent amendment of the Murray LEP 2011 has been adopted during the process, and therefore any reference to “Amendment 5 of the Murray LEP 2011” in previous reports and Resolutions of Council is to be interpreted as “a future amendment of the Murray LEP 2011”.

PLANNING PROPOSAL 1 - Lot 11 DP 285511 – Perricoota Road, Moama As set out in Clause 2.1 of the tabled Council report dated 3 March 2015 (Tabled Document 2), headed “Planright Request- Lot 11 DP 285511, Perricoota Road, Moama”, Council heard that the proponent sought to rezone Lot 11 DP 285511 from RU1 Primary Production to R1 General Residential in order to allow Lot 11 DP 285511 to share the same zoning as the adjoining lot directly to the east and facilitate integration with the adjoining subdivision approved under DA 079/14 (as amended). Please see the tabled report (Tabled Document 2) for further information. In respect of this Clause, Council resolved that:- “…the submission maker supplies Council with a study, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant, regarding the rezoning of the subject area of RU1 zoned land. The study shall be undertaken at the full cost of the submission maker…”

In accordance with the Resolution set out above, the submission maker has now supplied Council with a Planning Proposal pertaining to the subject land. The Proposal prepared by a suitably qualified consultant seeks a Resolution of Council to forward the planning proposal to NSW DPE for a gateway determination, requesting consideration of amendment to the Murray LEP 2011 via:-  Rezoning of subject land from RU1 Primary Production to R1 General Residential;  Reduction of required minimum lot size from 120 hectares to 750m2.

108 of 251 As a result, Land Zoning Map LZN_006B and Minimum Lot Size Map LSZ_006B of the Murray LEP 2011 would require amendment. A copy of the Planning Proposal has been tabled for reference (Tabled Document 3).

The site The subject site is Lot 11 DP 285511 known as RAN 312 Perricoota Road, Moama NSW 2731. This land is currently zoned RU1 Primary Production and is affected by a 120 hectare minimum lot size. The red outline in Figure 1 indicates the area affected by the subject proposal.

Figure 1 – Subject land – Lot 11 DP 285511

The lot is covered by the following Council mapping:-

Murray REP 2 Mapping The lot is covered in its entirety – See Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Murray REP2 mapping coverage

109 of 251 Urban Release Area (URA) mapping The subject lot is not currently covered by Council’s URA mapping. See Figure 3 below.

Figure 3 – Current URA mapping coverage (blue shading)

Flood planning mapping The subject lot is not covered by Council’s Flood Planning mapping of the Murray LEP 2011, as shown below in Figure 4.

Figure 4 – Flood prone land mapping

Bushfire prone land mapping A small section of the subject lot is mapped as bush fire prone land (mapped as ‘buffer area’), as shown below in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows the bushfire mapping coverage in the southern corner of the property.

110 of 251 Figure 5 – Bush fire prone land mapping

Figure 6 – Zoom of mapping showing bush fire prone land mapping coverage

The lot is not mapped as watercourse, wetlands, ‘key fish habitat’ biodiversity, ‘terrestrial biodiversity’, mining resources, or containing any known items of Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal Environmental Heritage Significance. The site is not mapped as contaminated land as outlined on Council’s Contaminated Land Register, however the site is currently planted for viticulture purposes (inactive) and therefore has the potential to be contaminated.

The site currently has vehicular access from Perricoota Road and is within approximately 3.5km of Moama’s main town centre. The lot has access to all required services, available for connection from the adjoining and surrounding development.

111 of 251 Assessment of Planning Proposal by Relevant Planning Authority (Murray Shire Council)

PART 1 – Statement of Objectives and Intended Outcomes of the Planning Instrument Comment: This section of the proposal requires the Applicant to provide a short, concise statement setting out the objectives and intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal. The Applicant has advised that the intended outcome of the Planning Proposal is to allow the subject land to be developed for residential purposes at a density appropriate for the location. The Applicant is considered to have provided a suitable statement in response to this Part. See tabled Planning Proposal for further information as Tabled Document 3.

PART 2 – Explanation of Provisions Comment: This section of the proposal is required to demonstrate how the intended outcomes are proposed to be achieved. The Applicant has advised that the Planning Proposal is seeking to achieve the intended outcomes listed in Part 1 via rezoning of the subject land from RU1 Primary Production to R1 General Residential and subsequent amendment of Land Zoning Map LZN_006B (from RU1 Zone to R1 Zone), and Minimum Lot Size Map LSZ_006B of the Murray LEP 2011 (from 120 hectare minimum lot size to 750m2). The Applicant is considered to have provided a suitable statement in response to this Part. See tabled Planning Proposal for further information (Tabled Document 3).

PART 3 – Justification Comment: This section of the proposal is required to identify any environmental, social and/or economic impacts associated with the Planning Proposal, together with suitable justification as to why the Planning Proposal should be considered.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER WHEN DEMONSTRATING THE JUSTIFICATION

SECTION A – NEED FOR THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

Q1. Is the planning proposal a result of any strategic study or report? Comment: The Planning Proposal has not been compiled as a result of a strategic study. As noted by the Applicant, the Planning Proposal has been compiled based on a broad review of the Murray LEP 2011 and the subsequent Resolution of Council regarding a submission made in respect of this property.

Q2. Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way? Comment: The Applicant has advised that based on the current zoning of the property, the subject Planning Proposal is the best means of achieving the intended outcome. It has been noted in the Planning Proposal that there would be a net community benefit via the provision of additional residential environments in Moama for additional population. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the requirements of Section A of Part 3.

112 of 251 SECTION B – RELATIONSHIP WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK

Q3. Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions of the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy (including the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and exhibited draft strategies)? Comment: It is noted that an amended draft Riverina Murray Regional Plan was released by NSW DPE in April 2016. A copy of the current draft Riverina Murray Regional Plan has been tabled for reference as Tabled Document 4. The subject Planning Proposal was received by Council on 31 January 2016, and therefore, the draft Plan had not yet been released and hence was not addressed in the Planning Proposal prepared by the Applicant, which addressed the previous draft Murray Regional Strategy 2009-36. A review of the current draft Plan has been undertaken by Council staff who provide the following comments in respect of assessment against this draft document:

Direction 1.1 – Grow the economic potential of the agribusiness sector

Action 1.1.1 – Provide enabling planning controls to facilitate diversification and attract investment in the agribusiness sector Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered to be inconsistent with this action. The Proposal does not pose an adverse impact to the local or regional agricultural supply chain and poses no impact to the primary or secondary infrastructure that supports such.

The proposal will not inhibit the encouragement of value-add manufacturing opportunities to increase regional economic diversification in agriculture and agribusiness, and will not adversely affect the factors which enable future agricultural enterprise to harness innovation technologies or agricultural research

Direction 1.2 – Manage productive agricultural lands in a sustainable way

Action 1.2.1- Identify and protect regionally important productive agricultural lands Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered to be inconsistent with this action. The Proposal is not considered to pose a significant adverse impact to resource availability and is not predicted to adversely affect agricultural efficiency or pose fragmentation of productive rural lands. While the Proposal does seek to rezone rural land which has been developed for viticulture, the then owner of the land (the property has been sold since the lodgement of the Proposal – see tabled email from new owner – Doc ID

113 of 251 181253 – Tabled Document 5) advised Council that it is no longer financially feasible to continue the viticulture on the land. In accordance with Council’s SLUP, vineyards are generally regarded as incompatible with urban land uses, particularly residential uses, largely as a result of the use of chemical sprays. To plan urban development around the vineyards is problematic both from an infrastructure efficiency perspective as well as the sterilisation of large areas of land required for effective buffers. This is a problem which has been raised by the developer of the adjoining residential subdivision to the east, where land flagged for residential lots is currently required under condition of consent to be used instead as a buffer zone, despite the adjoining viticulture practice no longer occurring. Furthermore, this lot forms part of the Stage 2 (the next coming stage) of residential land release in accordance with the Murray Strategic Land Use Plan 2010-2030 and is therefore not considered to present a parcel of land planned for long term agricultural use. The Proposal is not considered to adversely affect the agricultural supply chain or State significant agricultural lands.

Action 1.2.2 – Establish a strategic planning framework that protects the productive values of agricultural land and manages land use conflict Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered to be inconsistent with this action. The proposal will not inhibit the delivery of strategic plans and policies to protect rural land uses, natural resources, developing industries, or dependent industries and communities, and is not predicted to result in land use conflict. See previous comments regarding land uses adjoining the subject lot.

Action 1.2.3 – Encourage the increased use of biosecurity measures to protect the regions agricultural assets Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Planning Proposal is not considered to present a biosecurity risk to the region or locality. See comments contained within ‘Action 1.2.1 regarding the management of conflicting land uses via the implementation of buffer areas and the long term strategic plan for this area of Moama.

Direction 1.3 – Manage and use the regions natural resource sustainably

Action 1.3.1 – Support the sustainable use and conservation of water resources Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal is not considered to adversely impact water resources, water catchments, watercourses or riparian areas. Based on the size of the lot proposed for rezoning for urban use, the Proposal is not considered to generate significant pressure on urban water supply, and as part of the SLUP and MNWMP, already forms part of the area strategically planned for future residential land supply.

Action 1.3.2 – Protect areas of mineral and energy, extractive and renewable energy potential Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The subject site is not mapped as “Mineral resources” and is likely to have no affect on the aim of the plan to protect the regions natural resource base and renewable energy infrastructure potential.

114 of 251 Action 1.3.3 – Avoid urban expansion and rural residential development on productive agricultural land identified mineral resource and energy resources Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. While the Planning Proposal does seek to convert RU1 Primary Production zoned land to R1 General Residential zoned land, urban development of the subject site is not predicted to create land use conflicts, land speculation or place significant pressure on infrastructure and services used by the primary producers, resource and energy sector. See previous comments contained in ‘Action 1.2.1. The site is not mapped as “Mineral Resources”.

Action 1.3.5 – Support the protection of native and plantation forests from encroachment Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action. The site is not utilised for or located in the vicinity of land used for the forestry industry.

Direction 2.1 – Enhance the regions freight networks through coordinated investment

Action 2.1.1 - Identify and prioritise pinch points in the freight network Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action. The Proposal is not considered to pose any impact to freight efficiency, future bypasses or bridge crossings (including the Moama Echuca Bridge Crossing upgrade).

Action 2.1.2 - Identify and protect intermodal freight terminals to facilitate growth in the freight and logistics sector Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action. There are no existing or proposed intermodal terminals located in vicinity of the subject site.

Action 2.1.3 - Identify and prioritise opportunities to improve regionally significant local road connections Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action. Any future development of the site for urban use is not predicted to place significant pressure on the local freight network.

115 of 251 Action 2.1.4 – Work with the Australian Government on the proposed Melbourne-Brisbane inland rail corridor Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action. The proposed inland rail corridor is not located in vicinity of the subject site.

Direction 2.2 – Improve inter-regional transport services

Action 2.2.1 – Implement local planning controls that protect regional airports from the encroachment of incompatible land uses Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action. The subject site is not located in the vicinity of a regional airport.

Action 2.2.2 – Identify and protect future rail corridors Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action. There future rail corridor discussed within this direction is not located in the vicinity of the site, or Moama.

Direction 2.3 – Coordinate infrastructure delivery to facilitate economic opportunities

Action 2.3.1 – Coordinate the delivery of infrastructure to support the future needs if residents, business and industry Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal is not considered to pose an impact with respect to supply of energy, waste services, water, or telecommunication within the region and locality. The site is located with suitable access to all required utilities and services to accommodate the Proposal.

Action 2.3.2 – Establish monitoring mechanisms to enable better demand forecasting to inform infrastructure coordination Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Direction 3.1 – Grow the regional cities of Albury, Wagga Wagga and Griffith

Action 3.1.1 – Develop a regional cities strategies for Albury, Wagga Wagga and Griffith Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Action 3.1.2 – Implement an industrial land monitoring program to maintain a supply of well-located and serviced industrial land Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

116 of 251 Action 3.1.3 – Develop and deliver strategies that strengthen the commercial function of the CBDs and town centres Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Direction 3.2 – Enhance the liveability and economic prosperity of the region’s towns and villages

Action 3.2.1 – Deliver improved tools and partnerships to build community capacity in towns and villages to strengthen community resilience Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal will not adversely impact on Community resilience or the alleviation of skill shortage, particularly in the agribusiness sector.

Action 3.2.2 – Support the continued identification and protection of the region’s heritage Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal site is not known to contain any items environmental heritage and will not impact the consideration of the heritage within the planning system, heritage protection, promotion, or management of heritage assets.

Action 3.2.3 – Deliver enabling planning controls to diversify regional tourism markets and increase tourism opportunities Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action. The Proposal will not impact local or regional tourism, tourism markets or tourism events.

Action 3.2.4 – Deliver regionally specific urban design guidelines Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal will not impact the delivery of such guidelines. As set out in the SLUP and the MNWMP, this site forms an area earmarked for future urban release based on its ability to integrate into existing movement networks, public open space, and utilities infrastructure. The site is not constrained by native vegetation and is within close proximity to Council’s existing cycle and pedestrian paths along Perricoota Road.

117 of 251 Direction 3.3 – Enhance the economic self-determination of Aboriginal communities

Action 3.3.1 – Conduct a strategic assessment of land held by the region’s Local Aboriginal Land Councils to identify priority sites for further investigation of their economic opportunities Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action. The subject site is not land owned by the Local Aboriginal Land Council.

Direction 3.4 – Provide a continuous supply of appropriate housing to suit the different lifestyles and needs of the region’s population

The existing SLUP and MNWMP earmarks this land for future residential land release, with future amendments to Council’s strategic documents and plans required in order to achieve the aims of this Action.

Action 3.4.2 - Facilitate a more diverse range of housing for seniors Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal ultimately seeks to amend the zoning of the subject lot to allow residential development, with a minimum lot size of 750m2. It is noted that given the close proximity of the lot to the town centre, access to services, community facilities and connection to transport network, the future development of these lots could be harnessed by seniors seeking to downsize to smaller allotments, however the Proposal is not specifically aimed to address such matters.

Action 3.4.3 Develop a framework to facilitate a range of accommodation options for itinerant workers Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has little effect on the considerations discussed within this action. While it is conceivable that the proposed future development of this subject land could accommodate rental properties to service seasonal workers, the Proposal is not specifically aimed to address this issue.

118 of 251 an R1 zone. Any future approved development of the subject lot will have access to existing infrastructure, which are available for connection. The subject land is consistent with the long term plans for the area for residential development and is not considered to pose land use conflict with the surrounding area, which are also earmarked for future residential development in the next stage of residential land release by Council. The land and surrounding area are currently planted for viticulture; however as noted by the then owner of the land, this use is not longer financially viable, and is no longer being pursued. The site is not an area of high environmental, cultural/heritage significance and is not considered important agricultural land. While the lot is partially mapped as bushfire prone land (buffer), the land is not flood prone and is not significantly affected by natural hazards. The proposal is considered to offer additional housing stock to the Council.

Action 3.4.5 – Facilitate the delivery of more affordable housing options through improved planning policies Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal ultimately seeks to amend the zoning of the subject lot to allow residential development, with a minimum lot size of 750m2. It is noted that given the close proximity of the lot to the town centre, access to services, community facilities and connection to transport network, any future approved development of these lots could be harnessed by those seeking more affordable allotments within the Moama market, however this Proposal is not specifically aimed at providing affordable housing.

Direction 3.5 – Enhance connections and planning between cross- border communities to improve service quality and infrastructure delivery

Action 3.5.1 – Investigate opportunities to improve cross-border planning outcomes, including infrastructure and service delivery Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal seeks to increase the supply of housing lot stock in the Moama area, which will continue to facilitate the movement of populace between Echuca/Moama. The Proposal will have little impact on the delivery of infrastructure or services.

Action 3.5.2 – develop a cross-border land monitoring program Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal seeks to increase the supply of housing lot stock in the Moama area, which will continue to facilitate the movement between Echuca/Moama. The Proposal will not inhibit improved tracking and forecasting of housing and employment of land release within the region.

Direction 4.1 – Protect the nationally significant Murray River

Action 4.1.1 – Actively manage settlement and competing land uses along the Murray River Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal does not seek to impact land use adjoining the Murray River.

119 of 251 Direction 4.2- Protect the region’s environmental assets and biodiversity values

Action 4.2.2 – Maintain healthy waterways and wetlands, including downstream environments Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal will have little effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Direction 4.3 – Increase the region’s resilience to natural hazards

Action 4.3.1 – Review and map natural hazard risks to inform land use planning decisions Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action. While the site is mapped as bushfire prone (buffer area), this subject proposal is not considered to pose any impact to any future review of Council’s bushfire prone land mapping.

Action 4.3.2 – Support communities to build resilience to the impacts of natural hazards and climate change Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Action 4.3.3 – Minimise the potential impacts of naturally occurring asbestos on communities Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Assessment Criteria a) Does the proposal have strategic merit and  Is it consistent with a relevant local strategy endorsed by the Director General or  Is it consistent with the relevant regional strategy or Metropolitan Plan or  Can it otherwise demonstrate strategic merit, giving consideration to the relevant Section 117 Directions applying to the suite and other strategic considerations (e.g. proximity to existing urban areas, public transport and infrastructure accessibility, providing jobs closer to home etc.) b) Does the Proposal have site specific merit and is it compatible with the surrounding land uses, having regard to the following:

120 of 251  The natural environment (including known significant environmental values, resources or hazards) and  The existing uses, approved uses, and likely future uses of the land in the vicinity of the proposal; and  The services and infrastructure that are or will be available to meet the demands arising from the proposal and any proposed financial arrangements for infrastructure provision. Comment: Throughout the various sections of the Planning Proposal, the Applicant has suitably demonstrated the strategic merit of the Proposal. Although not specifically addressed in this Part of the Planning Proposal, there is no applicable local strategy endorsed by the Director General affecting this area of Murray River Council. Subsequent sections of the Planning Proposal also demonstrate compliance with the relevant Section 117 Directions and the suitability of the site for the proposed use based on its close proximity to existing urban areas, public transport, infrastructure, and community facilities. The Proposal is considered compatible with the surrounding land uses, the natural environment, existing uses, approved uses and the future use of land in the vicinity of the proposal in accordance with the strategic plans affecting the area. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements.

Q4. Is the Planning Proposal consistent with a Council’s Local Strategy of other local Strategic Plan? Comment: The Murray Strategic Land Use Plan 2010-2030 (SLUP) and the Moama North West Master Plan 2008 (MNWMP) are applicable. Both the SLUP and the MNWMP have been adopted by Council and have been in operation for some time; however neither has been endorsed by the NSW Department of Planning & Environment. Copies of these Strategies have been tabled for reference as Tabled Document 6. The SLUP and MNWMP both recommend that the subject lot be utilised for future residential development. The SLUP recommends that this land be released as ‘Stage 2’ of future residential zoning (currently released Stage 1 and have not begun Stage 2- See Figure 7) and the MNWMP recommends that land be released in the long term (or as part of the last stage – see Figure 8 below). The Applicant notes that the rezoning of the subject land should be brought forward to ensure that the demand for residential lots can continue to be met on a number of development fronts while facilitating forward planning in a dynamic development environment. The Applicant also notes that the rezoning would facilitate integration of the site with the adjoining approved subdivision (DA 079/14 as amended) and a positive strategic outcome in the short term. See further comments provided by the Applicant with respect to assessment against these local strategies.

121 of 251 Figure 7 - Land release schedule set out in SLUP

Figure 8 - Extract of Moama North West Master Plan showing subject site

122 of 251 Strategic Area (B) (Environmental Planning) of the Murray Shire Council Community Strategic Plan 2015/2016 – 2024/25 is also applicable, and sets out an objective to develop and implement strategic plans and planning instruments to ensure development occurs in an environmentally responsible and consistent manner. A copy of this document has been tabled for reference as Tabled Document 7. A key measure of control set out in the Community Strategic Plan is compliance with Murray Local Environmental Plan (LEP). Any subsequent development of the site would be subject to a merit based assessment against the Murray LEP 2011 and all other relevant legislation. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the considerations relating to Council’s local strategy.

Q5. Is the Planning Proposal consistent with the applicable State Environmental Planning Policies? State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) Comment: As set out in Attachment A of the subject Planning Proposal, the Applicant has identified the SEPPs relevant to the Planning Proposal and notes consistency with each applicable SEPP. The Applicant states that SEPP 52 - Farm Dams and Other Works in Land and Water Management Plan Areas is not applicable to parts of Murray Shire, however it is noted that this SEPP does apply. Council staff consider that the subject Proposal is not inconsistent with the aims and objectives of SEPP 52. With respect to contamination, please see comments throughout the Proposal, together with documentation set out in Attachment D. A contaminated land assessment of the adjoining land was completed in 2010, with some small sites within this adjoining land identified as requiring remediation. Based on the past use of the site for viticulture, it is pertinent for the Applicant to provide a contaminated land assessment for the subject site in the future; however Council Staff consider that this can be dictated by the outcomes of the Gateway determination. The Applicant is considered to have provided suitable detail for the purposes of assessment at this stage.

Q6. Is the Planning Proposal consistent with the applicable Ministerial Directions (S.117 Directions)? Comment: Please see Tabled Document 8 for a copy of the relevant Section 117 Directions referred to in this section. As set out in Attachment B of the subject Planning Proposal, the Applicant has identified that the subject proposal is either consistent or inconsistent, but able to satisfy the relevant criteria to justify inconsistency, or proposing a minor significance with the applicable Directions.

Direction 1.2 – Rural zones The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with this Direction however this inconsistency is justified by the Council’s strategy (SLUP) – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 1.5 – Rural Lands The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B. It is noted that the Applicant states that the subject land is not classified as bushfire prone, however Council’s mapping does partially cover this lot. Nonetheless, the Applicant’s assessment against Direction 1.5 is considered satisfactory.

123 of 251 Direction 2.1 – Environmental Protection Zones The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 2.3 – Heritage Conservation The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 2.4 – Recreational vehicles The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 3.1 – Residential zones The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 3.2 – Caravan parks and manufactured home estates The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 3.3 – Home occupations The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 3.4 – Integrated land use and transport The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 4.4 – Planning for Bushfire Protection

4.4 Planning for Bush Fire – Assessment required as part is mapped

The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with the Direction – See comments set out in Attachment C.

Direction 6.1 – Approval and referral requirements The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 6.2 – Reserving land for public purposes The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the Section 117 Directions.

124 of 251 SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT

Q7. Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats will be adversely affected as a result of the Proposal? Comment: The lot is not covered by Council’s biodiversity mapping. As noted by the Applicant, it is unlikely that the subject proposal will have a significant adverse impact on threatened species, populations, ecological communities, or habitats. Any future development of the site will be subject to a merit based assessment against Section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979 and all other relevant legislation. See comments provided by the Applicant for further information. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements of Section C.

Q8. Are there any likely environmental effects as a result of the Planning Proposal and how are they proposed to be managed? Comment: The Applicant notes that there are not predicted to be any other environmental effects resulting from the Planning Proposal. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements.

Q9. Has the Planning Proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects? Comment: The Applicant notes that the proposal will result in a positive social and economic effect to the town. There are no known items of Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal items of cultural heritage located onsite or in the vicinity of the subject site. See comments provided by the Applicant for further information. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements.

SECTION D – STATE AND COMMONWEALTH INTERESTS

Q10. Is there adequate public infrastructure for the Planning Proposal? Comment: The Applicant notes that there is adequate public infrastructure in place to service to the subject proposal. No demand creating a shortfall is predicted to result. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements.

Q11. What are the views of the State and Commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with the Gateway determination? Comment: The Applicant notes that the nature of the proposal is unlikely to trigger any necessary public authority consultation, and no preliminary consultation has been carried out to date. It is noted that any consultation required as a result of the Gateway determination will be completed as required. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements.

PART 4 – Mapping Comment: The Applicant has provided the relevant mapping applicable to this proposal detailing the land, current land uses in the vicinity, mapping associated with the SLUP and flood mapping. The Planning Proposal has provided detail regarding the zoning and current development standards affecting the site in Part 3 of the document. There are no heritage items or

125 of 251 conservation areas known to be located onsite. See Planning Proposal for further information.

Amendments to the affected Zoning and Minimum Lot Size mapping will be undertaken should the proposal be successful. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements of Part 4.

PART 5 – Community Consultation Comment: No preliminary public consultation has been undertaken, with the consultation requirements to be dictated by the Gateway determination. The Applicant notes that they predict that at a minimum, the Planning Proposal will be exhibited for a period of 28 days in accordance with the requirements of Section 57 of the EP&A Act 1979 and will include various forms of consultation. See comments provided by the Applicant for further information. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements of Part 5.

PART 6 – Project timeline Comment: The Planning Proposal includes a project timeline extending over approximately 8 months. See relevant section within the Planning Proposal for further details. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements of Part 6.

126 of 251 MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28TH JUNE 2016

15. MURRAY LEP 2011 PLANNING PROPOSAL - RAN 6 CLIFTON STREET, MATHOURA

DIRECTOR: Simon Arkinstall- Director of Environmental Services AUTHOR: Llyan Smith - Planning Support Officer VENUE: Moulamein Bowling Club TRIM Reference:

Issues Considered in writing report: Community Strategic Planning – Proposed amendment of the Murray LEP 2011

RECOMMENDATION

i. That the Officer’s report be received and noted.

ii. That after a review of the submitted Planning Proposal, Council Staff is of the opinion that the submission by the Applicant provides sufficient detail to meet the requirements of the Act and ‘A guide to preparing Planning Proposals.

iii. That the Planning Proposal be sent to NSW DPE for Gateway Determination.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

As set out in Clause 4.2 of the tabled Council report dated 3 March 2015 (Tabled Document 2), headed “Private Submission –Lot 611 DP 806704 – RAN 6 Cobb Highway [sic], Mathoura”, Council heard that the proponent sought to enable a reduction in the minimum lot size of this parcel of land, or alternatively, the amendment of the Murray LEP 2011 to allow ‘multi dwelling housing’ style development. These requests were sought to facilitate an expansion of Mathoura’s residential housing availability. Please see the tabled report for further information. In respect of this Clause, Council resolved that:

“…the submission maker supplies Council with a study, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant, regarding the rezoning of Lot 611 DP 8036704, RAN 6 Cobb Highway [sic] , Mathoura to R1 to permit smaller residential lots. The study shall be undertaken at the full cost of the submission maker…”

The submission maker has now supplied Council with a Planning Proposal pertaining to the subject land. The Proposal prepared by a suitably qualified consultant seeks a Resolution of Council to send the planning proposal to NSW DPE for a gateway determination, in order to amend the Murray LEP 2011 via an addition to ‘Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses’ via the utilisation of Clause 2.5 of the Murray LEP 2011. The Proposal does not seek a rezoning (in accordance with the Resolution) however Council is to consider

127 of 251 the Planning Proposal as submitted to assess its suitability for lodgement with the NSW Department of Planning & Environment for Gateway assessment.

A copy of the Planning Proposal has been tabled for reference as Tabled Document 9. The proposed addition to Schedule 1 would state (as amended by Council staff):

Use of certain land at Lot 611 DP 806704, RAN 6 Clifton Street, Mathoura 1) This clause applies to land at RAN 6 Clifton Street, Mathoura, being Lot 611 DP 806704. 2) Development for the purpose of multi dwelling housing is permitted with development consent.

The site The subject site is Lot 611 DP 806704, RAN 6 Clifton Street, Mathoura. This lot is 2.02 hectares in area, zoned R5 Environmental Management and is affected by a 4000m2 minimum lot size requirement. The site is located on the corner of Clifton Street and Cobb Highway (which is classed as a Classified Road). Aerial photography of the subject lots is set out below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Subject Land –Lot 611 DP 806704

The lot is covered by the following Council mapping:

‘Terrestrial Biodiversity’ mapping The lot is covered in part by Council’s Terrestrial Biodiversity mapping, identified as “Central floodplain transition woodlands”. See Figure 2 for mapping coverage.

128 of 251 Figure 2 – Terrestrial Biodiversity mapping

Bushfire prone land mapping The lot is mapped in part as bush fire prone land, covered by the ‘buffer’ area of this mapping. See Figure 3 for buffer coverage.

Figure 3 – Bush fire prone land mapping

The site is not classified as an Urban Release Area (URA) and does not contain any known items of non- Aboriginal or Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. The site is not covered by the following:  Murray REP2 mapping;  Flood prone land mapping;  Council’s watercourses and wetlands mapping;  Key Fish Habitat mapping.  Contaminated Land  Mineral Resources

129 of 251 The land has access to electricity and filtered reticulated water however is not connected to Council’s reticulated sewer, at present managing sewer via an onsite septic system. Any future development of the land for the proposed multi-dwelling housing development would require connection to Council’s sewer infrastructure, requiring Council’s sewerage infrastructure to be extended to this site at the cost of the developer.

Assessment of Planning Proposal by Relevant Planning Authority

PART 1 – Statement of Objectives And Intended Outcomes Of The Planning Instrument Comment: The Applicant has advised that the intended outcome of the Planning Proposal is to allow the subject land to be developed for the specific purpose of multi-dwelling housing. The Applicant is considered to have provided a suitable statement in response to this Part. See tabled Planning Proposal for further information (Tabled Document 9).

PART 2 – Explanation of Provisions Comment: The Applicant has advised that the Planning Proposal is seeking to achieve the intended outcomes listed in Part 1 via an addition to ‘Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses’ of the Murray LEP 2011. The Applicant is considered to have provided a suitable statement in response to this Part. See tabled Planning Proposal for further information (Tabled Document #9.

PART 3 – Justification

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER WHEN DEMONSTRATING THE JUSTIFICATION

Section A – Need for the planning proposal

Q1. Is the planning proposal a result of any strategic study or report? Comment: The Applicant has explained that the Planning Proposal has been compiled based on a broad review of the Murray LEP 2011 and the subsequent Resolution of Council regarding a submission made in respect of this property.

Q2. Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way? Comment: It is noted, that the subject proposal does not respond to the Resolution of Council listed above, as it does not seek rezoning. Despite this resolution, Council Staff is of the opinion that the subject Planning Proposal constitutes a more viable approach than the Resolution to pursue rezoning. The Applicant has advised that based on the current zoning of the property, the subject Planning Proposal is the best means of achieving the intended outcome and has identified that the alternate methods such as rezoning, amendment of the R5 Zone land use table may pose a poor strategic outcome in this instance. It has been noted in the Planning Proposal that there would be a net community benefit via the provision of additional residential development close to services and facilities. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements of Section A, Part 3.

130 of 251 SECTION B – RELATIONSHIP WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK

Q3. Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions of the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy (including the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and exhibited draft strategies)? Comment: It is noted that an amended Draft Riverina Murray Regional Plan was released by NSW DPE in April 2016. A copy of the current Draft Riverina Murray Regional Plan has been tabled for reference (Tabled Document 4). The subject Planning Proposal was received by Council on 5 February 2016, and therefore, the Draft Plan had not yet been released and hence was not addressed in the Planning Proposal prepared by the Applicant, which addressed the previous Draft Murray Regional Strategy 2009-36. A review of the current Draft Plan has been undertaken by Council Staff who provide the following comments in respect of assessment against this draft document:

Direction 1.1 – Grow the economic potential of the agribusiness sector

Action 1.1.2 – Encourage value- add manufacturing opportunities across the region to increase regional economic diversification Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal does not pose an adverse impact to value-added manufacturing of agriculture opportunities, the export of regional agricultural commodities or the strategic positioning of future value-add enterprises, manufacturing and intensive operations. The proposal will not inhibit the encouragement of value-add manufacturing opportunities to increase regional economic diversification in agriculture and agribusiness, and will not adversely affect the factors which enable future agricultural enterprise to harness innovation technologies or agricultural research.

Direction 2 – Manage productive agricultural lands in a sustainable way

Action 1.2.1- Identify and protect regionally important productive agricultural lands Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered to be inconsistent with this action. The Proposal is not considered to pose a significant adverse impact to resource availability and is not predicted to adversely affect agricultural efficiency or pose fragmentation of productive rural lands. The subject lot is not zoned for or utilised for agriculture. The Proposal is not considered to adversely affect the agricultural supply chain or State significant agricultural lands.

131 of 251 Action 1.2.2 – Establish a strategic planning framework that protects the productive values of agricultural land and manages land use conflict Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered to be inconsistent with this action. The proposal will not inhibit the delivery of strategic plans and policies to protect rural land uses, natural resources, developing industries, and dependent industries and communities, and is not predicted to result in land use conflict with respect to agriculture.

Direction 1.3 – Manage and use the regions natural resource sustainably

Action 1.3.3 – Avoid urban expansion and rural residential development on productive agricultural land identified mineral resource and energy resources Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The site is not zoned for rural purposes and is not currently harnessed for agriculture. The subject Proposal is not considered to create land use conflicts, land speculation or place significant pressure on infrastructure and services used by the primary producers, resource and energy sector. The site is not mapped as “Mineral Resources”.

132 of 251 Action 1.3.5 – Support the protection of native and plantation forests from encroachment Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action. The site is not utilised for or located in the vicinity of land used for the forestry industry.

Direction 2.1 – Enhance the regions freight networks through coordinated investment

Action 2.1.1 - Identify and prioritise pinch points in the freight network Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action. The Proposal is not proposed to pose any impact to freight efficiency, future bypasses or bridge crossings.

Action 2.1.4 – Work with the Australian Government on the proposed Melbourne-Brisbane inland rail corridor Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action. The proposed inland rail corridor is not located in vicinity of the subject site.

Direction 2.2 – Improve inter-regional transport services

133 of 251 Action 2.3.1 – Coordinate the delivery of infrastructure to support the future needs if residents, business and industry Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal is not considered to pose an impact with respect to supply of energy, waste services, water, or telecommunication within the region and locality. The site is located with suitable access to all required utilities and services to accommodate the Proposal. It is noted that an extension of Council’s sewerage service would required for any future approved development of the site for “multi-dwelling housing’, at the developers expense.

Direction 3.1 – Grow the regional cities of Albury, Wagga Wagga and Griffith

Action 3.1.3 – Develop and deliver strategies that strengthen the commercial function of the CBDs and town centres Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Direction 3.2 – Enhance the liveability and economic prosperity of the region’s towns and villages

134 of 251 Action 3.2.2 – Support the continued identification and protection of the region’s heritage Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal site is not known to contain any items environmental heritage and will not impact the consideration of the heritage within the planning system, heritage protection, promotion, or management of heritage assets.

Action 3.2.4 – Deliver regionally specific urban design guidelines Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal will not impact the delivery of such guidelines. The site is not constrained by native vegetation and is within close proximity to Council’s existing transport infrastructure.

Direction 3.3 – Enhance the economic self-determination of Aboriginal communities

Direction 3.4 – Provide a continuous supply of appropriate housing to suit the different lifestyles and needs of the region’s population

Action 3.4.1 – Deliver enabling planning controls that facilitate an increased range of housing options including infill housing close to existing jobs and services Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the implementation of considerations discussed within this action. The subject lot is close to existing jobs and services within the Mathoura area, with future amendments to Council’s strategic documents and plans required in order to achieve the aims of this Action.

135 of 251 Action 3.4.2 - Facilitate a more diverse range of housing for seniors Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal ultimately seeks an amendment of the Murray LEP 2011 to enable ‘multi-dwelling housing’. It is noted that given the close proximity of the lot to the town centre, access to services, community facilities and connection to transport network, the future development of these lots could be harnessed by seniors seeking to downsize, however the Proposal is not specifically aimed to address such matters.

Action 3.4.3 Develop a framework to facilitate a range of accommodation options for itinerant workers Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has little effect on the considerations discussed within this action. While it is conceivable that the any proposed future approved development of this subject land could accommodate rental properties to service seasonal workers, the Proposal is not specifically aimed to address this issue.

Action 3.4.4 – Develop and implement principles for rural residential development Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The subject Proposal does not seek to enable the development of this lot for rural-residential development, but rather, seeks to enable ’multi-dwelling housing’ on the subject lot. The subject lot is located in close proximity (but not adjoining) to RU5 zoned land and any future approved development of the subject lot will be provided with access to existing infrastructure. The ‘multi- dwelling housing’ proposed by the Applicant is not considered to pose land use conflict with the surrounding area which is predominantly utilised for large lot residential development and will not jeopardise productive agricultural land, or pose land use conflict. The proposal is considered to offer additional housing stock to the Shire.

Action 3.4.5 – Facilitate the delivery of more affordable housing options through improved planning policies Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal ultimately seeks to amend the Murray LEP 2011 to allow ‘multi-dwelling housing’ development. It is noted that given the close proximity of the lot to the town centre, access to services, community facilities and connection to transport network, any future approved development of this lot could be harnessed by those seeking housing within the Mathoura market, however this Proposal is not specifically aimed at providing affordable housing.

Direction 3.5 – Enhance connections and planning between cross- border communities to improve service quality and infrastructure delivery

136 of 251 The Proposal will have little impact on the delivery of infrastructure or services to the locality.

Action 3.5.2 – develop a cross-border land monitoring program Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal seeks to increase the supply of housing lot stock in the Mathoura area. The Proposal will not inhibit improved tracking and forecasting of housing and employment of land release within the region.

Direction 4.1 – Protect the nationally significant Murray River

Direction 4.2- Protect the region’s environmental assets and biodiversity values

Direction 4.3 – Increase the region’s resilience to natural hazards

Action 4.3.1 – Review and map natural hazard risks to inform land use planning decisions Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. While the subject site is classified as bushfire prone land (buffer area), the Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

Action 4.3.2 – Support communities to build resilience to the impatcs of natural hazards and climate change Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action.

137 of 251 Assessment Criteria a) Does the proposal have strategic merit and  Is it consistent with a relevant local strategy endorsed by the the Director General or  Is it consistent with the relevant regional strategy or Metropolitan Plan or  Can it otherwise demonstrate strategic merit, giving consideration to the relevant Section 117 Directions applying to the suite and other strategic considerations (e.g. proximity to existing urban areas, public transport and infrastructure accessibility, providing jobs closer to home etc.) b) Does the Proposal have site specific merit and is it compatible with the surrounding land uses, having regard to the following:  The natural environment (including known significant environmental values, resources or hazards) and  The existing uses, approved uses, and likely future uses of the land in the vicinity of the proposal; and  The services and infrastructure that are or will be available to meet the demands arising from the proposal and any proposed financial arrangements for infrastructure provision. Comment: Throughout the various sections of the Planning Proposal, the Applicant has suitably demonstrated the strategic merit of the proposal. Although not specifically addressed in this Part of the Planning Proposal, there is no applicable local strategy endorsed by the Director General affecting this area of Murray Shire Council. Subsequent sections of the Planning Proposal also demonstrate compliance with the relevant Section 117 Directions and the suitability of the site for the proposed use based on its close proximity to existing urban areas, infrastructure, and community facilities. The Proposal is considered compatible with the surrounding land uses, the natural environment, existing uses, approved uses and the future use of land in the vicinity of the proposal. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements.

Q4. Is the Planning Proposal consistent with a Council’s Local Strategy of other local Strategic Plan? Comment: The Murray Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP) is applicable. While this Strategic Plan has been adopted by Council has been in operation for some time, the SLUP has not been endorsed by the NSW Department of Planning & Environment. The SLUP identifies the subject site as ‘Low Density Residential’. The SLUP notes that this site is located within an existing largely undeveloped low density residential area with alternative locations required to create opportunities for new residents. The Applicant notes that the zoning within Mathoura provides suitable stock for low density residential development, and that the development of the subject site for multi-dwelling housing would not significantly compromise the availability of such housing stock. Strategic Area (B) (Environmental Planning) of the Murray Shire Council Community Strategic Plan 2015/2016 – 2024/25 is also applicable, and sets out an objective to develop and implement strategic plans and planning instruments to ensure development occurs in an environmentally

138 of 251 responsible and consistent manner. A key measure of control set out in the Community Strategic Plan is compliance with Murray Local Environmental Plan (LEP). The Applicant has prepared the subject proposal to enable compliance with this local strategy. It is noted that as the R5 Zoning of the property is not sought to be amended as part of this Proposal and as such, any future application would be technically inconsistent with the planning controls affecting this property. However such development would be assessable under Clause 2.5 of the Murray LEP 2011 (Additional permitted uses for particular land). The land is located close to all services and facilities and is considered consistent with overarching aims and objectives of Council’s Local Strategies. Any future development of the site enabled by the proposed amendment of the Murray LEP 2011 would be subject to a development application and full merit assessment against all required legislation. It is noted that the bush fire constraints of the land are able to be mitigated via construction methods, although this bush fire risk would need to be assessed on its merits in accordance with the relevant legislation and in consultation with NSW Rural Fire Service under the requirement of Section 91 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements against Council’s Local Strategies.

Q5. Is the Planning Proposal consistent with the applicable State Environmental Planning Policies? Comment: As set out in Attachment A of the subject Planning Proposal, the Applicant has identified the SEPPs relevant to the Planning Proposal and notes consistency with each applicable SEPP. The Applicant states that SEPP 52 - Farm Dams and Other Works in Land and Water Management Plan Areas is not applicable to parts of Murray Shire, however it is noted that this SEPP does apply. Council Staff consider that the subject Proposal is not inconsistent with the aims and objectives of SEPP 52.The land is not listed on Council’s contaminated land register and is not known to have been used for a past use that may have caused contamination of the site. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements. It is noted that the Applicant states that the land is affected by Murray REP2. Council’s mapping indicates that this land is affected by this deemed SEPP.

Q6. Is the Planning Proposal consistent with the applicable Ministerial Directions (S.117 Directions)? Comment: Please see tabled documents for a copy of the relevant Section 117 Directions referred to in this section (Tabled Document 8) As set out in Attachment B of the subject Planning Proposal, the Applicant has identified that the subject development is either consistent or proposing a minor significance with the applicable Directions.

Direction 2.3 – Heritage Conservation The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

139 of 251 Direction 2.4 – Recreational vehicles The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 3.1 – Residential zones The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is largely consistent with this Direction. The Applicant notes that any inconsistency with this direction can be justified as minor significance – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 3.2 – Caravan parks and manufactured home estates The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 3.3 – Home occupations The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 3.4 – Integrated land use and transport The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 4.4 – Planning for bushfire protection The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is able to be consistent with the requirements of this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B and Attachment C.

Direction 6.1 – Approval and referral requirements The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 6.2 – Reserving land for public purposes The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment against the Section 117 Directions.

SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT

Q7. Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats will be adversely affected as a result if the Proposal? Comment: The subject lot is covered in part by Council’s biodiversity mapping. As noted by the Applicant, the lot is largely cleared and utilised for residential housing at present and it is unlikely that the subject proposal will have a significant adverse impact on threatened species, populations, ecological communities, or habitats. Any future development of the site will be subject to a merit based assessment against the EP&A Act 1979 and all other relevant legislation. See comments provided by the Applicant for further information. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements of this section.

140 of 251 Q8. Are there any likely environmental effects as a result of the Planning Proposal and how are they proposed to be managed? Comment: The Applicant has identified that bushfire is an environmental hazard affecting the subject site. The Applicant notes that this environmental effect is able to be suitably managed and mitigated and is unlikely to pose a significant adverse impact. See comments provided by the Applicant for further information. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements of this section.

SECTION D – STATE AND COMMONWEALTH INTERESTS

Q10. Is there adequate public infrastructure for the Planning Proposal? Comment: The Applicant notes that there is adequate public infrastructure in place to service to the subject proposal. The land has access to electricity and filtered reticulated water however is not connected to Council’s reticulated sewer, at present managing sewer via a septic system. Any development of the land for the proposed multi dwelling development would require connection to Council’s sewer infrastructure, requiring Council’s sewerage infrastructure to be extended to this site at the cost of the developer.

PART 4 – Mapping Comment: The Applicant has provided the relevant mapping applicable to this proposal detailing the land, current land uses in the vicinity and the coverage of the biodiversity and bushfire prone land mapping, together with extracts of the Murray Shire Council SLUP. The Planning Proposal has provided detail regarding the zoning and current development standards affecting the site in Part 3 of the document. There is no alternate zoning sought as part of this Planning Proposal and no heritage items or conservation areas known to exist onsite. See Planning Proposal for further information. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed Part 4.

141 of 251 be exhibited for a period of 28 days in accordance with the requirements of Section 57 of the EP&A Act 1979 and will include various forms of consultation. See comments provided by the Applicant for further information. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed Part 5.

PART 6 – Project timeline Comment: The Planning Proposal includes a project timeline, extending over approximately 8 months. See relevant section within the Planning Proposal for further details. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed Part 6.

142 of 251 MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28TH JUNE 2016

16. MURRAY LEP 2011 PLANNING PROPOSAL - LOT 26 DP 751152 & LOT 2 DP 509954 – BOUNDARY ROAD, MOAMA

AUTHOR: Llyan Smith - Planning Support Officer VENUE: Moulamein Bowling Club TRIM Reference:

Issues Considered in writing report: Community Strategic Planning – Proposed amendment of the Murray LEP 2011

RECOMMENDATION

i. That the Officer’s report be received and noted.

iii. That the Planning Proposal be sent to NSW DPE for Gateway Determination.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

As set out in Clause 4.3 of the tabled Council report (Tabled Document 2) dated 3 March 2015, headed “Private Submission E3 Zoned - Lot 2 DP 509954 and Lot 26 DP 751152 - Boundary Road”, Council heard that the proponent sought to enable the use of the northern section of Lot 26 DP 751152 and Lot 2 DP 509954 for future subdivision and residential development, development which does not adhere to the current planning controls affecting this E3 zoned land. Please see the tabled report (Tabled Document 2) for further information. In respect of this Clause, Council resolved that:

“…the submission maker supplies Council with a study, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant, regarding the rezoning of the subject area of E3 zoned land. The study shall be undertaken at the full cost of the submission maker…”

In accordance with the Resolution set out above, the submission maker has now supplied Council with a study pertaining to the subject land. The proposal prepared by a suitably qualified consultant seeks a Resolution of Council to send the planning proposal to NSW DPE for a gateway determination, in order to amend the Murray LEP 2011 via an addition to ‘Schedule 1 – Additional

143 of 251 Permitted Uses’ via the utilisation of Clause 2.5 of the Murray LEP 2011. It is noted that no rezoning of the land is now proposed by the proponent.

A copy of the Planning Proposal has been tabled for reference (Tabled Document 10). The proposed addition to Schedule 1 (as amended by Council Staff) would state:

Use of certain land at Lot 2 DP 509954 and Lot 26 DP 751152 - Boundary Road 1) This clause applies to land adjoining Boundary Road, Moama, being Lot 2 DP 509954 and Lot 26 DP 751152 not within the Flood Planning Area on the Flood Prone Land Map of Murray LEP 2011. 2) Development for the purpose of the subdivision of land into no more than six (6) lots and the erection of one dwelling house per lot is permitted with development consent. This additional permitted use does not convey a dwelling entitlement, or permission to erect a dwelling house on remaining parcel of E3 land covered by the Flood Prone Land Map.

The site The land subject of the planning proposal is the northern section of Lot 26 DP 751152 and Lot 2 DP 509954, not mapped as Flood Prone Land under the Murray LEP 2011. Lot 26 DP 751152 and Lot 2 DP 509954 in their entirety are zoned E3 Environmental Management and are affected by a 120 hectare minimum lot size. Aerial photography of the subject lots is set out below, with Lot 26 indicated by the purple star and Lot 2 indicated by the green star in Figure 1. Figure 2 set out below has been extracted from the Proponent’s Planning Proposal document, with the red outline in this Figure indicating the area sought to be affected by the Schedule 1 inclusion, under this Planning Proposal.

Figure 1: Subject Land –Lot 26 DP 751152 and Lot 2 DP 509954

144 of 251 Figure 2 – Area of the subject lots affected by Proposal

The subject lots are covered the following Council mapping:

Murray REP 2 Mapping Both allotments are covered in their entirety – See Figure 3

Figure 3 – Murray REP2 mapping coverage

Watercourses mapping Both lots are covered in part by the Murray LEP 2011 ‘Watercourse’ mapping (Floodplain wetlands). The land not mapped as Flood Prone Land under the Murray LEP 2011 which is subject to the planning proposal is not covered by such mapping. See Figure 4.

145 of 251 Figure 4 – ‘Watercourses’(Floodplain wetlands mapping)

‘Key Fish Habitat’ Biodiversity mapping Part of Lot 2 DP 509954 is covered by Key Fish Habitat mapping. However, the area sought to be affected by Planning Proposal is not covered by such mapping.

Figure 5 – ‘Key Fish Habitat mapping

‘Terrestrial Biodiversity’ mapping Both lots are covered by Council’s Terrestrial Biodiversity mapping. The north- western corner of Lot 26 DP 751152) is covered by the Terrestrial Biodiversity mapping. See Figure 6.

146 of 251 Figure 6 – Terrestrial Biodiversity mapping

Flood planning mapping The subject lots are covered by Council’s Murray LEP 2011 Flood Planning mapping. The site of the proposed additional permitted use is not covered. See Figure 7.

Figure7 – Flood prone land mapping

Bushfire prone land mapping Both lots are mapped as bush fire prone land in their entirety. See Figure 8.

147 of 251 Figure 8 – Bush fire prone land mapping

The site is not classified as an Urban Release Area (URA) and does not contain any known items of non- Aboriginal or Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. The land is not mapped as Contaminated Land or mining resources.

The proposal site is located close to existing services and facilities including retail facilities and public transport networks. It should also be noted that the site is in close proximity to the “Preferred Mid-West Alignment’ for the proposed second Moama-Echuca Bridge Crossing. See Figure 9 provided in current VicRoads documentation for proposed alignment. See Figure 10 for location of the subject.

Figure 9 – Proposed “Preferred Mid-West Alignment”

148 of 251 Figure 10 – Approximate location of subject site in context with “Preferred Mid-West Alignment”

Assessment of Planning Proposal by Relevant Planning Authority

PART 1 – Statement Of Objectives And Intended Outcomes Of The Planning Instrument Comment: This section of the proposal requires the Applicant to provide a short, concise statement setting out the objectives and intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal. The Applicant has advised that the intended outcome of the Planning Proposal is to allow the subject land to be developed for limited residential purposes. The Applicant is considered to have provided a suitable statement in response to this Part. See tabled Planning Proposal (Tabled Document 10) for further information.

PART 2 – Explanation of Provisions Comment: This section of the proposal is required to demonstrate how the intended outcomes are proposed to be achieved. The Applicant has advised that the Planning Proposal is seeking to achieve the intended outcomes listed in Part 1 via an addition to ‘Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses’ affecting land forming part of Lot 2 DP 509954 and Lot 26 DP 751152 which adjoins Boundary Road, Moama, and not covered by the Murray LEP 2011 Flood Prone Land Mapping. The Applicant is considered to have provided a suitable statement in response to this Part, however it is considered appropriate to amend proposed section 2 of the proposal to read:

“…Development for the purpose of the subdivision of land into no more than six (6) lots and the erection of one dwelling house per lot is permitted with development consent. This additional permitted use does not convey a dwelling entitlement, or permission to erect a dwelling house on remaining parcel of E3 land covered by the Flood Prone Land Map…”

See tabled Planning Proposal (Tabled Document 10) for further information.

149 of 251 PART 3 – Justification

Section A – Need for the planning proposal

Q1. Is the planning proposal a result of any strategic study or report? Comment: The Applicant has explained that the subject Planning Proposal has been compiled based on a broad review of the Murray LEP 2011 and the subsequent Resolution of Council regarding a submission made in respect of this property.

SECTION B – RELATIONSHIP WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK

Q2. Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way? The Applicant has advised that based on the current zoning of the property, the subject Planning Proposal is the best means of achieving the intended outcome and has identified that the alternate methods such as rezoning may pose a poor strategic outcome in this instance. It has been noted in the Planning Proposal that there would be a net community benefit via the provision of additional residential development close to services and facilities. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed assessment against Section A of Part 3.

Q3. Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions of the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy (including the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and exhibited draft strategies)? Comment: It is noted that an amended Draft Riverina Murray Regional Plan was released by NSW DPE in April 2016. A copy of the current Draft Riverina Murray Regional Plan has been tabled for reference. (Tabled Document 4) The subject Planning Proposal was received by Council on 5 February 2016, and therefore, the Draft Plan had not yet been released and hence was not addressed in the Planning Proposal prepared by the Applicant, which addressed the previous Draft Murray Regional Strategy 2009-36. A review of the current Draft Plan has been undertaken by Council Staff who provide the following comments in respect of assessment against this draft document:

Direction 1.1 – Grow the economic potential of the agribusiness sector

150 of 251 manufacturing and intensive operations. The proposal will not inhibit the encouragement of value-add manufacturing opportunities to increase regional economic diversification in agriculture and agribusiness, and will not adversely affect the factors which enable future agricultural enterprise to harness innovation technologies or agricultural research

Direction 1.2 – Manage productive agricultural lands in a sustainable way

Action 1.2.1- Identify and protect regionally important productive agricultural lands Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered to be inconsistent with this action. The Proposal is not considered to pose a significant adverse impact to resource availability and is not predicted to adversely affect agricultural efficiency or pose fragmentation of productive rural lands. The Proposal is not considered to adversely affect the agricultural supply chain or State significant agricultural lands.

Action 1.2.2 – Establish a strategic planning framework that protects the productive values of agricultural land and manages land use conflict Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered to be inconsistent with this action. The proposal will not inhibit the delivery of strategic plans and policies to protect rural land uses, natural resources, developing industries, and dependent industries and communities, and is not predicted to result in land use conflict..

Direction 1.3 – Manage and use the regions natural resource sustainably

151 of 251 Action 1.3.3 – Avoid urban expansion and rural residential development on productive agricultural land identified mineral resource and energy resources Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The subject lots are not zoned for or used as agricultural land. The Proposal is not predicted to create land use conflicts, land speculation or place significant pressure on infrastructure and services used by the primary producers, resource and energy sector. The site is not mapped as “Mineral Resources”.

Direction 2.1 – Enhance the regions freight networks through coordinated investment

Action 2.1.1 - Identify and prioritise pinch points in the freight network Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. While the subject lots are located in close proximity to the proposed second Moama Murray Bridge Crossing, the Proposal is considered to pose no impact to freight efficiency, future bypasses or the proposed new bridge crossing.

152 of 251 Direction 2.2 – Improve inter-regional transport services

Direction 2.3 – Coordinate infrastructure delivery to facilitate economic opportunities

Action 2.3.1 – Coordinate the delivery of infrastructure to support the future needs if residents, business and industry Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal is not considered to pose an impact with respect to supply of energy, waste services, water, or telecommunication within the region and locality. The site is located with suitable access to available utilities and services to accommodate the Proposal.

Direction 3.1 – Grow the regional cities of Albury, Wagga Wagga and Griffith

153 of 251 Direction 3.2 – Enhance the liveability and economic prosperity of the region’s towns and villages Action 3.2.1 – Deliver improved tools and partnerships to build community capacity in towns and villages to strengthen community resilience Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal will not adversely impact on Community resilience or the alleviation of skill shortage, particularly in the agribusiness sector.

Action 3.2.4 – Deliver regionally specific urban design guidelines Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal will not impact the delivery of such guidelines. The lots are located in close proximity to existing pedestrian movement networks, public open space, services and community facilities. The site does contain native vegetation, however the bulk of the proposed area sought to be affected by the subject proposal is not covered by the Murray LEP 2011 terrestrial biodiversity mapping. Further assessment or studies may be required to ascertain the significance of the native vegetation located onsite.

Direction 3.3 – Enhance the economic self-determination of Aboriginal communities

Action 3.3.1 – Conduct a strategic assessment of land held by the region’s Local Aboriginal Land Councils to identify priority sites for futher investigation of their economic opportunities Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action. The subject site is not land owned by the Local Aboriginal Land Council.

154 of 251 Direction 3.4 – Provide a continuous supply of appropriate housing to suit the different lifestyles and needs of the region’s population

Action 3.4.1 – Deliver enabling planning controls that facilitate an increased range of housing options including infill housing close to existing jobs and services Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The subject Proposal seeks and amendment of the Murray LEP 2011 via a Schedule 1 inclusion which will enable the residential development of the northern part of the subject lots. The Proposal is considered to present an opportunity to investigate increasing housing options within an area close to existing services and facilities, and in close proximity of Council’s town centre.

Action 3.4.2 - Facilitate a more diverse range of housing for seniors Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal ultimately seeks to amend the Murray LEP 2011 to enable the residential development of the northern section of the subject lots. It is noted that given the close proximity of the lots to the town centre, access to services, community facilities and connection to transport network, the future development of these lots could be harnessed by seniors seeking to downsize to smaller allotments, however the Proposal is not specifically aimed to address such matters.

Action 3.4.4 – Develop and implement principles for rural residential development Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The subject Proposal does not seek to enable the development of this lot for rural-residential development, but rather, seeks to enable residential development on lots of approximately 1000m2. Any future approved development of the subject lot will have access to existing infrastructure, which are available for connection. The subject residential development is not considered to pose land use conflict with the surrounding area, however the impact on the biodiversity of the remainder of the E3 zoned land not proposed to be included as part of the subject Planning Proposal may require further investigation. While subject area of this Planning Proposal is mapped as bushfire prone land (buffer), the affected land is not flood prone and is not significantly affected by natural hazards. The proposal is considered to offer additional housing stock to the Shire in a highly accessible and well connected area.

155 of 251 access to services, community facilities and connection to transport network, any future approved development of these lots could be harnessed by those seeking more affordable allotments within the Moama market, however this Proposal is not specifically aimed at providing affordable housing.

Direction 3.5 – Enhance connections and planning between cross- border communities to improve service quality and infrastructure delivery

Direction 4.1 – Protect the nationally significant Murray River

Action 4.1.1 – Actively manage settlement and competing land uses along the Murray River Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The land sought to be developed as part of this Planning Proposal is located approximately 400m from the adjoining Murray River, with part of the subject Proposal site covered by the Murray LEP 2011 Terrestrial Biodiversity mapping. Further investigations of the site may be required to be undertaken to ascertain the impact of the Proposal on the adjoining Murray River and its associated environmental values of the site.

Direction 4.2- Protect the region’s environmental assets and biodiversity values

Action 4.2.1 – Facilitate improved access to quality information relating to high environmental values, to avoid, minimise and mitigate the impacts of development on significant environmental assets Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The Proposal has no effect on the considerations discussed within this action. Further investigations of the site may be required to be undertaken to ascertain the impact of the Proposal on the adjoining Murray River and the environmental values of the site.

156 of 251 Action 4.2.2 – Maintain healthy waterways and wetlands, including downstream environments Comment: The Planning Proposal is not considered inconsistent with this action. The subject lots are mapped as by the Murray LEP 2011 wetlands mapping, however coverage does not extend to the subject proposal area in the northern section of the subject lots. Further investigations of the site may be required to be undertaken to ascertain the impact of the Proposal on the adjoining Murray River and the environmental values of the site.

Direction 4.3 – Increase the region’s resilience to natural hazards

Assessment Criteria a) Does the proposal have strategic merit and  Is it consistent with a relevant local strategy endorsed by the the Director General or  Is it consistent with the relevant regional strategy or Metropolitan Plan or  Can it otherwise demonstrate strategic merit, giving consideration to the relevant Section 117 Directions applying to the suite and other strategic considerations (e.g. proximity to existing urban areas, public transport and infrastructure accessibility, providing jobs closer to home etc.) b) Does the Proposal have site specific merit and is it compatible with the surrounding land uses, having regard to the following:  The natural environment (including known significant environmental values, resources or hazards) and  The existing uses, approved uses, and likely future uses of the land in the vicinity of the proposal; and  The services and infrastructure that are or will be available to meet the demands arising from the proposal and any proposed financial arrangements for infrastructure provision.

157 of 251 Comment: Throughout the various sections of the Planning Proposal, the Applicant has suitably demonstrated the strategic merit of the proposal. Although not specifically addressed in this Part of the Planning Proposal, there is no applicable local strategy endorsed by the Director General affecting this area of Murray Shire Council. Subsequent sections of the Planning Proposal also demonstrate compliance with the relevant Section 117 Directions and the suitability of the site for the proposed use based on its close proximity to existing urban areas, public transport, infrastructure, and community facilities. The Proposal is considered compatible with the surrounding land uses, existing uses, approved uses and the future use of land in the vicinity of the proposal in accordance with the strategic plans affecting the area. A further study may be required to investigate the biodiversity of the site to suitably ascertain the compatibility of the Proposal with the environmental characteristics of the site. While the land is mapped as bush fire prone, suitable mitigation methods can be imposed on any future approved development of land in accordance with ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’ and any applicable integration with NSW Rural Fire Service under the Rural Fires Act 1997. In accordance with the material contained within “A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals” released by the NSW Department of Planning & Environment, Council Staff have deemed it unnecessary to provide a technical studies at this stage, and will instead await the outcome of the Gateway determination. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed the assessment requirements for this stage of the process.

Q4. Is the Planning Proposal consistent with a Council’s Local Strategy of other local Strategic Plan? Comment: The Murray Strategic Land Use Plan 2010-2030 (SLUP) is applicable. While this Strategic Plan has been adopted by Council and has been in operation for some time, the SLUP has not been endorsed by the NSW DPE. The SLUP identifies the subject site as ‘Rural Floodplain’. The SLUP encourages the protection of floodplain areas from unsympathetic development, with no urban intensification of development on land not protected with the town flood levee. The Applicant notes that this characterisation as ‘rural floodplain’ has been applied in error, as the land forming the northern section of the subject lots (and the site affected by this Planning Proposal) is not flood prone. It is also noted that the subject land is located close to services and amenities; adjoining B2 Local Centre zoned land and in the vicinity of R1 General Residential zoned land. Strategic Area (B) (Environmental Planning) of the Murray Shire Council Community Strategic Plan 2015/2016 – 2024/25 is also applicable, and sets out an objective to develop and implement strategic plans and planning instruments to ensure development occurs in an environmentally responsible and consistent manner. A key measure of control set out in the Community Strategic Plan is compliance with Murray Local Environmental Plan (LEP). The Applicant has prepared the subject proposal to enable compliance with this local strategy. The subject site is not covered by the Moama North West Master Plan. Given that it is possible that the environmental hazards and constraints of the land may be mitigated, and the land is located close to all services and facilities, the subject proposal is considered consistent with overarching aims and objectives of Council’s Local Strategies, however further studies may be required to determine the compatibility of the Proposal with the environmental

158 of 251 characteristics of the site. Any future development of the site enabled by the amendment of the Murray LEP 2011 would be subject to a full merit assessment against all required legislation. It is noted that as the E3 Zoning of the property is not sought to be amended as part of this Proposal and as such, any future application would be technically inconsistent with Clause 4.1 of the Murray LEP 2011 (Minimum subdivision lot size) and Clause 4.2A (Erection of dwelling houses on land in certain rural and environmental protection zones). However such development would be assessable under Clause 2.5 of the Murray LEP 2011 (Additional permitted uses for particular land). It is noted that the bush fire constraints of the land may be mitigated via construction methods, although this bush fire risk would need to be assessed on its merits in accordance with the relevant legislation and in consultation with NSW Rural Fire Service under the requirement of Section 91 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed assessment against Council’s Local Strategies.

Q5. Is the Planning Proposal consistent with the applicable State Environmental Planning Policies? Comment: As set out in Attachment A of the subject Planning Proposal, the Applicant has identified the SEPPs relevant to the Planning Proposal and notes consistency with each applicable SEPP. The Applicant notes that SEPP No 21—Caravan Parks is “…Not applicable as ‘caravan parks’ are prohibited in the E3 zone…”. This SEPP is applicable as ‘camping grounds’ are permitted with consent in the E3 zone. Council staff consider that the Proposal poses no impact to the application of this SEPP in this instance, and is therefore not inconsistent with the objectives of SEPP 21. The land is not listed on Council’s contaminated land register and is not known to have been used for a past use that may have caused contamination of the site. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed assessment against the relevant SEPPs.

Q6. Is the Planning Proposal consistent with the applicable Ministerial Directions (S.117 Directions)? Comment: Please see tabled documents for a copy of the relevant Section 117 Directions (Tabled Document 8) referred to in this section. As set out in Attachment B of the subject Planning Proposal, the Applicant has identified that the subject development is either consistent or proposing a minor insignificance with the applicable Directions.

Direction 1.5 – Rural Lands The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 2.1 – Environmental Protection Zones The Applicant has noted they believe that the Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction; any inconsistency can be justified by the minor significance of the impact. See comments set out in Attachment B. It is noted that Council staff believe that the Proposal is inconsistent with this Direction. Given that the northern section of the lots forming the site of the Planning Proposal is not affected by Murray LEP 2011 Flood Prone land mapping and is partially covered by the Murray LEP 2011 Terrestrial biodiversity mapping to the western section only, the subject proposal may be characterised as of ‘minor

159 of 251 significance’, pending further investigation into the environmental qualities of the northern section of these lots affected by the Planning Proposal. An assessment of the suspected environmental impact on both the northern section of the lots, and the remainder of the lot areas may be required to ascertain the true impact of the subject proposal. It is considered that such a study is not required at this stage, however may be required to enable suitable future assessment as part of the Gateway process.

Direction 2.3 – Heritage Conservation The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 2.4 – Recreational vehicles The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 3.1 – Residential zones The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 3.2 – Caravan parks and manufactured home estates The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 3.3 – Home occupations The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 3.4 – Integrated land use and transport The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 4.3 – Flood Prone Land The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with the Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 6.1 – Approval and referral requirements The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

Direction 6.2 – Reserving land for public purposes

The Applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction – See comments set out in Attachment B.

The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed assessment against the relevant Section 117 Directions.

160 of 251 SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT

Q7. Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities , or their habitats will be adversely affected as a result if the Proposal? Comment: Both lots are covered by Council’s biodiversity mapping, with a small portion of the western portion of the subject planning proposal site covered. As noted by the Applicant, it is unlikely that the subject proposal will have a significant adverse impact on threatened species, populations, ecological communities, or habitats. It is noted that a more detailed study of the site may be required to determine the specific impact of the Proposal, however such a study is not considered to be necessary at this stage of the process. Any future development of the site as a result of an approved Schedule 1 additional permitted use will be subject to a merit based assessment of a development application against Section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979 and all other relevant legislation. See comments provided by the Applicant for further information. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed assessment against Section C of Part 3.

Q8. Are there any likely environmental effects as a result of the Planning Proposal and how are they proposed to be managed? Comment: The Applicant has identified that flooding and bushfire are environmental hazards affecting the subject site. The Applicant notes that these environmental effects are able to be suitably managed and mitigated and are unlikely to pose a significant adverse impact. See comments provided by the Applicant for further information. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed assessment of Q8.

161 of 251 SECTION D – STATE AND COMMONWEALTH INTERESTS

Q10. Is there adequate public infrastructure for the Planning Proposal? Adequacy of public infrastructure Comment: The Applicant notes that there is adequate public infrastructure in place to service to the subject proposal. No demand creating a shortfall is predicted to result. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed assessment of the adequacy of public infrastructure.

Q11. What are the views of the State and Commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with the Gateway determination? Comment: The Applicant notes that the nature of the proposal is unlikely to trigger any necessary public authority consultation at State and Commonwealth level, and no preliminary consultation has been carried out to date. It is noted that any consultation required as a result of the Gateway determination will be completed as required. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed assessment for ‘Views of the State and Commonwealth public authorities’.

PART 4 – Mapping Comment: The Applicant has provided the relevant mapping applicable to this proposal detailing the land, current land uses in the vicinity and the coverage of the biodiversity and flood mapping affecting the site. The Planning Proposal has provided detail regarding the zoning and current development standards affecting the site in Part 3 of the document. There is no alternate zoning sought as part of this Planning Proposal and no heritage items or conservation areas known to exist onsite. It is noted that any Gateway Determination received by NSW DPE may require additional assessment regarding mapping. See the attached Planning Proposal for further information. The Applicant is considered to have suitably addressed requirements for Part 4.

162 of 251 MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28TH JUNE 2016

17. SUBMISSION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (DA 175/14)

DIRECTOR: Simon Arkinstall- Director of Environmental Services AUTHOR: Christopher O’Brien – Town Planner VENUE: Moulamein Bowling Club TRIM Reference:

Issues Considered in writing report: Council Policy, Natural Environment, Built Environment, Social Environment, Economic Environment – issues applicable have been reported on.

RECOMMENDATION

i. That the Officer’s report be received and noted.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

DA 175/14 was received by the former Murray Shire Council’s Environmental Services Department on 7 April 2014 for the ‘temporary use of the land as a functions centre, installation of Temporary Structure, Temporary formalisation of existing bar structure, and car parking facilities’ at ‘Tindarra Resort’ Lot 3 DP 270496, 2 Perricoota Road, Moama NSW 2731.

This development application was approved by Council at an Ordinary Council meeting on 8 December 2015. Due to the nature of the current approval, the consent is due to lapse upon the completion of the temporary use for 52 days, or the lapse of this 12 month period of consent, whichever occurs first.

This application is currently the subject of a Class 1 Appeal in the Land of Environment Court, specifically in relation to the condition of consent that restricts the period of operation to a 12 month period.

For Council’s information, Council staff have received a further submission in relation to this approved development. This submission was received on 1 June 2016and related specifically to noise concerns and the location of structures and will be investigated by Council Staff. The subject submission is attached as Appendix 1. The current DA 175/14 consent is attached as Appendix 2, whilst the Officers Report is attached as Appendix 3.

163 of 251 164 of 251 165 of 251

NOTICE TO APPLICANT OF DETERMINATION OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Section 81(1)(a)

APPLICATION No.: 175/14

ASSESSMENT NO.: 1291-21000-1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DETAILS

Applicant Name Habitat Planning

Applicant Address Jon Curry 1/622 Macauley Street ALBURY NSW 2640 Land to be Developed Lot No: 3

DP: 270496

Address of Land Tindarra Resort 2 Perricoota Road MOAMA NSW 2731 Owners Name EMRR Pty Ltd

Proposed Development Temporary use of the land as a functions centre, installation of Temporary Structure (Marquee), Temporary formalisation of exisiting bar structure, and car parking facilities

DETERMINATION

Consent granted subject to conditions described on the following pages

Approval Date 8 December 2015

Consent to Operate from (date) 8 December 2015

Consent to Lapse on (date) 8 December 2020

Attachments Consent Conditions

166 of 251 APPLICATION NO. «NUMBER» PAGE 2.

THE CONDITIONS OF CONSENT AND THE REASONS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF THE CONDITIONS ARE SET OUT AS FOLLOWS:

Prior To The Commencement Of Use

1. Food businesses that trade at temporary events must ensure that their details have been notified to Murray Shire Council prior to commencing trading for the first time. Appropriate details for notification include:-  Contact Details For The Food Business Including The Name Of The Food Business And The Name And Business Address Of The Proprietor Of The Food Business,  The Nature Of The Food Business, And  The Location of all food premises of the food business that are within the jurisdiction of the enforcement agency.

Notification may be made to council in any form that includes the above details.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the Food Act 2003.

2. The Food Safety Supervisor (FSS) requirement applies if your business is processing and selling food by retail (at a temporary event) that is:  Ready-To-Eat, And  Potentially Hazardous (I.E. Requires Temperature Control), And  Unpackaged (i.e. NOT sold and served in the supplier’s original package).

One FSS needs to be appointed for the premises (i.e. the temporary structure). If you have more than one premises at the event, then a different FSS needs to be appointed for each premises. A copy of the FSS certificate for your FSS must be kept at the premises.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the Food Act 2003.

3. The ‘Emergency Management Plan’ for Tindarra Resort is be amended to provide specific actions relating to this development in an emergency situation.

In a flood event the temporary structure is to be completely removed from the site prior to the arrival of floodwaters. All services are to be capped.

Reason: To ensure that the emergency events are able to be appropriately responded to.

4. The ‘Event Management Plan’ for Tindarra Resort is to be amended to provide specific actions relating to this development. The amended plan is to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of use. This condition is to be satisfied within two (2) months from the date to which this consent operates.

Reason: To ensure that events are appropriately managed.

167 of 251 APPLICATION NO. «NUMBER» PAGE 3.

5. The Applicant is to ensure that the liquor licence held by Tindarra Resort covers functions held within the temporary structure (marquee). A copy of the liquor license is to be provided to Council PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF USE.

Reason: To ensure that the liquor license covers functions to be held in the temporary structure (marquee).

6. The Applicant is to submit to Council a stormwater management plan for the formal vehicle parking area and bar structure onsite. The stormwater management plan is to be approved by Council prior to the commencement of use. Drainage from the formal parking area is to be diverted to the adjacent existing dam located to the east of the approved formal vehicle parking area. No stormwater/drainage is permitted to discharge directly into the Murray River. This condition is to be satisfied within two (2) months from the date to which this consent operates.

Reason: To ensure that drainage is suitably catered for and to accord with Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

General

7. The development is to be carried out in accordance with the information submitted to Council as part of the assessment of the subject development application. Approval is granted in accordance with the plans and Acoustic Assessment report stamped by Council as part of this consent.

Consent is granted for the hosting of functions and events (weddings, conferences, luncheons etc.) on the subject land in accordance with the conditions of this consent. This consent only permits the erection of the temporary structure (marquee) identified in the approved plans and the construction of the formal car parking area. The temporary structure must not be used as an entertainment venue.

Note: Entertainment venue means a building used as a cinema, theatre or concert hall or an indoor sports stadium.

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

8. The subject consent grants temporary approval for a maximum of fifty-two (52) days in one (1) twelve (12) month period. The subject temporary consent will lapse upon the completion of the temporary use for 52 days, or the lapse of the 12 month period of consent, whichever occurs first. Upon the lapse of temporary consent, the temporary structure (marquee) is to be completely removed from the site as soon as practically possible and no later than 10am the morning after the final day of the temporary use. Once this temporary consent has lapsed, Tindarra Resort is not permitted to utilise the site as a ‘function centre’ without obtaining appropriate development consent from Murray Shire Council. At the end of any consent issued for the proposed temporary use of land, the land will, as far as practicable, be restored to the condition in which is was before the commencement of the subject temporary use.

Reason: To ensure that the marquee is utilised only as approved.

168 of 251 APPLICATION NO. «NUMBER» PAGE 4.

9. There is to be no clearing of native vegetation other than that approved by NSW Murray Local Land Services or in accordance with the provisions of the Native Vegetation Act 2003.

Reason: To comply with the Native Vegetation Act 2003.

10. The hours of operation permitted for functions utilising amplified music held in the temporary structure (marquee) are: (a) Between 8.00am and 8pm Monday to Thursday (inclusive) and Sunday. (b) Between 8am and 12am Friday and Saturday.

Events held in the temporary structure that do not utilise amplified music are permitted to occur on any given day 8am to 12am.

Reason: To minimise any adverse impacts of functions on neighbouring properties.

11. The maximum number of people permitted within the marquee or attending an event at the site is 250 people.

Note. Clause 98D of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 requires a sign specifying maximum number of persons permitted in the building (including any temporary structure or part of a temporary structure) to be displayed in a prominent position for the following types of premises: (i) entertainment venue, (ii) function centre, (iii) pub, (iv) registered club, (v) restaurant.

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

12. All vehicle parking associated with the events is to be accommodated on the subject land. The vehicle parking is to be accommodated in accordance with the areas identified on the Plan TP001 dated 19 July 2011. The formal vehicle parking area (green shaded area on Plan TP001) is to be constructed of crushed rock to an all weather standard.

Reason: To ensure that functions do not have unreasonable parking and traffic impacts.

13. Informal temporary car parking of vehicles is to take place no closer than 15m from the high bank of the Murray River.

Reason: To protect the integrity of the high bank area of the Murray River.

169 of 251 APPLICATION NO. «NUMBER» PAGE 5.

14. Noise from functions held in the temporary structure (marquee) are to be managed and noise mitigation measures are to be implemented so as not to constitute offensive noise to the neighbouring properties. The applicant is to connect and operate a NLX (Mk2) Noise Limiter (a music level monitor) to the amplified music circuit when events are to take place in the marquee. The recommendations of the stamped Acoustic Assessment Report are to be adhered to with respect to preliminary set up and testing prior to the commencement of any function. The Noise Limiter is to be set so that the noise emitted directly from the amplifier is no higher than 85 dB(A). The noise level emitted from the property shall not exceed the background noise level in any Octave Band Centre Frequency (31.5 Hz – 8k Hz inclusive) by more than 5 dB at the boundary of any affected property.

Reason: To reduce any detrimental effects noise may have on surrounding properties and to comply with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

15. The Noise Limiter must be installed by a licenced electrician and comply with all Australia Standards and regulations relating to electrical works.

Reason: To reduce any detrimental effects noise may have on surrounding properties and to comply with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

16. The Noise Limiter must be installed and positioned in accordance with the manufacturers specifications and Appendix 3 of the stamped Acoustic Assessment Report.

Reason: To reduce any detrimental effects noise may have on surrounding properties and to comply with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

17. Council is to be notified of details of any proposed fireworks at least seven working days prior to the display. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that approval from NSW WorkCover is obtained prior to any fireworks display and to ensure all conditions relating to firework displays are adhered to.

Reason: To ensure compliance with NSW WorkCover requirements.

18. Any damage to Council infrastructure that requires repair will be required to be paid by the event organisers.

Reason: To protect the infrastructure and assets of Murray Shire Council.

19. The event organisers shall ensure compliance with NSW WorkCover requirements.

Reason: To ensure that NSW WorkCover requirements are complied with.

170 of 251 APPLICATION NO. «NUMBER» PAGE 6.

20. Adequate sanitary facilities shall be provided on the site to cater for the maximum number of patrons attending the event. In this regard, usage demand shall be monitored and appropriately managed during the event to ensure that public convenience is maintained. Adequate directional and way finding signage to facilities shall be displayed at the site. The minimum number of sanitary facilities required for an event shall be in accordance with the following table:

Closet Pans Urinals Washbasins Occupancy Number Occupancy Number Occupancy Number Male 1-100 1 1-50 1 1-50 1 Patrons 101-250 2 51-100 2 51-200 2 101-150 3 201-250 3 151-200 4 201-250 5 Female 1-25 1 1-50 1 Patrons 26-50 2 51-150 2 51-100 3 151-250 3 101-150 4 151-200 5 201-250 6

An accessible sanitary facility is to be provided for persons with a disability. Note that in calculating the number of sanitary facilities to be provided, a unisex facility required for people with a disability may be counted once for each sex.

Reason: To ensure that adequate sanitary facilities are provided.

21. The Applicant shall ensure that satisfactory passage for emergency vehicles is provided.

Reason: To ensure that emergency vehicles have satisfactory passage

22. The Applicant shall be responsible for the control of noise and litter generated by visitors to functions held in the temporary structure (marquee). The area is to be kept clean and tidy at all times and rubbish is to be removed from the immediate area throughout the event. The applicant shall bear the responsibility for fully clearing and cleaning the area at the completion of the functions held in the temporary structure (marquee). Arrangements for the prompt collection of litter and waste associated with the event must occur as soon as practically possible after a function in accordance with the restricted hours of site operation.

Reason: To minimise the environmental impacts of functions

23. 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.

171 of 251 APPLICATION NO. «NUMBER» PAGE 7.

Advice to Applicant

The Australian Building Codes Board has issued a standard “Temporary Structures Standard 2015”. Although this standard is not mandated in NSW, it is a good guidance document to address issues relating to temporary structures that are not covered by legislation.

Prior to use of the structure

24. The parking area dedicated to the structure is to be constructed to cater for vehicles associated with the ‘temporary structure (marquee) prior to an Occupation Certificate being issued. The parking area is to include a disabled parking space provided as close as practical to the marquee area (within the formal vehicle parking area).

Reason: To provide adequate parking on site.

Temporary structure

(1) General Site Requirements (a) All mechanical and electrical installations including generators, electrical cabling and any mobile structures are to be surrounded or covered by appropriate physical barriers so as to prevent unauthorised access by the public at all times, and to protect ground laid cabling from being trip hazards, during public occupation of the site. (b) Appropriate fire fighting equipment is to be available for installations such as generators, power boxes, mechanical systems, food stalls and the like, which may be utilised on site during normal occupation times. (c) Any “Display Boards”, viewing screens, temporary signage and artwork used on site shall be adequately secured to prevent toppling or otherwise falling due to wind effects.

(2) Temporary Structures – General (a) The ground surface on which the structure is to be erected is to be sufficiently firm to sustain the structure while it is being used and isn’t dangerous because of its slope or irregularity or for any other reason. (b) The temporary structures must be erected and secured in accordance with the manufacturers’ structural specifications to ensure they are structurally sound and can withstand likely wind and any likely live loadings. Any proposed modular stage sections shall be adequately bolted or clamped together to ensure that the overall design stability of the stage structures is achieved and maintained. (c) Separate Certification shall be provided by the installers for the structures, confirming installation in accordance with the relevant design and specification(s). Note: where structures are minimal in nature such as food stalls, marquees less than 10m2, platforms raised less than 300mm and the like, a copy of the manufacturer’s specification shall be sufficient. (d) Stage structures are not to be loaded in excess of those loadings recommended by the suppliers and / or manufacturer. (e) Any lighting, rigging, scaffolding or the like, associated with the subject stages shall be constructed and certified by a Workcover licensed rigger. (f) That electrical services serving the stage and allied structures shall meet with the requirements of AS/NZS 3000 & 3002 and be certified by a licensed electrical contractor prior the commencement of use.

172 of 251 APPLICATION NO. «NUMBER» PAGE 8.

(g) All structures to which members of the public may by allowed access, are to be supervised by responsible persons at all times when occupied by the public. (h) Erection and dismantling (packing up) is to be done quietly and orderly to minimise disturbance to the surrounding locality. (i) Trees growing on the land on which the structure is erected or on adjoining land must not be damaged as a result of the erection or use of the structure.

Prescribed Conditions

The prescribed conditions in accordance with Division 8A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 apply:- 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 98D Condition relating to maximum capacity signage Clause 98E Conditions relating to shoring and adequacy of adjoining property 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

For the purposes of section 80A (11) of the Act, it is prescribed as a condition of a development consent for a temporary structure that is used as an entertainment venue, that the temporary structure must comply with Part B1 and NSW Part H102 of Volume One of the Building Code of Australia.

Advice to Applicant

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

OTHER APPROVALS Approvals granted under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993: - N/A

RIGHT OF APPEAL If you are dissatisfied with this decision Section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gives you the right to appeal to the Land and Environment Court within 6 months after the date on which you receive this notice.

Review of Determination An applicant may request a review of determination under section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 within 6 months of the date of this notice (note: Section 82A is not applicable to integrated or designated development). A fee is payable.

Glenn Bulmer Manager, Planning & Building

LG/kt

173 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 22

6) Building work shall not commence on the site before 7am on weekdays and Saturdays and 8am on Sundays and public holidays. All works are to cease by 8pm on any day.

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

7) The land subject to this approval 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 applicants of the existence of covenants and that such covenants may be restrictive.

CLAUSE 5. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 175/14 FOR: TEMPORARY USE OF THE LAND AS A FUNCTIONS CENTRE, INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY STRUCTURE (MARQUEE), TEMPORARY FORMALISATION OF EXISTING BAR STRUCTURE, AND CAR PARKING FACILITIES ZONE: E3 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ADDRESS: “TINDARRA RESORT”, PERRICOOTA ROAD, MOAMA NSW 2731 OWNER: EMRR PTY LTD APPLICANT: MR JON CURRY C/- HABITAT PLANNING (WARWICK HORSFALL)

Section 1: Introduction

1.1 Executive Summary The proposal submitted by the Applicant seeks approval for the temporary use of part of the land for functions, installation of 300m2 temporary structure (marquee), formalisation of existing bar structure, and car parking facilities to service the proposed marquee and bar. It is noted that the subject site currently contains a temporary structure (marquee) which has been erected without development consent, however this marquee is not the temporary structure the subject of this Application.

The Applicant has applied for temporary use of land under Clause 2.8 of the Murray LEP 2011 and therefore any consent issued in respect of this application would permit the operation of the temporary use fifty-two (52) times in a twelve (12) month period only, and consent would lapse upon the conclusion of that 12 month period. Ongoing consent is not permitted under this clause. The Applicant is unable to reapply for the same temporary use upon the lapse of the consent, as this would constitute ongoing approval and therefore would be inconsistent with the objective Clause 2.8 to provide for a ‘temporary use of land’.

The subject marquee is proposed to be erected upon an existing 15.5m x 31m (480.5m2) concrete slab which was completed as exempt development under SEPP 2008 (Subdivision 28, subsection 2.55 and 2.56- Paving). The concrete slab has been constructed approximately 14m from the Murray River (at its closest point). At the time of inspection, a 10m x 20m (200m2) marquee was erected on the slab.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 22 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 174 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 23

The bar structure is already in place and erected on an additional 11.5m x 10.5m (125m2) concrete slab (connected to the marquee slab) which is located approximately 3.5m from the Murray River at its closest point. The wooden posted structure clad in corrugated iron has been fitted out with a bar and sitting area and is connected to electricity, raw and filtered water. There does not appear to be an approval held in Council records relating to this structure.

It is noted that the Applicant is already using the bar structure and an existing marquee structure for wedding functions without appropriate approval, which has resulted in complaints to Murray Shire regarding the noise generated. As part of the public consultation of this application, three (3) public submissions were received objecting to the proposal. Further details of public submissions are included in the Submissions section of this report.

It is considered that the proposed development is not inconsistent with the aims of Murray LEP 2011 and is consistent with the objectives and controls of the Murray DCP 2012. The application is inconsistent with a development principle set out in Murray REP2 (River related uses), however Council staff are satisfied that the inconsistency with the planning principle does not pose a detrimental impact to riverine land, the Murray River, or the biodiversity of the site. The Applicant has submitted a Request for Variation to a Development Standard which will be detailed in Section 3.2(a)(i)(c) of this report.

The Application was referred to all required local and government authorities for comment who have issued their respective conditions of consent supporting the proposal.

Consent issued in respect of this development application will provide temporary consent for use of the proposed 300m2 marquee and the existing bar facility already being utilised at the tourist resort as a temporary function centre.

The proposal is not deemed to pose a detrimental environmental or economic impact for the site or the locality, and with effective noise abatement, should not present a social impact to the current amenity of surrounding land holders. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed development be granted temporary approval under Clause 2.8 of the Murray LEP 2011 with recommended conditions of consent.

1.2 The Site The subject site is within the Tindarra Resort located on Lot 3 DP 270496, Perricoota Road, Moama. See Figure 1 for an indication of site locality and Figure 2 for an aerial photograph of the site. The location of the development site within Lot 3 is indicated by the purple star and is on land zoned E3 Environmental Management. The development site is a cleared area to the south of property located in the corridor between the existing approved cabin accommodation sites and the Murray River. The development site contains an existing concrete slab, marquee and bar structure, which will be detailed in the Commentary Section of this report. The site is located upon the bank of the Murray River and set amongst mature native vegetation. The site also contains a 10m wide easement for electricity benefiting Country Energy, which has been covered by the existing concrete slab housing the current marquee structure onsite. This easement has been discussed with Country Energy, who has advised that the easement is no longer in use and could be released from the Title, if the owner wished. See email from Essential Energy attached as Appendix A dated 6 May 2014 for further information.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 23 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 175 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 24

The site is adjoined by residential property to the north-west and east and is covered by the following overlays:- • Flood prone land; • Bush fire prone land; • Terrestrial biodiversity mapping; • Watercourses mapping (wetlands).

The site of the proposed development is also located in the vicinity of an open sided hay-shed- like structure, and what appears to be the base of an older style water tank structure. There are no listed heritage items located onsite. Access to the site is through the Resort (from Perricoota Road). No public access to the site or foreshore exists. The lot is held in presumptive title to the middle of the Murray River. Please see site photographs for further information.

Figure 1 – Locality map

THIS IS PAGE NO. 24 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 176 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 25

Figure 2 – Aerial photograph of the site

1.3 Commentary The Applicant has applied for temporary use of land under Clause 2.8 of the Murray LEP 2011 and therefore any consent issued in respect of this application would permit the operation of the temporary use fifty-two (52) times in a twelve (12) month period only, and consent would lapse upon the conclusion of that 12 month period. Ongoing consent is not permitted under this clause. The Applicant is unable to reapply for the same temporary use upon the lapse of the consent, as this would constitute ongoing approval and therefore would be inconsistent with the objective Clause 2.8 to provide for a ‘temporary use of land’.

Marquee and bar structure The proposal submitted by the Applicant seeks approval for “a temporary structure (marquee and bar)”. The proposed marquee is to be erected upon an existing 15.5m x 31m (480.5m2) concrete slab which was completed as exempt development under the SEPP 2008 (Subdivision 28, subsection 2.55 and 2.56- Paving). The concrete slab has been constructed approximately 14m from the Murray River (at its closest point). At the time of inspection, a 10m x 20m (200m2) marquee was erected on the slab. The bar structure is already in place and erected on an additional 11.5m x 10.5m (125m2) concrete slab (connected to the marquee slab) which is located approximately 3.5m from the Murray River at its closest point. The wooden posted structure clad in corrugated iron has been fitted out with a bar and sitting area and is connected to electricity, raw and filtered water. The land between the slab and the river has been levelled and finished with crushed rock/gravel. The structure has been supplied with stormwater facilities which appear to discharge directly down the river bank, however do not appear to be connected at the time of inspection by staff. The bar structure also contains a sink and running water which is connected to the existing sewerage lines of the tourist facility. The applicant seeks temporary use of this structure for events. See Figure 3 below; however note that all works labelled “proposed” are already in place.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 25 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 177 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 26

Figure 3 – Layout of works

The proposed marquee sought by this Application to replace the existing marquee structure is proposed to be 300m2. The proposed marquee is able to cater for up to 250 persons. In a flood event the proposed marquee is able to be dismantled and removed. The Applicant notes that the frequency of the removal of the proposed structure will depend on the sequence of bookings and the practicality of removing the proposed marquee when event booking dates are scheduled close to one another. The proposed marquee will be used to host functions such as weddings and will not be utilised before 8am or after 12 midnight for any given event. Permanent toilet facilities will not be provided for the proposed development; however a temporary toilet block is proposed to be erected onsite during events which will provide for:- • One (1) separated unisex disabled toilet with wash basin; • Male toilet area including one (1) pan, single urinal and two (2) washbasins; and • Female toilet area including two (2) pans and two (2) wash basins. • Additional portable toilets would be hired for to cater for larger events as required.

It is noted that any temporary consent issued in respect of the proposal will include a condition requiring that adequate sanitary facilities be provided on the site to cater for the maximum number of patrons attending the event. In this regard, usage demand shall be monitored and appropriately managed during the event to ensure that public convenience is maintained. Adequate directional and way finding signage to facilities shall be displayed at the site. At least one facility is to be provided for persons with a disability.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 26 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 178 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 27

Vehicle parking The vehicle parking forming part of this application is considered to provide designated vehicle parking for the proposal. In respect to vehicle parking demand, the applicant has noted that in the experience of the resort manager:- • The serving of alcohol at events significantly reduces the demand for parking spaces as many participants arrive as passengers in cars, by public transport or by boat. • The accommodation onsite also diminishes vehicle parking requirements as guests of the event do also often stay onsite. • While the marquee is proposed to cater for 250 persons, the average event at the resort tends to cater for around 100 people.

While these comments are acknowledged and are not improbable, it is nonetheless required that the Application be assessed against the minimum requirements of the car parking guide within the subchapter 4.6 of the Murray DCP 2012. Based on the floor space of the marquee (300m2), subchapter 4.6 of the Murray DCP 2012 stipulates that forty-five (45) additional vehicle parking spaces are required to be provided onsite to service the proposed development. Based on a ‘per seat’ area, the proposal triggers one (1) vehicle park per three (3) seats. Based on 250 persons, the vehicle parking requirement in accordance with the Murray DCP is eighty-three (83) car spaces. The Applicant has provided a vehicle parking concept plan which suitably accommodates seventy-two (72) car spaces. This vehicle parking has been provided in the form of formal vehicle parking space which is proposed to be finished in crushed rock. This formal vehicle parking will be provided in two areas; one area at the northern entrance of the site (approx. eight spaces) and one area within the riverfront land at the end of the driveway to the south (thirty-four spaces). A subsequent overflow area has also been provided to the south of this formal riverine land car parking area which is able to accommodate approximately thirty (30) spaces. This overflow area is proposed to be setback approximately 10m from the high bank of the adjoining Murray River and will be remain a grassed area used only when required.

While the proposal is deficient of the ‘per seat’ 83 car space requirement, Council staff are satisfied that this deficit can be temporarily accommodated when required within the existing grassed areas of the resort, close to the existing overflow parking. The parking proposal is unlikely to pose any adverse impact to the existing tourist facility, or parking/traffic within the locality. The formal parking area with informal overflow is also deemed to pose minimal impact to the already highly disturbed river front area which has been largely cleared and covered with lawn as part of the operation of the resort. No significant native vegetation (except existing lawn) is required to be removed to accommodate the proposed formal parking space. As such, Council staff is satisfied that the vehicle parking concept proposed by the applicant is able to suitably service the proposed development. The vehicle parking concept plan submitted by the Applicant is set out in Figure 4.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 27 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 179 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 28

Figure 4 – Car parking concept plan

Landscaping of riverine land As this Application seeks consent for a temporary use of land for a function centre, the requirement to provide permanent landscaping of riverine land is considered onerous. As such, any temporary consent issued in respect of this proposal will not include any requirement to provide revegetation or landscaping of the riverine land onsite.

Section 2: Statutory Assessment Process

2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Section 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Objects The objects of this Act are: (a) to encourage: (i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment, Comment: The proposed temporary development is not considered to be of a nature or construction that will adversely impact the proper management, development or conservation of natural and artificial resources and any temporary consent issued in

THIS IS PAGE NO. 28 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 180 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 29

respect of this development will accord with the relevant legislation which is aimed to achieve management, development and conservation objectives.

(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land, Comment: The proposed development will not impact the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic development of land.

(iii) the protection, provision and co-ordination of communication and utility services, Comment: The proposed development will not impact the provision and co-ordination of communication and utility services. No such utilities are proposed as part of this development application.

(iv) the provision of land for public purposes, Comment: The proposed development will not impact the provision of land for public purposes. No land for public purposes is proposed or required as part of the subject development.

(v) the provision and co-ordination of community services and facilities, and Comment: The proposed development will not impact the provision and co-ordination of community services and facilities. No such facilities are proposed or required as part of the subject development.

(vi) the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native animals and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats, and Comment: The proponent has suitably addressed the presence of flora and fauna, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats and has noted that it is unlikely that the proposed temporary development will adversely impact upon any species that may be present onsite. No significant native vegetation will be required to be removed as a result of this proposal, with the site already subject to prolonged human activity (including the creation of a lawn area on the development site to the riverbank) which has occurred as a result of the approved use of the site as a tourist facility.

(vii) ecologically sustainable development, and Comment: The proposed development will be required to comply with all relevant legislation for ecologically sustainable development.

(viii) the provision and maintenance of affordable housing, and Comment: The proposed development will not impact the provision and maintenance of affordable housing. No such housing is proposed as part of the subject development.

(b) to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning between the different levels of government in the State, and Comment: The proposed development will not impact upon this aim. The application was referred to a number of Government Authorities as part of the notification process.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 29 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 181 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 30

(c) to provide increased opportunity for public involvement and participation in environmental planning and assessment. Comment: The Application was advertised in the local newspaper and notified to adjoining landowners, as required by the legislation, affording an appropriate opportunity for public participation.

Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires that it be considered whether the proposal is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats.

Comment: It is considered that the temporary proposal is not likely to have a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats. No significant native vegetation is proposed to be removed as part of this development and the site is already largely cleared and maintained as a lawn area which is subject to daily human activity. The proponent has suitably addressed the presence of flora and fauna, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats and has noted that it is unlikely that the proposed temporary development will adversely impact upon any species that may be present onsite.

Section 79BA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 states Development consent cannot be granted for the carrying out of development for any purpose (other than a subdivision of land that could lawfully be used for residential or rural residential purposes or development for a special fire protection purpose) on bush fire prone land unless the consent authority: (a) is satisfied that the development conforms to the specifications and requirements of Planning for Bushfire Protection, ISBN 0 9585987 8 9, produced by the NSW Rural Fire Service (or, if another document is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph, that document), that are relevant to the development, or (b) has consulted with the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service concerning measures to be taken with respect to the development to protect persons, property and the environment from danger that may arise from a bush fire.

Comment: The site is covered by Council’s bush fire prone mapping. The proposed temporary structure, existing structure, car parking area and use are not classified under Planning for Bush Fire Protection, and are not classed as a special fire protection purpose under Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 or the Rural Fires Regulation 2013.

Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires Council to determine if the development is integrated development. The development was considered under the following provisions to determine its status as being integrated or not:

Comment: The Application was considered under Section 91 of the EP& A Act 1979 and was not classified as integrated development.

2.2 Chronology of events and public notification and statutory referral process Table 1 provides an overview of the timeline with respect to the lodgement and assessment of the Application.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 30 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 182 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 31

Table 1: Application history/timeline Application lodged 7 April 2014 DA Panel 8 April 2014 Neighbours Notified 8 April 2014 Site inspection 23 April 2014 Further information requested 8 May 2014 Further information received 8 July 2014 Application advertised and referred to relevant authorities 15 July 2014 Further information requested 7 August 2014 Further information received 19 November 2015

2.3 Referrals and Owners Consent Internal Referrals- DA Panel – 7 April 2014.

External Referrals- The Application was referred to various Government Departments as set out in Table 2.

Table 2 - External referral bodies EXTERNAL BODY COMMENTS Crown Lands The land is freehold title. Crown lands did not raise objection to the proposal.

NSW DPI Water NSW DPI Water did not raise objection to the proposal and issued their recommended conditions of consent. Additionally, NSW Office of Water noted the non-compliance of the proposal with provisions of Murray REP 2 (river related uses).

Tourism NSW No response was received from this Authority.

Office of Environment OEH did not raise objection to the proposal and have issued their and Heritage respective conditions of consent.

Moama Local Aboriginal Moama Local Aboriginal Land Council had inspected the site Land Council previously as a result of DA 158/14. MLALC did not deem it necessary to inspect the site again.

Murray Darling Basin No response was received from this Authority Authority Department of DSE did not raise objection to the proposal and have not stipulated Sustainability and any required conditions of consent. Environment (Victoria) Department of Planning DPCD did not raise objection to the proposal and have not stipulated & Community any required conditions of consent. Development (Victoria) NSW EPA NSW EPA did not raise objection to the proposal and have issued their respective conditions of consent.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 31 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 183 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 32

Advertised- The proposed development was advertised in the Riverine Herald under Murray Regional Environmental Plan No.2 – Riverine Land for a period of 30 days. Submission for the proposal were requested by 12 August 2014.

Public Notification- Advertised to the surrounding property owners in accordance with Murray DCP 2012 Notification Policy on 8 May 2014. Submission were requested to be provided by 23 April 2014.

Owners Consent- Provided

2.4 Contributions Section 64 and Section 94 contributions are not payable.

Section 3: Town Planning Assessment

Assessment of the DA has been undertaken in respect to relevant considerations arising from Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as follows:

3.1 79C 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 Director-General 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 93F, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 93F, and

(iv) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), and

(vi) any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979),

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,

THIS IS PAGE NO. 32 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 184 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 33

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.

3.2 The provisions

3.2(i) Any environmental planning instrument, and: 3.2a Murray LEP 2011.

Part 1 Preliminary Clause 1.2 Aims of Plan 1. This Plan aims to make local environmental planning provisions for land in Murray in accordance with the relevant standard environmental planning instrument under section 33A of the Act. 2. The particular aims of this Plan are as follows: (a) to encourage sustainable economic growth and development within Murray, (b) to encourage the retention of productive rural land in agriculture, (c) to identify, protect, conserve and enhance Murray’s natural assets, (d) to identify and protect Murray’s built and cultural heritage assets for future generations, (e) to allow for the equitable provision of social services and facilities for the community, (f) to encourage and focus growth in the Moama and Mathoura townships, (g) to provide for future tourist and visitor accommodation in a sustainable manner that is compatible with, and will not compromise, the natural resource and heritage values of the surrounding area.

Comment: The proposed temporary development is not inconsistent with the aims of Murray LEP 2011. The site is not considered productive rural land and is not known to contain any items of cultural significance. There are no known cultural heritage assets located onsite. A plaque commemorating a historic figure of Moama was recently placed onsite, however the proposal is not considered to adversely impact upon the enjoyment of this memorial. The proposal has the potential to have a positive economic affect on the resort and will increase event facilities available to the wider Murray Shire community.

Clause 1.9A Application 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 consent granted under the Act, any agreement, covenants or other similar instruments 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 & Land Use Table (development permissibility)

Zone: E3 Environmental Management The objectives of this zone are; • 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. THIS IS PAGE NO. 33 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 185 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 34

Comment: The Applicant has applied for a ‘temporary use of land’ under Clause 2.8 of the Murray LEP 2011. In accordance with Clause 2.8, despite any other provision of this Plan, development consent may be granted for development on land in any zone for a temporary use for a maximum period of 52 days (whether or not consecutive days) in any period of 12 months.

Clause 2.8 – Temporary use of land Comment: The Applicant has applied for temporary use of land under Clause 2.8 of the Murray LEP 2011 and therefore any consent issued in respect of this application would permit the operation of the temporary use fifty-two (52) times in a twelve (12) month period only, and consent would lapse upon the conclusion of that 12 month period. Ongoing consent is not permitted under this clause. The applicant is unable to reapply for the same temporary use upon the lapse of the consent, as this would constitute ongoing approval and therefore would be inconsistent with the objective Clause 2.8 to provide for a ‘temporary use of land’.

Provisions Comments (1) The objective of this clause is The proposed development is deemed consistent with the to provide for the temporary objectives of this clause. Approval for the temporary use use of land if the use does not of the marquee and bar for functions is consistent with the compromise future existing commercial use of the land as a tourist resort and development of the land, or will not compromise the future development of the site. have detrimental economic, The use will not have a detrimental economic or social, amenity or environmental effect on the land which is already subject environmental effects on the to daily human activity as part of the running of the resort. land. The Applicant was requested to provide details regarding noise which will be generated as a result of the use of the proposed marquee for events. The Applicant has subsequently provided information regarding the expected dB levels generated for the site during a function. Council staff assessed this information on its merits and believed that in order to properly assess the proposed impact on the adjoining properties; it would be beneficial to ascertain the base line dB reading before any determination was made as to the predicted level of impact. The Applicant was therefore requested to provide a noise assessment study undertaken by a suitably qualified and practicing professional to: • Establish the baseline dB for the area around Tindarra; • Establish the average dB at each boundary of the resort during a scheduled wedding event.

This study was provided by the Applicant, and has been included as Appendix B for Council’s reference. The study concluded that the variation to the baseline dB at various locations on the property boundaries ranged between 5 and 28 dB.

In accordance with the ‘Noise Guide for Local Government’ released by the NSW Environmental Protection Authority, the generally accepted noise limit is THIS IS PAGE NO. 34 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 186 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 35

considered to be the background level plus 5 dB. As such, the proposed development, as presented, is considered an unreasonable noise impact to the surrounding properties.

In accordance with the conclusions of the Acoustic Assessment Report provided, a suitable strategy to deliver compliance with the required dB level would be to implement a noise abatement measure, namely, the installation of a music level monitor which can be temporarily connected to the amplified music circuit when events are taking place in the marquee.

As such, the installation of such a noise attenuation device will form part of any conditions of temporary consent issued in respect of this development. (2) Despite any other provision of Noted. this Plan, development consent may be granted for development on land in any zone for a temporary use for a maximum period of 52 days (whether or not consecutive days) in any period of 12 months. (3) Development consent must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied that: (a) the temporary use will not Approval for the temporary use of the proposed 300m2 prejudice the subsequent marquee and existing bar as a function centre is carrying out of development considered consistent with the existing commercial use of on the land in accordance with the land as a tourist resort and is unlikely to compromise this Plan and any other the future development of the site. The temporary applicable environmental proposed use will not have a detrimental economic or planning instrument, and environmental effect on the land.

(b) the temporary use will not See previous comments regarding impact to the amenity adversely impact on any of adjoining land and the implementation of a noise adjoining land or the amenity attenuation device. It is considered that if the appropriate of the neighbourhood, and conditions of consent regarding noise abatement are adhered to, there will be no unreasonable adverse impact to the amenity of the adjoining land or neighbourhood.

(c) the temporary use and The area for the proposed development is a disturbed location of any structures piece of land within an existing operating tourist related to the use will not development. The temporary structure will be located on adversely impact on an existing concrete slab surrounded by lawn area. It is environmental attributes or therefore unlikely to pose a detrimental environmental features of the land, or impact or increase any hazards associated with the land. THIS IS PAGE NO. 35 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 187 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 36

increase the risk of natural Given the highly disturbed nature of the site, the existing hazards that may affect the use of the site and the current view of the existing bar land, and structure from the river, the proposal is not considered to pose a visual impact to the scenic amenity of the adjoining Murray River.

(d) at the end of the temporary The temporary structure will be erected on an existing use period the land will, as far purpose built concrete slab and will be dismantled in as is practicable, be restored between events. The removal of the proposed marquee to the condition in which it was will leave the site in the same condition as is present now. before the commencement of The proposed vehicle parking to accommodate the use of the use. the proposed marquee will be finished in crushed rock and is able to be re-turfed after the temporary use approval has ended.

(4) Despite subclause (2), the Not applicable to the proposed development temporary use of a dwelling as a sales office for a new release area or a new housing estate may exceed the maximum number of days specified in that subclause.

(5) Subclause (3) (d) does not Not applicable to the proposed development. apply to the temporary use of a dwelling as a sales office mentioned in subclause

Part 3 Exempt and Complying Development Comment: The proposed development does not meet the criteria to be classified as exempt or complying development.

Part 4 Principal Development Standards Comment: Not applicable to the subject proposal.

Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions Clause 5.9 Preservation of trees or vegetation Comment: No significant native vegetation is proposed to be removed as part of this development.

Clause 5.10 Heritage conservation Comment: No Items of Environmental Heritage are known to be located on site. There are no known heritage items located in the vicinity of the site. A plaque commemorating a historic figure of Moama was recently placed onsite, however the proposal is not considered to adversely impact upon the enjoyment of this memorial.

Part 6 Urban Release Areas Comment: The subject site is not mapped as an Urban Release Area.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 36 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 188 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 37

Part 7 Additional local provisions Clause 7.1 Essential services Comment: The site has existing access to all essential services required for this proposed development.

Clause 7.2 Earthworks (1) The objectives of this clause are as follows: (a) to ensure that earthworks for which development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land, (b) to allow earthworks of a minor nature without requiring separate development consent.

Comment: No significant earthworks are proposed as part of this development. The marquee will be anchored to the existing slab in accordance with the manufacturing requirements and standards of the marquee. The earthworks required to accommodate the formal car parking area are not considered to trigger the requirements under this clause for separate development approval and pose minimal impact to the environmental processes of the site or neighbouring uses or features. Stormwater drainage generated by the car parking area will be diverted to the adjacent dam on site. See previous comments regarding heritage. The proposal is not considered to pose an impact in respect of cultural heritage.

(2) Development consent is required for earthworks unless: (a) the work is exempt development under this Plan or another applicable environmental planning instrument, or (b) the work is ancillary to other development for which development consent has been given, or (c) the consent authority is satisfied that the work is of a minor nature.

Comment: The earthworks for the proposed car parking are considered to be of a minor nature and ancillary to the existing use of the site as a tourist facility. The proposed car parking area will also service the subject proposal.

(3) Before granting development consent for earthworks, the consent authority must consider the following matters: (a) the likely disruption of, or any detrimental effect on, existing drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality, (b) the effect of the proposed development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land, (c) the quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both, (d) the effect of the proposed development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining properties, (e) the source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material, (f) the likelihood of disturbing relics, (g) the proximity to and potential for adverse impacts on any watercourse, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area.

Note. The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, particularly section 86, deals with disturbing or excavating land and Aboriginal objects.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 37 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 189 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 38

Comment: The proposed earthworks do not require consent under this clause, however the proposal is not considered to pose an adverse impact to drainage patterns, soil stability or the redevelopment of the site. The proposed car park is not considered to pose any adverse impact to the amenity of the area with stormwater drainage directed to the adjacent dam onsite. The proposed car parking area will have minimal impact to the adjoining Murray River. No stormwater drainage generated by the car parking area will be permitted to discharge directly into the Murray River.

Clause 7.3 Biodiversity protection Considerations Comment (1) The objective of this clause is to The proposed temporary development is not maintain aquatic and terrestrial inconsistent with the objectives of this clause. biodiversity by: The proposed development will be carried out (a) protecting native fauna and flora, on a site which is already highly disturbed by (b) protecting the ecological human activity and does not pose a threat to processes necessary for their any native flora or fauna or ecological processes continued existence, that may be present onsite. No stormwater (c) encouraging the recovery of drainage generated by either the existing bar native fauna and flora and their structure or the propose car parking area will be habitats. permitted to discharge directly to the Murray River.

(2) This clause applies to land identified as Part of the subject site is identified on the “Key Fish Habitat” or “Terrestrial Biodiversity Map as being “Terrestrial Biodiversity” on the Biodiversity Map. Biodiversity” and therefore this clause applies. The site also directly adjoins land mapped as Key Fish Habitat (Aquatic Biodiversity).

(3) Before determining a development The proposed development will not require the application for development on land to removal of any native vegetation and will be which this clause applies, the consent carried out on a portion of the land already authority must consider whether or not subject to human activity. the development: (a) is likely to have any adverse As such the proposed development is not likely impact on the condition, to have any adverse impact on the condition, ecological value and significance ecological value and significance of the fauna of the fauna and flora on the land, and flora on the land or on the importance of the and native vegetation, habitat, or survival of native (b) is likely to have any adverse fauna. impact on the importance of the vegetation on the land to the Further, the proposed development will not habitat and survival of native fragment, disturb or diminish the biodiversity fauna, and structure, function and composition of the land. (c) has any potential to fragment, The proposed development is unlikely to have disturb or diminish the biodiversity any adverse impact on the habitat elements structure, function and providing connectivity on the land. composition of the land, and (d) is likely to have any adverse At the end of any consent issued for the impact on the habitat elements proposed temporary use of land, the land will, as providing connectivity on the land. far as practicable, be restored to the condition in THIS IS PAGE NO. 38 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 190 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 39

which is was before the commencement of the subject temporary use.

(4) Development consent must not be The proposed development has been designed granted to development on land to and sited to retain the significant native which this clause applies unless the vegetation onsite and will be conditioned to consent authority is satisfied that: ensure that stormwater run off generated from (a) the development is designed, the bar structure and the proposed car park will sited and will be managed to not discharge directly into the Murray River. The avoid any adverse environmental proposed development will be carried out on a impact, or small portion of the land already subject to (b) if that impact cannot be avoided— human activity. As such, it is considered that the the development is designed, development is unlikely to cause a detrimental sited and will be managed to impact to the environment, flora, fauna or minimise that impact, or habitat. (c) if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact.

Clause 7.4 Development on River Front Areas Comment: The proposed development is contained within river front area. Considerations Comment (1) The objectives of this clause are as The subject Application is not inconsistent with follows: the objectives of this clause. No development is (a) to support natural riverine proposed to occur to the banks of the river as part processes, including the migration of this development and the concrete slabs of the Murray and Wakool Rivers’ associated with the bar structure and the channels, marquee were completed as exempt (b) to protect and improve the bed development under the Codes SEPP. Stormwater and bank stability of those rivers, run off generated by the concrete slab housing (c) to maintain and improve the water the marquee will shed into the surrounding lawn quality of those rivers, areas for absorption and any temporary consent (d) to protect the amenity, scenic issued will be conditioned to ensure that landscape values and cultural stormwater run off generated from the bar heritage of those rivers and to structure and car park area cannot discharge protect public access to their directly into the Murray River. riverine corridors, The Application seeks to temporarily formalise a (e) to conserve and protect the structure which is already in place close to the riverine corridors of those rivers, high bank of the property and visible at present including wildlife habitat. from the river. Given the disturbed nature of the site and surrounds, it is unlikely that the existing scenic amenity will be significantly altered and as such, the proposal is not considered to significantly detract from the existing scenic landscape or amenity of the area. The structure is located on private land that does not currently have public access and therefore will not affect public access to riverine corridors. There are no THIS IS PAGE NO. 39 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 191 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 40

known cultural heritage items located on site. Revegetation of part of the riparian area will be required to be implemented as part of this proposal. At the end of any consent issued for the proposed temporary use of land, the land will, as far as practicable, be restored to the condition in which is was before the commencement of the subject temporary use.

The proposed development will not require the removal of any native vegetation and will be carried out on a portion of the land already significantly disturbed by human activity. As such, it is considered that the development is unlikely to cause a detrimental impact to the riverine corridors or any wildlife habitat that may be present.

(2) Despite any other provision of this Plan, The approval being sought is not of one of the development consent may only be uses listed in subclauses (a) – (f). However, the granted to development on land in a applicant has chosen to apply under Clause 2.8 river front area for the following “Temporary Use of Land’ of the Murray LEP 2011 purposes: which overrides the applications inconsistency (a) boat building and repair facilities, with the subject clause. 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,

(d) extensive agriculture and intensive plant agriculture,

(e) environmental facilities, recreation areas and recreation facilities (outdoors),

(f) water recreation structures.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 40 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 192 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 41

(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 The appearance of the proposal is deemed development, from both the river compatible. See previous comments regarding concerned and the river front the aesthetic of the proposal and the predicted area, will be compatible with the minimal impact of the proposal to the aesthetic of surrounding area, the Murray River and riverfront area in this location.

(b) that the development is not likely The subject application is consistent with this to cause environmental harm, objective. See previous comments regarding the including (but not limited to) the predicted minimal impact of the proposal on the following: riverine environment. (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 The appearance of the proposal is deemed cause only minimal visual compatible. See previous comments regarding disturbance to the existing the aesthetic of the proposal and the predicted landscape, minimal impact of the proposal to the aesthetic of the Murray River and riverfront area in this location. At the end of any consent issued for the proposed temporary use of land, the land will, as far as practicable, be restored to the condition in which is was before the commencement of the subject temporary use.

(d) that continuous public access, No public access currently exists to the river from and opportunities to provide this site. The site is contained within freehold continuous public access, along presumptive title. The existing access to the the river front and to the river riverfront and river will not be impacted by the concerned are not likely to be proposal. compromised,

(e) that any historic, scientific, There are no known items of cultural heritage cultural, social archaeological, located onsite. Due to the minimal nature of the architectural, natural or aesthetic proposed works, detrimental impacts to any significance of the land on which natural or aesthetic significance of the site are not the development is to be carried predicted to occur. out and of surrounding land is to be maintained.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 41 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 193 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 42

Clause 7.5 Riparian land and Murray River and other watercourses—general principles Comment: The proposed development is contained within riparian land.

Subclauses Comment (1) The objective of this clause is to protect The subject Application is not inconsistent with and maintain the following: the objectives of this clause. See previous (a) water quality within the Murray comments in this report regarding the minimum and Wakool Rivers and other impact predicted to occur to water quality, watercourses, bank/bed stability, aquatic habitats and ecological (b) the stability of the bed and banks processes. of those rivers and other watercourses, (c) aquatic riparian habitats, (d) ecological processes within those rivers and other watercourses and riparian areas.

(2) This clause applies to land: This clause is applicable. (a) identified as “Riparian Land and Waterways” on the Watercourse Map, and (b) situated within 40 metres of the top of the bank of a watercourse (being a watercourse situated on land referred to in paragraph (a)). (3) Before determining a development The subject Application is not inconsistent with application to carry out development on the objectives of this clause. See previous land to which this clause applies, the comments in this report regarding these consent authority must consider whether considerations. As such, the proposed or not the development: development is not considered to pose a (a) is likely to cause any adverse significant adverse impact to water quality or impact on the following: flows, flora or fauna, bed or bank stability, the free (i) the water quality and flows passage of fish and other aquatic organisms, or within a watercourse, any future rehabilitation of a watercourse and (ii) aquatic and riparian species, riparian areas. The proposed development will habitats and ecosystems, not increase water extraction from the Murray (iii) the stability of the bed, shore River. and banks of a watercourse, (iv) the free passage of fish and other aquatic organisms within or along a watercourse, (v) any future rehabilitation of a watercourse and riparian areas, and (b) will increase water extraction from a watercourse.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 42 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 194 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 43

(4) Development consent must not be The erection of the temporary structure will occur granted to development on land to which on an existing concrete slab constructed as this clause applies unless the consent exempt development. The car parking proposed authority is satisfied that: as part of this application requires minor (a) the development is designed, earthworks and does note require the removal of sited and will be managed to significant native vegetation. The site is an area avoid any significant adverse which is already highly disturbed by human environmental impact, or activity and the proposed development and (b) if that impact cannot be avoided function activities are not predicted to present a by adopting feasible significant adverse impact to the riverine land of alternatives—the development is the site. At the end of any consent issued for the designed, sited and will be proposed temporary use of land, the land will, as managed to minimise that impact, far as practicable, be restored to the condition in or which is was before the commencement of the (c) if that impact cannot be subject temporary use. minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact.

Clause 7.6 Additional provisions—development on river bed and banks of the Murray and Wakool Rivers Comment: No works are proposed to occur on the bed or banks of the Murray or Wakool Rivers. As such this Clause is not applicable.

Clause 7.7 Wetlands Comment: Part of the site of the proposed temporary use is mapped as wetlands and therefore this Clause applies.

(1) The objective of this clause is to ensure that natural wetlands are preserved and protected from the impacts of development.

Comment: The proposed application seeks consent for temporary consent on a parcel of land already highly disturbed and altered by human activity. The temporary nature of the proposal, together with the minimal level of physical works required to implement this proposed temporary use are considered to pose minor impact to the wetland characteristics of the site. Additionally, at the end of any consent issued for the proposed temporary use of land, the land will, as far as practicable, be restored to the condition in which is was before the commencement of the subject temporary use.

(2) This clause applies to land identified as “Wetlands and Freshwater Lakes” on the Wetlands Map.

Comment: Noted. This Clause is applicable to the subject Application.

(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

THIS IS PAGE NO. 43 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 195 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 44

(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.

Comment: Noted. The subject Application for temporary use of land and associated temporary structure are not considered to pose a significant adverse impact to native flora or fauna, habitat, water or wetland. See previous comments contained within this report regarding the minimal predicted impact with respect to these considerations.

(4) Before granting consent to development to which this clause applies the consent authority must be satisfied that: (a) the development is sited, designed and managed to avoid potential adverse environmental impacts, or (b) where an impact cannot be avoided, and having taken into consideration feasible alternatives, the proposed design, construction and operational management of the development will mitigate and minimise those impacts to a satisfactory extent.

Comment: Noted. Council staff is satisfied that the proposal is sited, designed, and can be managed to avoid potential adverse environmental impact. See previous comments throughout this report regarding these considerations. The site is already in a highly disturbed and altered state as a result of the existing operation of the site as a tourist development and at the end of any consent issued for the proposed temporary use of land, the land will, as far as practicable, be restored to the condition in which is was before the commencement of the subject temporary use.

Clause 7.8 Flood Planning Subclauses Comment (1) The objectives of this clause are as The proposed development site is classified as follows: “Low Hazard Flood Storage” in a 1 in 100 ARI (a) to minimise the flood risk to life and flood event and High Hazard Floodway in a 1 in property associated with the use of land, 200 ARI event. There would be ample warning (b) to allow development on land that is available to the owners of the site in the event of compatible with the land’s flood hazard, a flood which would allow the complete removal taking into account projected changes as a of the structure well before a flood event occurs. result of climate change, As the structure would not be in use in times of (c) to avoid significant adverse impacts on flooding there is no increased risk to life posed flood behaviour and the environment. as a result of this development.

Due to the nature of the proposal, the proposed development will not reduce the existing level of flood storage area and is unlikely to adversely affect the behaviour of floodwaters or detrimentally effects the natural environment. (2) This clause applies to: The subject land is affected by the applicable (a) land that is shown as “Flood planning mapping, therefore this clause applies. area” on the Flood Planning Map, and (b) other land at or below the flood planning level.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 44 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 196 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 45

(3) Development consent must not be See previous comments regarding these granted to development on land to which considerations. The proposed development is this clause applies unless the consent deemed compatible with the flood hazard of the authority is satisfied that the development: land and is not a nature or design that will (a) is compatible with the flood hazard of impact upon the behaviour of floodwaters. The the land, and structure will not be used during flooding and is (b) is not likely to significantly adversely able to be removed well before the arrival of affect flood behaviour resulting in flood waters. detrimental increases in the potential flood No native vegetation is proposed to be removed affectation of other development or as part of this development. As such, the properties, and proposed structure is deemed unlikely to (c) incorporates appropriate measures to significantly adversely effect the environment or manage risk to life from flood, and reduce the stability of the bed or bank. As the (d) is not likely to significantly adversely proposed development is unlikely to increase affect the environment or cause avoidable risk to life and property and will not be utilised erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian for a habitable purpose, the proposal is deemed vegetation or a reduction in the stability of compatible with the flood hazard of the land and river banks or watercourses, and is unlikely to cause a social or economic cost to (e) is not likely to result in unsustainable the community in the event of a flood. social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding.

(4) A word or expression used in this Noted. clause has the same meaning as it has in the Floodplain Development Manual (ISBN 0 7347 5476 0), published in 2005 by the NSW Government, unless it is otherwise defined in this clause.. (5) In this clause, flood planning level Noted. means the level of a 1:100 ARI (average recurrent interval) flood event plus a minimum 0.5 metre freeboard.

3.2(a)(i)b Murray Regional Environmental Plan 2 – Riverine Land Comment: The subject site is mapped as Murray Regional Environmental Plan 2 – Riverine Land.

Clause 2 Aims of the plan The aims of this plan are to conserve and enhance the riverine environment of the River Murray for the benefit of all users.

Comment: The proposed development is not inconsistent with this aim of this plan. See previous comments in this report regarding the suspected minimal impact to the riverine environment as a result of this proposal.

Clause 3 Objectives of the plan The objectives of this plan are: (a) to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to development with the potential to adversely affect the riverine environment of the River Murray, and

THIS IS PAGE NO. 45 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 197 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 46

(b) to establish a consistent and co-ordinated approach to environmental planning and assessment along the River Murray, and (c) to conserve and promote the better management of the natural and cultural heritage values of the riverine environment of the River Murray.

Comment: The proposed development is not inconsistent with this clause. The proposal is not considered to pose any increased adverse affect to the riverine environment of the River Murray and has been subject to the required assessment under all applicable legislation. The area is already highly disturbed by human activity, has been changed considerably from its natural state over a number of years, and is not considered to hold any natural or cultural heritage values associated with the riverine environment of the River Murray. The proposal is not considered to pose an impact to any heritage items that may be located onsite.

Clause 9 General principles When this Part applies, the following must be taken into account: (a) the aims, objectives and planning principles of this plan, (b) any relevant River Management Plan, (c) any likely effect of the proposed plan or development on adjacent and downstream local government areas, (d) the cumulative impact of the proposed development on the River Murray.

Comment: The aims, objectives and planning principles of this plan have been considered in the assessment of this development application. No relevant River Management Plan applies in this instance. The proposed development was referred to a number of referral bodies who have not raised objection to the proposal and have issued their respective conditions of consent. The proposed temporary structure is not predicted to increase erosion or result in sedimentation of the river and is not predicted to detrimentally affect water quality, river flows or the migration of aquatic species. Due to the size, nature and minimal environmental impact posed by the proposal, the cumulative impact to the River Murray and downstream areas is predicted to be minimal.

Clause 10 Specific principles When this Part applies, the following must be taken into account:

Access • The waterway and much of the foreshore of the River Murray is a public resource. Alienation or obstruction of this resource by or for private purposes should not be supported. • Development along the main channel of the River Murray should be for public purposes. Moorings in the main channel should be for the purposes of short stay occupation only. • Human and stock access to the River Murray should be managed to minimise the adverse impacts of uncontrolled access on the stability of the bank and vegetation growth.

Comment: The subject site is freehold land with presumptive Title and therefore no public access to the Murray River existing as present. The development will not be located in the main channel of the river and does not propose human (or stock) access to the River as part of the subject Development Application. The Applicants have a deferred commencement approval for an access structure and mooring structure issued under Development Application 158/14.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 46 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 198 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 47

Bank disturbance • Disturbance to the shape of the bank and riparian vegetation should be kept to a minimum in any development of riverfront land.

Comment: No works to the bank will occur as a result of this proposed development. The development is sited in a manner that retains the significant native vegetation onsite and will be conditioned to ensure that stormwater run off generated from the bar structure and carpark area does not discharge directly into the Murray River. Stormwater run off generated by the marquee area will shed into the adjoining lawn area. Stormwater generated by the car park will be directed to the adjacent dam onsite.

Flooding • Where land is subject to inundation by floodwater: (a) the benefits to riverine ecosystems of periodic flooding, (b) the hazard risks involved in developing that land, (c) the redistributive effect of the proposed development on floodwater, (d) the availability of other suitable land in the locality not liable to flooding, (e) the availability of flood free access for essential facilities and services, (f) the pollution threat represented by any development in the event of a flood, (g) the cumulative effect of the proposed development on the behaviour of floodwater, and (h) the cost of providing emergency services and replacing infrastructure in the event of a flood. • Flood mitigation works constructed to protect new urban development should be designed and maintained to meet the technical specifications of the Department of Water Resources.

Comment: The demountable nature of the marquee structure will pose no impact to the periodic flooding which may occur on this site. As the proposal will not change the physical flood storage capacity available onsite, the proposal is unlikely to impact on the behaviour of flood waters. The structure is not intended for human habitation and will not be erected or used in the event of a flood and therefore will not increase the risk of life or property, or increase the cost of providing emergency services to the site in the event of a flood. The proposed structure will be directly associated with this private site, the whole of which is classified as “Low Hazard Flood Storage” in a 1 in 100 ARI flood event and High Hazard Floodway in a 1 in 200 ARI flood event. The permanent bar structure which is already erected onsite will not be removed in the event of a flood, however it is considered that the footprint of the structure will not significantly reduce the flood storage capacity of the site. As such, the location of the proposed development is deemed suitable with regard to flooding. The proposal does not pose a pollution threat as in the event of a flood as the contents of the bar are able to be removed and the marquee dismantled well before a flood event with no part remaining onsite which could potentially form floating debris in the event of a flood. There is a probability that the crushed rock surface of the car park may be displaced and transported in floodwaters, however as the displacement of loose top surface on any lot subject to flooding is likely to occur in the event of a flood, this is not considered to pose a significant pollution threat. Sewer services are connected to the bar structure to cater for the wastewater generated by the internal sink, these services will be required to be capped or disengaged prior to the arrival of floodwaters. No flood mitigation works are proposed as part of this development.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 47 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 199 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 48

Land degradation • Development should seek to avoid land degradation processes such as erosion, native vegetation decline, pollution of ground or surface water, groundwater accession, salination and soil acidity, and adverse effects on the quality of terrestrial and aquatic habitats.

Comment: No physical works to the bank or riverfront land will occur as a result of this development. The development has been designed and sited to retain the vegetation onsite and will be conditioned to ensure that stormwater run off generated from the bar structure does not discharge directly into the Murray River. Stormwater run off generated by the proposed marquee area will shed onto the adjoining lawn area. Stormwater generated by the proposed parking area is proposed to be diverted to the adjoining dam onsite. Any consent issued in respect of the bar structure and car parking area will include conditions to ensure that stormwater does not discharge directly into the Murray River. The nature of the proposal poses minimal environmental impact during operation. The proposal is not of a nature or use that will increase erosion or pose a pollution threat.

Landscape • Measures should be taken to protect and enhance the riverine landscape by maintaining native vegetation along the riverbank and adjacent land, rehabilitating degraded sites and stabilising and revegetating riverbanks with appropriate species.

Comment: No native vegetation is required to be removed and no physical works to the bank or riverfront land will occur as a result of this development. A landscaping plan was submitted as part of this application. The application was referred to NSW Office of Water (NSW DPI Water) who have suggested that: “…a fence should be constructed excluding access to the top 20m from the high bank. This is in accordance with the NSW Office of Water’s ‘Guidelines for Riparian Corridors on Waterfront Land’. This is to prevent degradation of the bank and any riparian vegetation. It is suggested that vegetation be established in this area as an offset for the intrusion into the area within 40m of the highbank. The fence would also aid in the prevention of pollution of the watercourse during events…”

Council received further correspondence from NSW DPI Water stating that their original response was merely ‘advice to Council’, and that Council ‘was free to use our [DPI Water] advice or not’. This advice has been taken into consideration, however as the development is located close to the bank of the Murray River (within 20m) a fence excluding access would have nil effect except to enclose the development into that 20m area. A barrier fence which has been erected on the top of the river bank (forming part of this consent application) is already in place, restricting access down the river bank to the stairway approved under DA 158/14. The comments regarding the revegetation of the riverbank are acknowledged. As the application seeks temporary consent spanning for a period of 12 months only, enforcing a requirement that the applicant provide landscaping of the riverbank is considered onerous in this instance.

River related uses • Only development which has a demonstrated, essential relationship with the river Murray should be located in or on land adjacent to the River Murray. Other development should be set well back from the bank of the River Murray. • Development which would intensify the use of riverside land should provide public access to the foreshore.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 48 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 200 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 49

Comment: The Application is deemed inconsistent with this clause. The Application seeks to formalise the temporary use of the existing bar structure and erect a demountable marquee structure, both for use at events. The proposed development does not have a demonstrated ‘essential relationship’ with the river and will not provide public access to the foreshore. It is noted that the proposed development is located in an area already highly disturbed by human use where structures (the bar) and infrastructure (the concrete slabs and service connections) are already in place.

It is noted that while the development does not have a demonstrated ‘essential relationship’ with the river, the development is located in an area already highly disturbed by human use where structures (the bar) and infrastructure (the concrete slabs and service connections) are already in place. This development poses minimal environmental impact as the existing approved use of the site has significantly altered the natural biodiversity of the site through daily human use, together with the landscaping of the site which provides a cleared lawn area, and a cleared and levelled gravelled area around the bar area abutting the top of the river bank. While the site is already being used for the purposes of this development, the use of the site for this purpose does present an intensification of the site when compared to the use of the site prior to the installation of the marquee area. However, this intensification is not considered to pose a significant adverse environmental impact based on the existing disturbed characteristics of the site as a tourist development.

In accordance with the requirements of subclause 10 of Murray REP 2, Council staff has “taken into account” the above subject subclause and have determined that while the proposal is inconsistent with this specific principle, the development poses minimum adverse impact to the riverine environment, and therefore is consistent with the overarching aims of Murray REP 2. In accordance with Clause 6 of SEPP 1 (State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards), the applicant has lodged an objection to the application of this development standard. This SEPP 1 objection will be detailed in a later section of this report.

Settlement • New or expanding settlements (including rural-residential subdivision, tourism and recreational development) should be located: (a) on flood free land, (b) close to existing services and facilities, and (c) on land that does not compromise the potential of prime crop and pasture land to produce food or fibre.

Comment: The Application is deemed consistent with this clause. The proposed development is not expanding the habitable portion of the tourist resort, and instead seeks consent for a temporary use to hold events in a temporary structure and utilise an existing bar structure onsite. No part of the land is flood free, however the temporary nature of the proposed development is deemed compatible with the hazard of the land as it will not increase the risk to life, reduce the flood storage capacity of the site, or increase the cost to the community in the event of a flood. The site is not considered or used for prime crop land.

Water quality All decisions affecting the use or management of riverine land should seek to reduce pollution caused by salts and nutrients entering the River Murray and otherwise improve the quality of water in the River Murray.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 49 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 201 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 50

Comment: Noted. The Application poses minimal environmental impact to water quality and riverine land and does not pose a pollution threat via the entry of salts or nutrients. The application is deemed consistent with this clause.

Wetlands • Wetlands are a natural resource which have ecological, recreational, economic, flood storage and nutrient and pollutant filtering values. Land use and management decisions affecting wetlands should: (a) provide for a hydrological regime appropriate for the maintenance or restoration of the productive capacity of the wetland, (b) consider the potential impact of surrounding land uses and incorporate measures such as a vegetated buffer which mitigate against any adverse effects, (c) control human and animal access, and (d) conserve native plants and animals.

Comment: The nature of the proposed development poses minimal environmental impact. The existing bar structure does not require any further works, and the proposed marquee will be bolted to the existing concrete slab in accordance with the manufacturers specifications. The minor earthworks associated with the proposed car parking area are not predicted to pose any significant impact. The temporary use will not increase erosion and no significant native vegetation will be removed as a result of the development. The development site is located in an area that is already significantly disturbed by human activity and therefore is deemed to present a minimal risk to any wetland. There is no foreshore access proposed as part of the subject development.

Clause 13 Planning Control and Consultation Table Comment: The proposed development was referred and advertised under this plan in accordance with the requirements for a ‘tourist associated facility’ with submissions received from the relevant referral authorities.

3.2(a)(i)c State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards Clause 3 - Aims, objectives etc This Policy provides flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.

Comment: The Applicant has lodged an objection under Clause 6 of SEPP 1. The Applicant notes that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The objectives of Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) are to encourage:

(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment; and (ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land,

THIS IS PAGE NO. 50 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 202 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 51

The Applicant notes that the proposal meets these objectives as: • “…Ground disturbance in limited to the hardstand area upon which the temporary structure is placed… • …There will be no disturbance to the bed or banks of the river…” • …The events will embellish the operation of the Tindarra Resort and therefor [sic] have a positive impact… • …The events will allow visitors to the resort to enjoy the river experience… • …The environmental impacts will be minimal…”

Comment: It is agreed that the proposal does not pose an adverse impact to the proper management, development or conservation of natural and artificial resources as there will be minimal environmental impact or disturbance. It is also agreed that the proposal will not inhibit the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic development of land as the proposal will enhance Tindarra Resort for its users and in turn provide additional services and facilities within Murray Shire.

In accordance with Clause 6 of the SEPP, the applicant notes that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in this instance as: • “…The events do not involve any new buildings or permanent structures close to the river… • The events site is set back from the top of the river (i.e. no impact on the bed or bank)… • The events are on an irregular basis and as such there are extensive periods when there is no activity and therefore no impact… • The events will have a positive economic impact without any impact to the environment… • The events are on private land that extends to the river and hence there is no opportunity for public access… • Whilst not essential, the events have some relationship with the river that is providing a venue where persons can experience the unique river environment...”

Comment: It is agreed that enforcing such a development standard is somewhat unnecessary in this instance as the bulk of the works associated with this development have been completed as exempt development and are already in place. This Application seeks consent to erect a temporary structure, and harness an existing structure for temporary events onsite. The addition of a car parking area in the river front area is predicted to pose minimal environmental impact. It is noted that while the development does not have a demonstrated ‘essential relationship’ with the river, the subject site is located in an area already highly disturbed by human use where the biodiversity of the site has been augmented significantly by the approved tourist facility use (manicured lawns, bar structure on the river’s edge etc., gravelled and cleared area to the top of the river bank). As such, it is considered that there would be little environmental benefit gained in setting this temporary use “…well back from the bank of the River Murray…” as the riverfront is already developed as part of the approved use of the land and utilised accordingly. This additional temporary use does is not considered to pose a significantly increased environmental impact to that what exists at present.

It is agreed the enforcing development standard to require that “…Development which would intensify the use of riverside land should provide public access to the foreshore…” is unnecessary in this instance as the land holds presumptive title, and no public access to the site currently exists.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 51 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 203 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 52

General comments: In accordance with advice from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (NSW Department of Planning and Environment), Council has assumed the Director’s Concurrence to determine matters arising under SEPP 1 where an objection is raised with regard to principles contained within Murray REP 2. Please see attached correspondence dated 22 October 2013 from the NSW Department of Planning and Environment, attached as Appendix C for your reference. As such, in accordance with Clause 7 of SEPP 1, Council is satisfied that the basis for the objection is well founded and the application is consistent with the aims of this policy and the SEPP 1 Application should be supported. In accordance with the guidelines released by NSW Planning and Environment, applications seeking to vary a development standard should be subject to the ‘five part test’ established by the NSW Land and Environment Court, as follows:

• the objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding noncompliance with the standard

Comment: The objectives of Murray REP 2 are:- (a) to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to development with the potential to adversely affect the riverine environment of the River Murray, and (b) to establish a consistent and co-ordinated approach to environmental planning and assessment along the River Murray, and (c) to conserve and promote the better management of the natural and cultural heritage values of the riverine environment of the River Murray.

In achieving this aim, Murray REP2 contains a planning principle requiring that:- • Only development which has a demonstrated, essential relationship with the river Murray should be located in or on land adjacent to the River Murray. Other development should be set well back from the bank of the River Murray. • Development which would intensify the use of riverside land should provide public access to the foreshore.

It is considered that the proposal has been subject to appropriate consideration, and is deemed to pose minimal environmental impact. The proposed use will be temporary and is proposed on a part of the site which has already been significantly altered from the natural state as a result of daily human use associated with the existing approval for the tourist resort. The application has been subject to all required legislative considerations during the course of the assessment and based on the nature of the proposal has been deemed by Council staff to present a minimal impact to the natural and cultural heritage values of the riverine environment.

• the underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is unnecessary;

Comment: It is considered that the purpose of the standard is to minimise impact to the riverine environment by limiting the type of development that may be located in or adjacent to the River Murray. As previously discussed, the proposal is considered to pose minimal adverse impact to the riverine environment and therefore the overarching purpose of the standard to only allow development with an essential relationship to the river adjacent to the River Murray is not required in this instance as the overarching aim of the standard to limit impact to the riverine environment is nonetheless able to be achieved.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 52 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 204 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 53

• the underlying object or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable;

Comment: As previously discussed, the proposal is considered to pose minimal adverse impact to the riverine environment and therefore the overarching purpose of the standard is able to be achieved. While the underlying objective of Murray REP2 would not necessarily be defeated or thwarted, compliance with the standard to achieve this objective is considered unreasonable in this instance as the overarching aim of the standard to limit impact to the riverine environment is nonetheless able to be achieved.

• the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable;

Comment: The development standard has not been virtually abandoned or destroyed by Murray Shire Council, however compliance with the standard to achieve the objective is considered unreasonable in this instance as the overarching aim of the standard to limit impact to the riverine environment is nonetheless able to be achieved.

• the compliance with development standard is unreasonable or inappropriate due to existing use of land and current environmental character of the particular parcel of land. That is, the particular parcel of land should not have been included in the zone.

Comment: As previously discussed throughout this report, the proposed temporary use will is proposed on a part of the site which has already been significantly altered from the natural state as a result of daily human use associated with the existing approval for the tourist resort. While the zoning of the land (or mapping of the land as being covered my Murray REP2) remains appropriate, compliance with the standard to achieve the objective is considered unreasonable in this instance as the overarching aim of the standard to limit impact to the riverine environment is nonetheless able to be achieved.

3.2(a)(i)d State Environmental Planning Policy (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions 2007 Comment: The temporary structure was not exempt or complying development under this SEPP. Refer below:

Clause 3 The aims of this Policy are as follows: (a) to ensure that suitable provision is made for ensuring the safety of persons using temporary structures, (b) to encourage the protection of the environment at the location, and in the vicinity, of temporary structures by (among other things) managing noise, parking and traffic impacts and ensuring heritage protection, (c) to specify the circumstances in which the erection and use of temporary structures are complying development or exempt development,

Comment: The proposed development is not inconsistent with the aims of the SEPP. The proposed marquee will be erected and utilised in accordance with the manufacturers specifications and a noise attenuation device will be attached to the amplifier associated with events to mitigate noise impact (see previous comments throughout this report).

THIS IS PAGE NO. 53 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 205 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 54

Parking has been suitably catered for and no impact to traffic is predicted to occur as a result of this proposal. No heritage items are located on site or in the vicinity. No adverse impact to heritage is predicted to occur as a result of this proposed development.

Clause 11 Permissibility of erection of temporary structures (1) Development comprising the erection of a temporary structure may be carried out only with development consent, except as otherwise provided by this Policy. (2) Subclause (1) does not apply to development comprising the erection of a temporary structure that is exempt development or complying development, or is prohibited, under another environmental planning instrument. (3) For the purposes of subclause (2), the existing provisions of an environmental planning instrument are taken to prohibit development comprising the erection of a temporary structure only if, in doing so, temporary structures or a relevant class of temporary structures are expressly referred to.

Comment: The development is not exempt or complying under this SEPP. A Development Application has been lodged and is permissible with consent.

Clause 12 Matters for consideration Before granting consent to the erection of a temporary structure, the consent authority must consider the following matters:

Subclause Comment (a) whether the number of The maximum number of people permitted in the marquee persons who may use the will be 250 people. structure at any one time should be limited,

(b) any adverse impact on As determined by the Acoustic Assessment Report provided persons in the vicinity of any by the Applicant at Council’s request, the noise emitted from noise likely to be caused by the events within the proposed marquee is likely to pose an proposed erection or use of the impact to some adjoining property owners, with variations to structure and any proposed the baseline dB ranging from 8 dB to 28 dB. As such, in measures for limiting the accordance with the recommendations of the Acoustic impact, Assessment Report (attached as Appendix B for Council’s reference), staff consider that the installation of noise attenuation devices effecting the dB volume able to be emitted from the music amplifier at events is a suitable outcome to ensure that adverse impact to persons in the vicinity is mitigated.

(c) whether the hours during The Applicant proposed to gain approval for operation which the structure is used between the hours of 8am to 12am, which are considered to should be limited, be suitable, given the mitigation devices that will be required to be incorporated. These hours of operation and noise mitigation measures will be incorporated into any consent issued in respect of this development.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 54 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 206 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 55

(d) any parking or traffic The parking concept proposed by the application is impacts likely to be caused by considered to suitably cater for the proposed development. the erection of the structure or The location of the parking areas is not considered to pose its proposed use, an impact to traffic or existing parking onsite.

(e) the principles for minimising Consent authority must consider this. The Applicant will take crime risk set out in Part B of these into consideration when erecting the structure. Crime the Crime Prevention risk is considered very low on the site. The Applicant notes Guidelines, that surveillance during events will be provided by security guards, managers of events and staff working at the events. The site is private land which will be well lit. Access to the site is restricted to the vehicle entrance from Perricoota Road and the approved pontoon and walkway leading up the riverbank of the Murray River (approved as deferred commencement). These access points will be managed to control access to the site.

(f) whether the proposed The structure is located well away from public roads, is well location of the structure is clear of utilities and will have adequate access, as required. satisfactory in terms of the following: (i) the proposed distance of the structure from public roads and property boundaries, (ii) the location of underground or overhead utilities, (iii) vehicular and pedestrian access,

(g) whether it is necessary to Additional toilet and washbasin facilities are required to be provide toilets and washbasins provided on a temporary basis during events. To account for in association with the use of need, a temporary toilet block will be erected onsite during the structure, events which will provide for: • One (1) separated unisex disabled toilet with wash basin; • Male toilet area including one (1) pan, single urinal and two (2) washbasins; and • Female toilet area including two (2) pans and two (2) wash basins. Additional portable toilets would be hired for to cater for larger events as required.

(h) whether the structure is Not applicable to the subject site. No heritage items are proposed to be erected on land located onsite. that comprises, or on which there is: (i) an item of environmental heritage that is listed on the State Heritage Register, or that is subject to an interim heritage

THIS IS PAGE NO. 55 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 207 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 56 order, under the Heritage Act 1977, or (ii) a place, building, work, tree, relic or Aboriginal object that is described as an item of environmental heritage or as a heritage item in another environmental planning instrument, or (iii) land identified as a heritage conservation area, an archaeological site or a place of Aboriginal heritage significance in another environmental planning instrument,

(i) the duration for which the The structure will be erected on a temporary basis and will structure should be permitted to be permitted to operate 52 times in the temporary use period remain on the land concerned, of 12 months. Any consent issued in respect of this proposal will allow a maximum of 52 events in any calendar year. After 52 events have occurred for that 12 month period, the marquee (including frame) is to be dismantled for the remainder of that calendar year.

(j) whether any conditions Condition of consent. should be imposed on the granting of consent in relation to the dismantling or removal of the structure in view of any safety issues.

3.2(a)(i)e SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008 Comment: The subject site is not RU1 zoned land.

3.2(a)(i)f 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)g State Environmental Planning Policy No 55- Remediation of Land Comment: The subject allotment is not listed on the Contaminated Lands Register for Murray Shire. 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 SEPP (Building Sustainability Index) 2004 Comment: Not applicable.

3.2(a)(i)i State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 Comment: This SEPP does not apply.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 56 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 208 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 57

3.2(a)(ii) Proposed environmental planning instruments Comment: No proposed environmental planning instruments were proposed as at the time of lodgement. The proposal has been assessed against the current version of the Murray LEP 2011.

3.2(a)(iii) Any development control plan Comment: Murray Shire Development Control Plan 2012 applies. Chapters 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are applicable to this Application. Chapters 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 do not apply. It is noted that ‘Chapter 5 – Tourist Accommodation’ does not apply in this instance, as while the proposed development is associated with approved tourist accommodation, the Application does not proposed any additional tourist accommodation.

Chapter 4 – Commercial Development Comment: Subchapter 4.1 (Location), 4.2 (Appearance and design), 4.4 (Heritage), and 4.5 (Signage) are not applicable to the proposed development, however subchapter 4.3 (Landscaping) and 4.6 (Parking) is applicable.

Subchapter 4.3 – Landscaping Objectives • Landscaping is of a control that enhances the amenity of the development and commercial areas

Comment: Noted.

Controls • Developments which are set back from the street frontage shall incorporate appropriate landscaping with the front setback that enhances the visual quality and character of the street. • Car parks in excess of 10 spaces are to be provided with appropriate internal landscaping.

Comment: Appropriate landscaping within the front setback from the street forms part of the existing consent operating onsite. It is considered that as this Application seeks consent for a temporary use of the site, it is onerous to require the Applicant to provide permanent landscaping of a temporary carpark, being that the site will be restored to its original state after the lapse of any temporary consent issued in respect of this proposal.

Subchapter 4.6 – Parking Objectives • To match the supply of car parking with the demand likely to be generated by customers and employees. • To ensure off-street car parking and manoeuvring areas are to a high control. • Minimisation of the visual impact of large areas of car park. • Buffer between car parks and adjoining property. • Safe car parks (particularly at night). • Pedestrian and vehicular movement through commercial areas in a functional, safe and integrated fashion.

Comment: The car parking proposed by the applicant is considered to suitably cater for the anticipated demand for car parking. No off street parking is proposed.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 57 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 209 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 58

While the car parking area is proposed to be located in the river front area of the lot; this area is already highly disturbed by human activity and has been cleared of significant native vegetation as part of the existing facility approval. The proposed car parking is predicted to pose minimal visual impact. Existing native vegetation is in place along the boundaries of the property. This native vegetation is considered to provide a suitable buffer. The proposed car parking is considered to be safe for the proposed use. The parking proposed is not considered to pose an adverse impact to the pedestrian vehicle movement onsite or in the vicinity.

Controls • Surface car parking is to be located to the side or rear of the development.

Comment: The proposed car parking is planned to be located to the side of the proposed development.

• Car parking to be provided at the rate required in Chapter 5 of the NSW Roads & Maritime guide, shown in Table 4.1 below. Land Use Parking Requirements Casual accommodation Motels 1 space for each unit + 1 space per 2 employees. If restaurant included then add the greater of 15 spaces per 100m2 GFA of restaurant I function room, or 1 space per 3 seats.

Comment: In accordance with the extract of Table 4.1 above, the development triggers 45 parking spaces based on floor area (300m2) or 83 parking spaces based on seats (250 persons). The Applicant has proposed to provide both formal and informal parking to cater for approximately 72 spaces, with the surrounding area able to cater for more parking when required. The parking concept plan submitted by the Applicant is set out below.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 58 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 210 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 59

Based on the advice of the Applicant that the average event yields approximately 100 people, Council staff are satisfied that the use of both formal and informal parking is a suitable approach to catering for the likely average parking demand, while also suitably supplying car parking for the maximum number of persons permitted to attend events in the marquee. The Applicant has also provided the following comments for consideration in respect of parking demand:-

• The serving of alcohol at events significantly reduces the demand for parking spaces as many participants arrive as passengers in cars, by public transport or by boat. • The accommodation onsite also diminishes parking requirements as guests of the event do also often stay onsite.

Comment: While the proposal presented by the application is officially deficient of the ‘per seat’ 83 car space requirement, Council staff are satisfied that this deficit can be temporarily accommodated when required within the existing grassed areas of the resort, close to the existing overflow parking.

• Parking spaces should be designed in accordance with Australian Standard 2890.1 and 2890.2.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 59 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 211 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 60

Comment: The proposed car parking has been designed in accordance with the relevant Australian standards. The parking concept was provided to Council’s Engineering Department for comment. Council’s Engineering Department did not object to the proposed parking concept.

• Car parks adjoining public land (including a road) shall be provided with a landscape strip at the interface.

Comment: No part of the proposed parking directly adjoins public land.

• Car parking to be accessible at all times during the business hours of the premises.

Comment: The proposed parking is consistent with this control.

• Car parks to be designed to provide pedestrian connectivity and minimise conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.

Comment: The proposed parking is consistent with this control.

• Loading facilities are to be located at the rear or side of the building and not adjacent to any residential property.

Comment: Not applicable to the proposed development. The bar structure is located away from the parking area. There is sufficient clear space onsite to enable to loading of the bar structure. No facilities are located onsite or associated with the preparation of food. Food brought onsite will be via catering companies. There is sufficient space onsite to enable loading and unloading for the purposes of catering. This loading/unloading will be occurring in excess of 200m from the closest residence on an adjoining property.

Chapter 6 – Strategic Land Use Plan Comment: The Murray Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP) shows this area as preferred for ‘Rural’ development; however the proposal is associated with an approved tourist facility. The SLUP details that tourist facilities should be located as to avoid conflict with adjoining land uses, and be connected to all available services and infrastructure. The subject proposal has access to all required services, and with suitable noise mitigation techniques, is not predicted to pose a land use conflict.

Chapter 9 – Vegetation removal Comment: The subject development does not propose the removal of any significant vegetation.

Chapter 10: Water Front and River Front Areas

10.1 Visual Amenity

Objectives • To protect the visual amenity created by the natural river environment. • To avoid works and structures that have a detrimental visual impact.

Comment: No permanent building works are proposed as part of the subject application. The temporary erection of a marquee structure for use at event bookings is not considered to have a detrimental visual impact. The bar structure to be utilised as part of this temporary use is already in place.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 60 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 212 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 61

The proposed car parking is not considered to pose a detrimental visual impact. Any consent issued in respect of this proposal will incorporate a requirement to revegetate a portion of riverfront area and river bank which is considered to improve the existing visual amenity of the site in this area.

Controls • All structures and buildings are to be designed to minimise the visual impact on the natural environment. • Buildings and structures are to utilise building materials and colours that blend with the natural environment. Bright or reflective colours (unless necessary for safety reasons) and materials will not be supported by Council. • Landscaping of native riparian vegetation is be used to soften visual amenity impacts but not used as a substitute for appropriate siting of buildings and structures in the river environment

Comment: No building works are proposed as part of the subject Application. The subject marquee is white, and therefore is not a colour that blends with the natural environment. However, as this structure is to be used on a temporary basis during events and functions, the white colour is considered acceptable in this instance. The riverbank and riparian area surrounding the site (outside of the lawn area) contains stands of mature gum trees, which are considered to soften the visual impact of the structure. No vegetation will be removed. Any consent issued in respect of this proposal will include conditions requiring the revegetation of a portion of the river bank and riparian area.

10.2 Boat ramps Comment: Not applicable.

10.3 Pontoons and walkways Comment: Not applicable.

10.4 Retaining walls Comment: Not applicable.

10.5 Stairs Comment: Not applicable.

10.6 Moorings Comment: Not applicable.

10.7 Liability & public safety Objectives • To protect the public from harm or injury from using approved river structures.

Controls • All pontoons or walkways are to be provided with an engineer’s certificate validating the structural integrity. • All private structures are to have restricted access and appropriate signage to prohibit unauthorised use. • Owners of public facilities are to supply Council with a copy of their public liability insurance.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 61 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 213 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 62

Comment: The facility is located on private land and therefore only guests and authorised visitors of Tindarra Resort will have access to the proposed temporary structure.

10.8 Landscaping Objectives • To restore the riverine vegetation within the Murray Shire. • To screen buildings and structures from the river.

Controls • All development applications are to include a landscaping plan. • Landscaping must utilise indigenous species of riparian vegetation. • Where land is degraded, landscaping shall include measures to rehabilitate these areas. • Landscaping must be designed to screen or at least soften the appearance of buildings and structures.

Comment: No native vegetation removal or significant works will occur as a result of the proposed development. It is considered onerous to require the Applicant to provide permanent landscaping for a temporary use which will lapse after 52 days of a 12 month period.

10.9 Unauthorised structures Objectives • To remove any unauthorised structures.

Controls • All unauthorised structures must be removed from the watercourse. No retrospective development approvals will be issued on existing structures. • All removal of structures and remediation work is at the expense of the land owner. • Any disturbance to the bank of the watercourse or surrounding area shall be rehabilitated at the land owner’s expense and undertaken to the satisfaction of Council.

Comment: Noted. A marquee is currently being used by the resort for functions and events. The structure is not located within the watercourse. Refusal of this Application will result in the marquee being ordered to be removed.

Chapter 11: Flood Prone Land Comment: The land is mapped “Low Hazard Flood Storage” in a 1 in 100 ARI flood event and High Hazard Floodway in a 2 in 100 ARI flood event. No new permanent structures are proposed to be erected as part of the development. The proposed temporary marquee can be removed in the event of a flood. This site is afforded a long warning period in the event of a flood, providing suitable time to dismantle and remove the marque from the site prior to a flood event reaching the site. The existing bar structure is not of a nature or construction to form a flood hazard in the event of a flood. The bar contents can be removed from the site prior to a flood event to minimise pollution of floodwaters. No sewer connection will be provided as part of the subject development proposal and the wastewater connection which connects to sink in the bar to the existing utilities of the site will require disengagement prior to the arrival of floodwaters. In this instance, the development is not predicted to impact on the existing flooding behaviour or flood storage capacity and will not increase risk to life or property.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 62 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 214 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 63

Chapter 12: Notification Policy Comment: The Application was notified in accordance with the requirements of Council’s notification policy. Three (3) public submissions and a number of submissions from referral authorities were received in respect of this Development Application. These submissions will be detailed in a subsequent section of this report.

3.2(a)(iiia) Any Planning Agreements Comment: No planning agreements exist on the subject site.

3.2(a)(iv) The regulations Comment: The regulations have been considered in the assessment of this Application. It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the regulations.

Section109Q - Regulations under Part 4A (1) In addition to any other matters for or with respect to which regulations may be made for the purposes of this Part, the regulations may make provision for or with respect to the following: (a) the documents to be provided to, and the matters to be notified to, a consent authority, council or certifying authority for the purposes of this Part, (b) the records to be kept by certifying authorities under this Part, (c) applications for Part 4A certificates, (d) the form and content of Part 4A certificates, (e) the manner in which complaints in respect of development are to be dealt with by certifying authorities. (f) exempting classes of temporary structures from requirements relating to construction certificates or occupation certificates. (2) In particular, the regulations may authorise a consent authority or council to impose a fee with respect to any Part 4A certificate that is lodged with it, whether pursuant to a requirement of this Act or the regulations or otherwise.

Comment: Noted.

EP&A Regulation 2000 Clause 94A - Fire safety and other considerations applying to erection of temporary structures (1) This clause applies to a development application for the erection of a temporary structure. (2) In determining a development application to which this clause applies, a consent authority is to take into consideration: (a) whether the fire protection and structural capacity of the structure will be appropriate to the proposed use of the structure, and (b) whether the ground or other surface on which the structure is to be erected will be sufficiently firm and level to sustain the structure while in use. (3) The matters prescribed by this clause are prescribed for the purposes of section 79C (1) (a) (iv) of the Act.

Comment: Engineer certified structure. Compliance with NSW H102 and parts of H101. The ground surface is firm and level.

Note. There are no relevant provisions in the Building Code of Australia in respect of temporary structures that are not entertainment venues.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 63 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 215 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 64

Comment: The subject temporary structure is not an entertainment venue.

Clause 98 - Compliance with Building Code of Australia and insurance requirements under the Home Building Act 1989 (1) For the purposes of section 80A (11) of the Act, the following conditions are prescribed in relation to a development consent for development that involves any building work: (a) that the work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia, (b) in the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act, that such a contract of insurance is in force before any building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences.

(1A) For the purposes of section 80A (11) of the Act, it is prescribed as a condition of a development consent for a temporary structure that is used as an entertainment venue, that the temporary structure must comply with Part B1 and NSW Part H102 of Volume One of the Building Code of Australia.

(2) This clause does not apply: (a) to the extent to which an exemption is in force under clause 187 or 188, subject to the terms of any condition or requirement referred to in clause 187 (6) or 188 (4), or (b) to the erection of a temporary building, other than a temporary structure to which subclause (1A) applies.

(3) In this clause, a reference to the Building Code of Australia is a reference to that Code as in force on the date the application is made for the relevant: (a) development consent, in the case of a temporary structure that is an entertainment venue, or (b) construction certificate, in every other case.

Note. There are no relevant provisions in the Building Code of Australia in respect of temporary structures that are not entertainment venues.

Comment: The Applicant has stated that this is not an entertainment venue and as such there are no relevant provisions in the Building Code of Australia in respect of temporary structures that are not entertainment venues.

Clause 167 - Application of Part (1) This Part applies to all buildings except as follows: (a) only Division 7A applies to class 1a and class 10 buildings, (b) only Division 8 applies to temporary structures.

Comment: Noted. No requirement for a Fire Safety Schedule (covered by Division 2).

Clause 268A - Development for temporary structures that are entertainment venues (1) Except as otherwise provided by this clause, sections 81A (2), 86 (1) and 109H (3) (b) and (5) (b) of the Act do not apply to the erection of a temporary structure in accordance with a development consent. (2) Sections 81A (2) (b) (i), (b1) (i) and (c) and 86 (1) (a) (i), (a1) (i) and (b) of the Act apply in relation to the erection of a temporary structure that is an entertainment venue.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 64 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 216 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 65

Comment: Clause 268A states that a temporary structure that is not an entertainment venue does not require compliance with section 81A(2) of the Act. As such a construction certificate is not required for the erection of this temporary structure. A condition of consent will be required to ensure the temporary structure is not used as an entertainment venue.

Schedule 1 Forms Part 1 (2) Development applications -Documents to accompany development application (n) if the development involves the erection of a temporary structure, the following documents: (i) documentation that specifies the live and dead loads the temporary structure is designed to meet, (ii) a list of any proposed fire safety measures to be provided in connection with the use of the temporary structure, (iii) in the case of a temporary structure proposed to be used as an entertainment venue—a statement as to how the performance requirements of Part B1 and NSW Part H102 of Volume One of the Building Code of Australia are to be complied with (if an alternative solution, to meet the performance requirements, is to be used), (iv) documentation describing any accredited building product or system sought to be relied on for the purposes of section 79C (4) of the Act, (v) copies of any compliance certificates to be relied on, (o) in the case of a development involving the use of a building as an entertainment venue or a function centre, pub, registered club or restaurant—a statement that specifies the maximum number of persons proposed to occupy, at any one time, that part of the building to which the use applies.

Comment: The Applicant has provided the relevant documentation which specifies the live and dead loads and the accredited building product system associated with this temporary structure. See Appendix D. The Applicant has also provided a Certificate of Test regarding ‘AS/NZS 1530.3:1999 Simultaneous Determination of Ignitability, Flame Propagation, Heat Release and Smoke Release’. See Appendix E. There are no essential fore safety measures which have been provided. The temporary structure is not proposed to be used as an entertainment facility.

3.2(a)(v) Coastal Zone Management Plan Comment: Not applicable to this Application.

3.3 The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality

Traffic and Parking- The Applicant has provided a car parking concept which is able to meets the minimum requirement for car parking provision when overflow parking areas are considered. The proposed development is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact to traffic or parking within the site or the locality.

Noise- The Acoustic Assessment Report provided by the Applicant in respect of this development notes that there is potential for a noise impact to occur as a result of amplified music played at events, particularly the bass output. To mitigate such impacts, the report recommends the implementation of noise mitigation devices which limit the output of any amplifier device used as part of the functions. This recommendation will form a condition in any consent issued in respect of this development. As such, the noise impacts, when mitigated, are not deemed to be unreasonable.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 65 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 217 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 66

Amenities- Permanent toilet facilities will not be provided to the proposed marquee; however a temporary toilet block will be erected onsite during events which will provide for:- • One (1) separated unisex disabled toilet with wash basin; • Male toilet area including one (1) pan, single urinal and two (2) washbasins; and • Female toilet area including two (2) pans and two (2) wash basins.

Additional portable toilets would be hired for to cater for larger events as required. Any development consent will limit the marquee/function area use to 250 people.

Waste- The facility has an existing waste management program that will be expanded to cover the facility.

Built Environment- The proposed development is considered to pose no impact to the built environment.

Natural Environment- The proposal is considered to pose a minimal impact on the natural environment. No significant native vegetation will be removed and no physical building works are to occur. The site is classified as flood prone; however the temporary structure and temporary use of the site will not affect flood behaviour and is able to be completely removed well before a flood event. The marquee and temporary use operation will be required to be incorporated into the Emergency Response Plan for Tindarra Resort.

Economic- The proposal will expand the function/event facilities available within Murray Shire and therefore has the potential to promote a positive flow on impact to the local economy and other local businesses.

Social- The proposed development is not predicted to have an unreasonable detrimental social impact. Noise associated with the proposed events i is able to be suitably mitigated and controlled to ensure that the temporary use does not pose an unreasonable impact to the amenity of the surrounding properties.

Other areas to consider:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 define the following:

Temporary structure includes a booth, tent or other temporary enclosure (whether or not part of the booth, tent or enclosure is permanent), and also includes a mobile structure.

Entertainment venue means a building used as a cinema, theatre or concert hall or an indoor sports stadium.

Comment: The marquee associated with the subject application is considered a ‘temporary structure’ and not an ‘entertainment venue’.

3.4 The suitability of the site for the development Comment: The site is considered suitable for the proposed use as it is currently used for tourist accommodation. The site of the temporary structure is considered suitable. There are no building works proposed as part of the subject development, with minimal environmental impact posed to the biodiversity of the site.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 66 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 218 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 67

3.5 Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations Comment: Three public submissions were received in respect of this development. A summary of the submissions is detailed in the Table below. Copies of the submissions are included for your reference as Appendix F.

Submission maker’s Staff Comments comments 1 The submission maker has At the request of Council, the Applicant was required to concerns about the excessive provide an Acoustic Assessment Report carried out by a noise that is already generated qualified and practicing noise assessment professional by events at Tindarra to establish baseline noise levels for the area around Tindarra, and the average noise level at each boundary of the resort during a scheduled wedding event. The Applicant provided the required assessment (attached as Appendix B) which concluded that with suitable mitigation measures to limit the decibel output of the primary noise source, the amplifier, the noise of the development could be controlled to an acceptable range which would not disrupt the amenity of the adjoining and surrounding properties. Any consent issued in respect of this development will include the requirement to implement such noise mitigation techniques.

The submission maker The subject development is permissible with consent questions the permissibility of under Clause 2.8 – Temporary Use of Land, and has the development, given its been assessed accordingly based on the merits of the setback location to the Murray Application. An Application of this nature may also be River assessable as ancillary development, which may also be permitted with consent within a riverfront area, subject to a merits based assessment.

The submission maker The comments of the submission maker are questions whether the acknowledged, however the subject concrete slab does structure can actually be not form part of the subject Application, and was classed as ‘temporary’ given completed as exempt development under SEPP 2008 that the concrete slab is (Subdivision 28, subsection 2.55 and 2.56- Paving).With permanent, and the existing respect to the marquee, the marquee currently located marquee that is being used, onsite does not have development consent, and is not had been erected onsite since the marquee the subject of this development application. approximately April 2013. Council became aware of this compliance breach and the Applicant subsequently lodged this Development Application seeking formal temporary consent for these activities. Should consent be granted for this development, the marquee will be permitted to be used on a temporary basis, for a maximum 52 days in one 12 month period. The marquee will be required to be dismantled from the site upon the conclusion of the 12 month period, or after 52 days (whichever occurs first).

THIS IS PAGE NO. 67 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 219 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 68

The submission maker notes As part of the further information requested by Council, that there are no facilities the application notes that a toilet block will be provided provided for disabled patrons. to guests during events which provides for: • One (1) separated unisex disabled toilet with wash basin; • Male toilet area including one (1) pan, single urinal and two (2) washbasins; and • Female toilet area including two (2) pans and two (2) wash basins. Additional portable toilets would be hired for to cater for larger events as required. Any development consent will limit the marquee/function area use to 250 people.

Car parking facilities are As part of the further information required by Council, inadequate for event patrons the Applicant has suitably catered for parking onsite, in accordance with the provisions subchapter 4.6 of the Murray DCP. See previous comments throughout this report regarding parking.

The works require a Controlled The Application was referred to NSW DPI Water for Activity Approval from NSW comment. A Controlled Activity Approval was not Office of Water and the required as part of this proposal. Permanent applicant should be required to landscaping of the riverfront area for a temporary rehabilitate the riparian corridor consent is considered onerous. of the site which the submission maker notes is devoid of vegetation.

The Application should be The comments of the submission maker are subject to the same conditions acknowledged. The proposal has been assessed as similar projects within the against all relevant legislation. Any consent issued in Shire. respect of this proposal will include all relevant conditions for compliant operation.

2 The submission maker has See previous comments set out above and throughout concerns about the excessive the report regarding noise. noise that is already generated by events at Tindarra.

The submission maker See previous comments set out above regarding these questions the permissibility of matters. the development, given its setback location to the Murray River.

The submission maker See previous comments set out above regarding these questions whether the matters. structure can actually be classed as ‘temporary’ given that the concrete slab is THIS IS PAGE NO. 68 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 220 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 69

permanent, and the existing marquee that is being used, had been erected onsite since approximately April 2013.

The submission maker notes See previous comments set out above regarding these that there are no facilities matters. provided for disabled patrons.

The works require a Controlled See previous comments set out above regarding these Activity Approval from NSW matters. Office of Water and the applicant should be required to rehabilitate the riparian corridor of the site which the submission maker notes is devoid of vegetation.

The application should be subject to the same conditions as similar projects within the Shire.

3 The submission maker has the following concerns with respect to the development proposal:

The submission maker is See previous comments set out above regarding these concerned with the lack of matters. permanent toilet facilities provided to guests.

There does not appear to be The submission makers’ comments are acknowledged. any safety barriers for much of It is the responsibility of the resort to ensure the safety of the rivers edge and as there is guests during events. Existing fencing is in place along alcohol served at the functions the river bank in front of the existing bar structure for a presently occurring onsite the length of approximately 30m. It is not feasible to require submission maker notes “… all properties in Murray Shire Council that are the Evidence suggests safety of subject of human habitation to provide fencing along the inebriated guests close to the extent of river frontage. river has been an issue…”

Loud live and recorded See previous comments set out above and throughout amplified music which occurs this report regarding noise. until approximately 12 midnight does not appear to be muffled by sound barriers or any other noise attenuation device and therefore arrived unimpeded to the submission makers’ THIS IS PAGE NO. 69 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 221 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 70

neighboring residence and can allegedly be heard at properties as far away as Maiden Smith Drive.

3.6 The public interest Comment: The public’s interest has been taken into consideration in the assessment of this Development Application. The proposal is consistent with the relevant legislation which has been shaped to promote better planning outcomes that are not inconsistent with the public interest. As such, this proposed development is not considered to pose a detrimental impact from this perspective.

3.7 Summary Comment: The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and is considered to be consistent with the assessment considerations. The proposal has been deemed consistent with the objectives and requirements of the Murray LEP 2011 and the Murray DCP 2012. While the proposal is inconsistent with a planning principle of Murray REP 2, Council staff is satisfied with the required objection lodged by the Applicant is respect to the application of this principle. Council staff are satisfied with the acoustic noise assessment provided by the applicant which states that with the use of required noise mitigation devices the proposal does not pose an unreasonable impact to the acoustic amenity of the surrounding residents.

Section 4. Recommendation

It is recommended that Development Application 175/14 for the formalisation of temporary structure (marquee) for functions, temporary use of existing bar structure and car parking facilities be granted approval and the following conditions included with the consent.

Section 5. Conditions of Approval

Prior To The Commencement Of Use

1. Food businesses that trade at temporary events must ensure that their details have been notified to Murray Shire Council prior to commencing trading for the first time. Appropriate details for notification include:- • Contact Details For The Food Business Including The Name Of The Food Business And The Name And Business Address Of The Proprietor Of The Food Business, • The Nature Of The Food Business, And • The Location of all food premises of the food business that are within the jurisdiction of the enforcement agency.

Notification may be made to council in any form that includes the above details.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the Food Act 2003.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 70 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 222 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 71

2. The Food Safety Supervisor (FSS) requirement applies if your business is processing and selling food by retail (at a temporary event) that is: • Ready-To-Eat, And • Potentially Hazardous (I.E. Requires Temperature Control), And • Unpackaged (i.e. NOT sold and served in the supplier’s original package).

Reason: To ensure compliance with the Food Act 2003.

3. The ‘Emergency Management Plan’ for Tindarra Resort is be amended to provide specific actions relating to this development in an emergency situation.

In a flood event the temporary structure is to be completely removed from the site prior to the arrival of floodwaters. All services are to be capped.

Reason: To ensure that the emergency events are able to be appropriately responded to.

Reason: To ensure that events are appropriately managed.

Reason: To ensure that the liquor license covers functions to be held in the temporary structure (marquee).

Reason: To ensure that drainage is suitably catered for and to accord with Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 71 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 223 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 72

General

Note: Entertainment venue means a building used as a cinema, theatre or concert hall or an indoor sports stadium.

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

Reason: To ensure that the marquee is utilised only as approved.

9. There is to be no clearing of native vegetation other than that approved by NSW Murray Local Land Services or in accordance with the provisions of the Native Vegetation Act 2003.

Reason: To comply with the Native Vegetation Act 2003.

Events held in the temporary structure that do not utilise amplified music are permitted to occur on any given day 8am to 12am.

Reason: To minimise any adverse impacts of functions on neighbouring properties.

11. The maximum number of people permitted within the marquee or attending an event at the site is 250 people.

THIS IS PAGE NO. 72 OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF MURRAY SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM AT THE MATHOURA VISITOR & BUSINESS CENTRE, MATHOURA, ON TUESDAY 8TH DECEMBER 2015. 224 of 251 DENVS ORDINARY 08/12/2015 PAGE 73