APPENDICES MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL DECEMBER ORDINARY … › sites... · “Protect the rural...

APPENDICES

MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL

DECEMBER ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING13 DECEMBER 2016

1 of 107

CONTENTS

APPENDIX REPORT SUBJECT PAGE NO.

1 Report 16 Planning proposal

3-32

2 Report 17 Development application conditions

33-59

3 Report 18 Application to waive the requirement to pay contributions for stormwater and road upgrades

60-61

4 Report 18 Public submission

62-63

5 Report 18 Public submission

64-65

6 Report 24 Vehicle Crossing Policy

166-71

7 Report 25 Transport Assets Management Policy

72-82

8 Report 30 2017 Naidoc Week School Initiative Competitions sponsorship request and supporting information

83-107

2 of 107

Appendix 1 Report 16 Planning proposal

3 of 107

Planning Proposal Clifton Street, Mathoura Rezoning to RU5 Village November 2016

4 of 107

The information contained in this document produced by Habitat Planning is solely for the use of the person or organisation for which it has been prepared and Habitat Planning undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document. All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of Habitat Planning. © 2016 Habitat Planning

Prepared for Tara Alderton & Mike Rose Habitat Planning Suite 1, 622 Macauley Street ALBURY NSW 2640 p. 02 6021 0662 f. 02 6021 0663 [email protected] habitatplanning.com.au

Document Control

Version Date Author Purpose A 17/11/16 WH Final for lodgement

5 of 107

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.habitatplanning.com.au/

Contents Introduction ............................................................................................... 1

PART 1. Intended outcomes ................................................................................... 1

PART 2. Explanation of the provisions..................................................................... 1

PART 3. Justification ............................................................................................... 1

3.1 Need for the Planning Proposal .................................................................. 1

3.2 Relationship to strategic planning framework ............................................. 2

3.3 Environmental, social & economic impact .................................................. 4

3.4 State &Commonwealth interests ................................................................. 5

PART 4. Maps ......................................................................................................... 5

PART 5. Community consultation ............................................................................ 9

PART 6. Project timeline .......................................................................................... 9

Conclusion .............................................................................................. 10

Attachments A. Consistency of Planning Proposal with State Environmental Planning Policies B. Consistency of Planning Proposal with Ministerial Directions C. Consistency of Planning Proposal with Standards for Bush Fire Protection Measures for

Infill Development D. Consistency of the Planning Proposal with planning principles in MREP2

6 of 107

Habitat Planning Planning Proposal Clifton Street, Mathoura NSW 1

Introduction This is a Planning Proposal seeking an amendment to the Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP) to re-zone land on the fringe of Mathoura to RU5 Village. The purpose of the Planning Proposal is to facilitate a multi-dwelling housing development.

The two hectares of land to which the Planning Proposal applies is described as Lot 611 in DP806704 on the north western corner of the Cobb Highway and Clifton Street in Mathoura (“the subject land”). The context of the subject land is shown in Figures 1 and 2.

The Planning Proposal has been structured and prepared in accordance with the Department of Planning and Environment’s (DPE) A guide to preparing planning proposals (“the Guide”).

PART 1. Intended outcomes The intended outcome of the Planning Proposal is to allow the subject land to be developed for multi-dwelling purposes.

PART 2. Explanation of the provisions The proposed provisions in the Planning Proposal will achieve the intended outcomes by:

• amending the Land Zoning Map - Sheet LZN_005A in the MLEP to show the subject land zoned as RU5 Village; and

• amending the Minimum Lot Size Map - LSZ_005A in the MLEP to show the subject land having a minimum lot size of 450m2.

PART 3. Justification This section of the Planning Proposal sets out the justification for the intended outcomes and provisions, and the process for their implementation. The questions to which responses have been provided are taken from the Guide.

3.1 Need for the Planning Proposal

Is the Planning Proposal a result of any strategic study or report?

The Planning Proposal for the subject land is part of a broader review of the MLEP undertaken by Council in 2014. As part of this review Council embarked upon a community consultation process to assist in determining changes to the MLEP. The owner of the subject land made a submission to Council requesting the opportunity to undertake a high density residential development because such development is not permissible under the current MLEP.

As a result of this consultative process, Council identified “the rezoning of site specific parcels for various reasons” as one of the main issues relating to the MLEP. Specifically in response to the subject landowner’s submission, Council endorsed the following recommendation from its officers:

7 of 107


That the submission maker supply Council with a study, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant, regarding the rezoning of Lot 611, DP 806704, RAN 6, Cobb Highway, Mathoura to R1 to permit smaller residential lots. The study shall be undertaken at the full cost of the submission maker. It is also noted that the study will need to be completed and provided to Council in a timely manner to ensure that Amendment 5 of the Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011 is not delayed.

This Planning Proposal is in response to the recommendation.

Is the Planning Proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way?

The subject land is currently within the R5 Large Lot Residential zone, which does not permit the type of development (multi-dwelling housing) sought. Consequently the intended outcome of the Planning Proposal can only be achieved through an amendment to the MLEP. This can be undertaken a number of ways:

1. Amend the Land Use Table for the R5 zone to allow ‘multi-dwelling housing’ with consent.

2. Provide for the specific intended outcome on the subject land via Schedule 1 of the MLEP.

3. Change the land use zone of the subject land to RU5 Village within which ‘multi dwelling housing’ is permissible with consent.

The first option is not preferred because it will create the same opportunity as that sought by the Planning Proposal on all R5 zoned land in the Shire. The circumstances of other R5 zoned land, particularly in Moama, is likely to be less suitable for multi dwelling housing than the subject land.

The second option to include multi-dwelling housing in Schedule 1 restricts consideration of such development to just the subject land and just for that purpose. This would allow Council to exercise greater control over the type of development that can be undertaken on the subject land. This option is not supported by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.

The third option is preferred as it places the appropriate zone over the land to achieve the desired development outcome. The proposal is seen as an extension of the existing urban area of the Mathoura township and a variation to the existing residential zoning (R5). It is noted that some land between the subject land and existing RU5 zone will remain in the R5 zone because it is constrained for development at an urban density by remnant vegetation.

Is there a net community benefit?

There is an overall net community benefit to be gained from the Planning Proposal by providing for an additional choice of residential environments in Mathoura. An increase in the town’s population supports existing, and creates opportunities for new, local community and commercial services.

3.2 Relationship to strategic planning framework

Is the Planning Proposal consistent with the objectives and actions contained within the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy (including exhibited draft strategies)?

There is no adopted regional strategy applicable to the Planning Proposal.

However the draft Murray Regional Strategy (draft MRS) was prepared by the former Department of Planning in October 2009 and despite it not having been finalised in the six years since, it remains a matter to be considered in this Planning Proposal. It is noted that no progress has been made on the draft MRS since its exhibition more than four years ago.

8 of 107


One of the aims of the draft MRS is to:

“Protect the rural landscape and natural environment by limiting urban sprawl, focussing new settlement in areas identified on local strategy maps and restricting unplanned new urban or rural residential settlement.”

The Planning Proposal will create an opportunity for higher density residential development on the fringe of Mathoura. As the subject land is currently within a residential zone (R5) it is considered to be part of the Mathoura township. Consequently the intended outcome of the Planning Proposal is not isolated or unplanned within the context of the draft MRS.

Is the Planning Proposal consistent with the local Council’s community strategic plan or other local strategic plan?

Strategic Area (D) in Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2015/2016-2024/25 has as its objective to:

Promote the Murray Shire area as an attractive and viable area for rural, residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and tourism pursuits to ensure community sustainability.

The Planning Proposal is consistent with this objective as it will create the opportunity for an alternative residential environment in Mathoura that will assist in sustaining the township.

The Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP) for the former Murray Shire prepared as a pre-cursor to the MLEP, identifies the subject land in the Mathoura Structure Plan as being within a “low density residential” area (see Figure 3). The Structure Plan is also annotated in this area as “Existing largely undeveloped low density residential area. Alternative locations required to create opportunities for new residents”.

The intent of the annotation is to acknowledge that in a low growth scenario such as Mathoura, it is important to have a number of locations for low density residential development even if this means creating an oversupply situation. This ensures that the supply of developable land is not dominated by a small number of landowners who may or may not be wanting to take up the opportunity available under the zone. As a result of the SLUP, additional opportunities for low density residential development were created in the MLEP to the east, west and south of the township. Consequently the ‘loss’ of the subject land to low density residential development as a result of the Planning Proposal does not need consideration.

The location of the subject land within close proximity of commercial and community facilities such as the bowling club as well as quality open space in the Gulpa Creek, enhances its suitability for a higher density of residential development than that envisaged by the R5 zone. The subject land is also highly accessible to the Cobb Highway. Within this context the intended outcome sought by the Planning Proposal is a reasonable proposition from a strategic planning perspective.

Is the Planning Proposal consistent with applicable State Environmental Planning Policies?

Attachment ‘A’ provides an assessment of the Planning Proposal against all State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP’s). Clause 8 of Murray Regional Environmental Plan No.2 – Riverine Land (MREP2) requires Council to consider a number of planning principles when it “prepares any local environmental plan”. An assessment of these principles against the Planning Proposal is undertaken in Attachment ‘C’.

In summary, many of the SEPP’s are not applicable to the former the former Murray Shire and even less are applicable to the circumstances of the Planning Proposal. The assessment concludes that the Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with any of the relevant SEPP’s.

9 of 107


Is the Planning Proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (S.117 Directions)?

Section 117 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) provides for the Minister for Planning to give directions to Councils regarding the principles, aims, objectives or policies to be achieved or given effect to in the preparation of LEP’s. A Planning Proposal needs to be consistent with the requirements of the Direction but in some instances can be inconsistent if justified using the criteria stipulated such as a Local Environmental Study or the intended outcome is of “minor significance”.

An assessment of all S117 Directions is undertaken in Attachment ‘B’. In summary, the Planning Proposal is either consistent or has some minor inconsistencies with the relevant Directions. The inconsistencies are justified utilising the provisions within each of the Directions.

3.3 Environmental, social & economic impact

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 will facilitate a planned multi-dwelling housing development on a relatively small two hectare parcel of land on the fringe of the Mathoura township. The subject land is located adjoining a State highway (Cobb Highway) with a second frontage to Clifton Street from which the current access is taken. There is no remnant vegetation on the subject land or any other vegetation that might offer habitat to native fauna species.

A modest dwelling and ancillary shedding is located in the north east corner and a large dam, in an urban context, in the south east corner. A second smaller dam is located to the west of the dwelling. The balance of the lot is vacant but highly modified from its original natural environment. The topography of the subject land is relatively flat with a gentle slope down to Clifton Street. Figures 1 and 2 provide a visual context for the subject land.

In the years leading to the commencement of the MLEP in 2011, the former NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) provided Council with a mapping layer for biodiversity. This layer reflected a range of attributes including:

• significant native vegetation (including vegetation which has been cleared from >70% of its former range, or is located in a landscape that has been >70% cleared);

• habitat for threatened species, and endangered ecological communities;

• wetlands; and

• wildlife corridors, including roadsides and stock routes of High Conservation Value.

This mapping layer and accompanying model clause were included in the MLEP. An extract from the biodiversity map (Ref: BIO_005) in relation to the subject land is depicted in Figure 4. The extract shows that part of the subject land is within the biodiversity overlay. When the overlay is reconciled with an aerial image (see Figure 2), it is clear that the overlay has been applied in error as there are no environmental features that warrant its application.

Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the Planning Proposal and how are they proposed to be managed?

The Bush Fire Prone Land Map for the Shire shows that the buffer to a Vegetation Category 1 hazard intrudes into the southern part of the subject land (see Figure 5). Despite this, an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) can comfortably be accommodated within the subject land (see Attachment ‘C’) and consequently bush fire will have no environment effect.

10 of 107


The subject land is not flood prone.

How has the Planning Proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?

There will be a positive social and economic effect for the Mathoura community from the Planning Proposal through a potential increase in population. This increase supports both community and commercial interests in the town.

3.4 State &Commonwealth interests

Is there adequate public infrastructure for the Planning Proposal?

The subject land can be serviced with the urban infrastructure provided to the Mathoura township. The proposed multi dwelling housing development can utilise these resources, including a reticulated water supply.

The site is located within walking distance of facilities within the Mathoura town centre. The bowling club is almost directly opposite the subject land.

What are the views of State and Commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with the gateway determination?

Having regard for the nature of the Planning Proposal, it is anticipated no public authority consultation at this level will be required.

It is acknowledged that the Gateway determination may specify Council undertake consultation with public authorities.

PART 4. Maps The following maps are provided in support of the Planning Proposal.

FIGURE 1: Location of subject within the context of Mathoura (Source: SIX Maps)

11 of 107


FIGURE 2: Subject land within the context of its immediate surrounds

FIGURE 3: Extract from Strategic Land Use Plan

12 of 107


FIGURE 4: Extent of the biodiversity overlay within the context of the subject land (Source: MLEP)

FIGURE 5: Extent of the buffer to Vegetation Category 1 intruding into the subject land (Source: Bush Fire Prone Land Map)

13 of 107


FIGURE 6: Current and proposed zoning for the subject land (Source: Murray LEP)

FIGURE 5: Current and proposed Minimum Lot Size for the subject land

(Source: Murray LEP)

14 of 107


PART 5. Community consultation The Planning Proposal will be subject to public exhibition following the Gateway process. The Gateway determination will specify the community consultation that must be undertaken for the Planning Proposal, if any. As such, the exact consultation requirements are not known at this stage.

This Planning Proposal will be exhibited for a period of 28 days in accordance with the requirements of section 57 of the EP&A Act and the Guide. At a minimum, the future consultation process is expected to include:

• written notification to landowners adjoining the subject land;

• consultation with relevant Government Departments and agencies, service providers and other key stakeholders, as determined in the Gateway determination;

• public notices to be provided in local media, including in a local newspaper and on Councils’ website;

• static displays of the Planning Proposal and supporting material in Council public buildings; and

• electronic copies of all documentation being made available to the community free of charge (preferably via downloads from Council’s website).

At the conclusion of the public exhibition period Council staff will consider submissions made with respect to the Planning Proposal and prepare a report to Council.

It is considered unlikely that a Public Hearing will be required for the proposal although this can’t be conformed until after the exhibition/notification process has been completed.

PART 6. Project timeline The project timeline for the planning proposal is outlined in Table 1. There are many factors that can influence compliance with the timeframe including the cycle of Council meetings, consequences of agency consultation (if required) and outcomes from public exhibition. Consequently the timeframe should be regarded as indicative only.

Table 1: – Project timeline

Milestone Date/timeframe

Anticipated commencement date (date of Gateway determination)

TBA.

Anticipated timeframe for the completion of required studies

2 months from Gateway determination (if studies are required).

Timeframe for government agency consultation (pre and post exhibition as required by Gateway determination)

2 months from Gateway determination.

Commencement and completion dates for public exhibition period

Commence within a month of Gateway determination and complete 5 weeks after commencement

Dates for public hearing (if required) Within 2 weeks of public exhibition completion (if public hearing required).

15 of 107


Milestone Date/timeframe

Timeframe for consideration of submissions 2 weeks following completion of exhibition.

Timeframe for the consideration of a proposal post exhibition

1 month following completion of exhibition.

Anticipated date RPA will make the plan (if delegated)

2 weeks following consideration of proposal (depending on Council meeting cycle).

Anticipated date RPA will forward to the department for notification (if delegated).

1 week following consideration of proposal.

Conclusion The Planning Proposal is to facilitate a multi-dwelling on a two hectare parcel of land on the northern fringe of Mathoura. An amendment to the MLEP is necessary for such a development to be considered because it is not permitted under the current planning regime for the subject land. The application of the RU5 zone to the subject land is the preferred means of achieving the desired outcome.

In summary, the Planning Proposal is considered to have merit because:

• the subject land is part of the Mathoura township;

• the type of development proposed is sustainable for the subject land;

• there will be a net benefit for the Mathoura community;

• there is general strategic support;

• it is generally consistent with the broader planning framework (e.g. State provisions);

• there will no detrimental environmental effects; and

• the subject land can be provided with all urban services.

16 of 107

Habitat Planning Planning Proposal Clifton Street, Mathoura NSW

Attachment A

Consistency with State Environmental Planning Policies

17 of 107


No. Title Consistency

1 Development Standards Not applicable since gazettal of MLEP.

14 Coastal Wetlands Not applicable to the former Murray Shire.

19 Bushland in Urban Areas Not applicable to the former Murray Shire.

21 Caravan Parks The Planning Proposal does not derogate from the aims, development consent requirements for caravan parks relating to, the development consent requirements, the number of sites being used for long term or short term residents, the permissibility of moveable dwellings where caravan parks or camping grounds are also permitted, and subdivision of caravan parks for lease purposes as provided in the SEPP.

26 Littoral Rainforests Not applicable to the former Murray Shire.

30 Intensive Agriculture Not applicable as ‘intensive livestock agriculture’ is prohibited in the RU5 zone.

33 Hazardous & Offensive Development

The Planning Proposal does not derogate from the aims and development consent requirements for hazardous and offensive development as provided in the SEPP.

36 Manufactured Home Estate Not applicable as manufactured home estates are excluded from the R5 zone because ‘caravan parks’ are prohibited.

44 Koala Habitat Protection This SEPP is applicable because the former the former Murray Shire is listed in Schedule 1 and the subject land exceeds the area threshold. Council is required to consider in assessing a development application (not a planning proposal) whether the land offers any habitat for koalas. There is no vegetation on the subject land nominated in Schedule 2 of the SEPP as a ‘feed tree species’ for koalas. The subject land is not ‘core koala habitat’ as there have been no recorded sitings or no knowledge of koalas within the River Red Gum environment of the Murray River floodplain near Mathoura. It is noted that Mathoura is on the fringe of area identified in the National Koala Conservation and Management Strategy 2009-2014 as being the range of koalas in Australia. The 2008 approved Recovery plan for the koala in NSW acknowledges the probability of koalas being present in the ‘far west and south west’ region of NSW (which includes Mathoura) is low. Consequently the planning proposal can be supported without the need for a Koala Management Plan.

47 Moore Park Showground Not applicable to the former Murray Shire.

50 Canal Estate Development The Planning Proposal does not conflict with the aims and canal estate development prohibitions provided in this SEPP.

52 Farm Dams and Other Works in Land and Water Management Plan Areas

Not applicable to the former Murray Shire.

55 Remediation of Land As the Planning Proposal will create the opportunity for a change in land use, Clause 6 of this SEPP requires Council to consider whether the subject land is contaminated. The subject land has historically been used for extensive agriculture (‘broad acre’ cropping and/or grazing) for more than 100 years and more recently for rural living purposes. The subject land has not been used for viticulture or other intensive agricultural activity. Consequently there is sufficient knowledge of the subject land to accept that it is not contaminated and further investigation in this regard is not warranted.

56 Sydney Harbour Foreshores & Tributaries


62 Sustainable Aquaculture The Planning Proposal does not derogate from the aims and development consent requirements for sustainable aquaculture as provided in the SEPP.

18 of 107



64 Advertising & Signage The Planning Proposal does not conflict with the aims, development consent requirements and assessment criteria for advertising and signage as provided in the SEPP.

65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

The Planning Proposal does not conflict with the aims and assessment criteria for residential flat buildings as provided in the SEPP.

70 Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes)


71 Coastal Protection Not applicable to the former Murray Shire.

Affordable Rental Housing 2009

Not applicable as the subject land does not qualify for any of the Divisions within which various forms of housing apply.

Building Sustainability Index (BASIX) 2004

The Planning Proposal does not conflict with the aims and development consent requirements relating to BASIX affected building(s) that seeks to reduce water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and improve thermal performance as provided in the SEPP.

Exempt & Complying Development Codes 2008

The Planning Proposal does not conflict with the aims and functions of this SEPP with respect to exempt and complying development provisions.

Housing for Seniors & People with a Disability 2004

The Planning Proposal does not conflict with the aims and functions of this SEPP with respect to seniors housing.

Infrastructure 2007 The Planning Proposal does not conflict with the aims, permissibility, development consent, assessment and consultation requirements, capacity to undertake additional uses, adjacent, exempt and complying development provisions as provided in the SEPP.

Integration & Repeals 2016 Not applicable to the former Murray Shire.

Kosciuszko National Park – Alpine Resorts 2007


Kurnell Peninsula 1989 Not applicable to the former Murray Shire.

Mining, Petroleum Production & Extractive Industries 2007

The Planning Proposal does not conflict with the aims, permissibility, development assessment requirements relating to mining, petroleum production and extractive industries as provided in the SEPP.

Miscellaneous Consent Provisions 2007

The Planning Proposal does not conflict with the aims, permissibility, development assessment requirements relating to temporary structures as provided in the SEPP.

Penrith Lakes Scheme 1989 Not applicable to the former Murray Shire.

Murray Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Riverine Land

The subject land is within the area to which MREP2 applies. Council is required to consider the planning principles of the MREP2 in assessing a planning proposal. Such an assessment is undertaken in Attachment ‘D’ and finds that the outcome sought is not inconsistent.

Rural Lands 2008 Not applicable as the subject land is not rural.

State & Regional Development 2011

Not applicable as the Planning Proposal is not for State significant development.

State Significant Precinct 2005


Sydney Drinking Water Catchment 2011


Sydney Region Growth Centres 2006


Three Ports 2013 Not applicable to the former Murray Shire.

Urban Renewal 2010 Not applicable as the subject land is not within a nominated urban renewal precinct.

19 of 107



Western Sydney Employment Area 2009


Western Sydney Parklands 2009


20 of 107


Attachment B

Consistency with Ministerial Directions

21 of 107



1. Employment and Resources

1.1 Business & Industrial Zones

Not applicable as the planning proposal does not affect any commercial or industrial zone.

1.2 Rural Zones Not applicable as the planning proposal does not involve a rural zone or boundary.

1.3 Mining, Petroleum Production & Extractive Industries

Not applicable as the planning proposal does not impact on mining.

1.4 Oyster Aquaculture Not applicable as the subject land is not within a Priority Oyster Aquaculture Area.

1.5 Rural Lands Not applicable as the planning proposal does not involve a rural or environment protection zone.

2. Environment and Heritage

2.1 Environment Protection Zones

This direction is relevant because it applies to all planning proposals regardless. The planning proposal is consistent because the subject land is not an ‘environmentally sensitive area’.

2.2 Coastal Protection Not applicable as the subject land is not within a coastal zone.

2.3 Heritage Conservation This direction is relevant because it applies to all planning proposals regardless. The planning proposal is consistent with this direction because the subject land does not contain any known ‘items, places, buildings, works, relics, moveable objects or precincts of environmental heritage significance’. A heritage study has been undertaken for the Shire with all items of significance identified in the MLEP and afforded protection by clause 5.10. None of these items are incorporated in the subject land. If there is any doubt as to consistency of the planning proposal with this direction, it can also be justified on the basis that it is of ‘minor significance’ involving just a small two hectare parcel of land.

2.4 Recreation Vehicle Areas

This direction is relevant because it applies to all planning proposals regardless. The planning proposal is consistent with the direction because the subject land does not fall within one of the nominated land categories.

3. Housing Infrastructure and Urban Development

3.1 Residential Zones This direction is relevant because the planning proposal is advocating a residential zone. The planning proposal is consistent with most of this direction because it will provide for a greater choice of housing in Mathoura and make use of existing urban infrastructure. In addition, the planning proposal does not reduce the density of residential development and the MLEP already contains a provision (clause 7.1) requiring development to be adequately serviced.

3.2 Caravan Parks & Manufactured Home Estates

This direction is relevant because it applies to all planning proposals regardless. The planning proposal is consistent with this direction because the RU5 zone does not prohibit ‘caravan parks’ and therefore ‘manufactured homes estates’.

3.3 Home Occupations This direction is relevant because it applies to all planning proposals regardless. The planning proposal will not prevent future dwellings being used for ‘home occupations’ and hence is consistent with this direction.

3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport

This direction is relevant because the planning proposal is providing for urban residential development. The planning proposal will facilitate a multi dwelling housing development.

22 of 107


No. Title Consistency The subject land is located within walking distance of the Mathoura commercial centre. Recreational facilities are available within the Mathoura Bowling Club almost opposite the subject land. Having regard for these circumstances, the planning proposal is considered consistent with this direction.

3.5 Development Near Licensed Aerodromes

Not applicable as the subject land is not in the vicinity of a licensed aerodrome.

3.6 Shooting Ranges Not applicable as the subject land land is not in the vicinity of a shooting range.

4. Hazard and Risk

4.1 Acid Sulphate Soils Not applicable as the subject land does not contain acid suphate soils.

4.2 Mine Subsidence & Unstable Land

Not applicable as the subject land is not within Mine Subsistence District.

4.3 Flood Prone Land Not applicable as the subject land is not flood prone.

4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection

This direction is relevant because the planning proposal involves land in part that is mapped as bushfire prone. An assessment of the type of development advocated by the planning proposal against the requirements of the Planning for Bush Fire Protection guideline is undertaken in Attachment ‘C’. This assessment concludes that the development can achieve the ‘acceptable solutions’ to the ‘performance criteria’ for Asset Protection Zones, public roads and property access.

5. Regional Planning

5.1 Implementation of Regional Strategies

Not applicable as the subject land is not within one of the regional strategies nominated in this direction.

5.2 Sydney Drinking Water Catchment

Not applicable as the subject land is not within the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment.

5.3 Farmland of State & Regional Significance on the NSW Far North Coast

Not applicable as the subject land is not within one of the local government areas nominated in this direction.

5.4 Commercial and Retail Development along the Pacific Highway, North Coast

Not applicable as the subject land is not near the Pacific Highway.

5.5 Development in the Vicinity of Ellalong, Paxton and Millfield (Cessnock LGA)

Revoked in 2010.

5.6 Sydney to Canberra Corridor

Revoked in 2008.

5.7 Central Coast Revoked in 2008.

5.8 Second Sydney Airport: Badgerys Creek

Not applicable as the subject land is not near the site for a second Sydney airport.

5.9 North West Rail Link Corridor Strategy

Not applicable as the subject land is not near this corridor.

6. Local Plan Making

6.1 Approval and Referral Requirements

This direction is relevant because it applies to all planning proposals regardless. The planning proposal is consistent with this direction because it does not propose any referral requirements or nominate any development as ‘designated development’.

23 of 107



6.2 Reserving Land for Public Purposes

This direction is relevant because it applies to all planning proposals regardless. The planning proposal is consistent with this direction because it does not remove or propose any public land.

6.3 Site Specific Provisions Not applicable as the planning proposal does not introduce a site specific provision.

7. Metropolitan Planning

7.1 Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney

Not applicable as the subject land is not within one of the local government areas nominated in this direction.

24 of 107


25 of 107


Attachment C

Bush Fire Assessment

26 of 107


Consideration of Standards for Bush Fire Protection Measures relating to Infill Development1

Performance criteria Acceptable solutions Response The intent of the protection measures may be achieved where: in relation to Asset Protection Zones: a defendable space is provided onsite. an asset protection zone is provided and maintained

for the life of the development

APZ determined in accordance with Appendix 2 of the Planning for Bushfire Protection guideline (PBP).

The APZ has been calculated at 10 metres using ‘grassy woodland’ as the vegetation type in the RFS APZ Calculator. This APZ can comfortably be accommodated in any multi-dwelling housing development on the subject land.

in relation to siting and design: buildings are sited and designed to minimise the risk

of bush fire attack. buildings are designed and sited in accordance with

the siting and design principles in this section (see also figure 4.7 of the PBP).

This will be taken into account as part of a future DA for multi-dwelling housing on the subject land.

in relation to construction standards: it is demonstrated that the proposed building can

withstand bush fire attack in the form of wind, smoke, embers, radiant heat and flame contact.

construction determined in accordance with Appendix 3 of the PBP and the Requirements for attached garages and others structures in this section.

This will be taken into account as part of a future DA for multi dwelling housing on the subject land.

in relation to access requirements: safe, operational access is provided (and maintained)

for emergency services personnel in suppressing a bush fire while residents are seeking to relocate, in advance of a bush fire, (satisfying the intent and performance criteria for access roads in sections 4.1.3 and 4.2.7 of the PBP).

compliance with section 4.1.3 of the PBP for property access roads.

compliance with section 4.2.7 of the PBP for access standards for internal roads..

The property has two street frontages that provide options for access/egress during a bush fire threat. Both streets meet the standard for “public roads are two wheel drive, all weather roads”. There are no internal roads.

1 Section 4.3.5 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection (RFS 2006)

27 of 107


Performance criteria Acceptable solutions Response in relation to water and utility standards: adequate water and electricity services are provided

for firefighting operations. gas and electricity services are located so as not to

contribute to the risk of fire to a building.

compliance with section 4.1.3 of the PBP for services - water, electricity and gas.

All water and utility infrastructure is available from the road reserve. Provision of these services to any future development will be undertaken in accordance with the required standard.

in relation to landscaping: it is designed and managed to minimise flame contact

and radiant heat to buildings, and the potential for wind driven embers to cause ignitions.

compliance with Appendix 5 of the PBP. Any future development of the subject land will have regard for the requirements of Appendix 5 of the PBP.

28 of 107


Attachment D

Consistency of the Planning Proposal with planning principles in MREP2

29 of 107


Principles to be taken into account Compatibility of proposal

General

(a) the aims, objectives and planning principles of this plan.

Satisfaction against the general objectives can be determined by the assessment against the specific principles below.

(b) any relevant River Management Plan There are no known river management plans relevant to the proposal.

(c) any likely effect of the proposed plan or development on adjacent and downstream local government areas.

Polluted stormwater is the only consequence of a future development that potentially could have a detrimental downstream impact. The subject land is 365 metres from the Gulpa Creek (a tributory of the Murray River) and drainage to this point is overland. Consequently any stormwater generated from a future development will be well ‘treated’ by the time it reaches a discharge point to the river.

(d) the cumulative impact of the proposed development on the River Murray.

None.

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.

The development envisaged by the planning proposal cannot prevent access to the river.

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.

The subject land is not in the main channel of the river.

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.

The subject land does not have frontage to the river.

Bank disturbance

Disturbance to the shape of the bank and riparian vegetation should be kept to a minimum in any development of riverfront land.

The subject land is not on riverfront land.

30 of 107



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.

The Flood Planning Map in the MLEP shows that the subject land is not flood prone in a 1 in 100 year event.

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

Not applicable.

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.

The only land disturbance arising from a future development is site preparation. During construction of the dwellings, earthworks will be controlled via a Soil and Water Management Plan.

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.

Notwithstanding that the subject land does not have river frontage, it is highly modified from its natural riverine environment. There is no remnant vegetation on the subject land.

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

The subject land is not ‘on’ the river (which includes trubutories to the Murray River) and is separated from the Gulpa Creek by the Cobb Highway.

Development which would intensify the use of riverside land should provide public access to the foreshore.

The subject land is not ‘riverside’ land.

31 of 107



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.

The proposal is considered to be infill rather than ‘greenfield’ development. Notwithstanding that, the subject land is not flood prone and located within walking distance of most services in Mathoura.

The subject land is not ‘prime’ agricultural land. In any case, the subject land is already preferred for residential development courtesy of the R5 zone (i.e. it is already conceded that the land will be lost to agriculture).

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.

There are no ‘salts and nutrients entering the River Murray’ from the subject land now and this won’t change if developed for multi dwelling housing.

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

The subject land does not contain a wetland.

32 of 107

Appendix 2 Report 17 Development application conditions

33 of 107

DA 070-17 – Dwelling House Lot 215 Cobb H’Way Deniliquin 1

AUTHORISED OFFICERS REPORT

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO – 070/17

Proposal: Dwelling house.

Address: Lot 251 DP1111036 Cobb Highway, Deniliquin

Owner: Deanna & Anthony Roelink

Applicant: Deanna Roelink

Zoning: RU1 – Primary Production

Section 1: Introduction EDM Group has been engaged by Murray River Council to undertake an independent review and assessment of Development Application No. 070-17. Documents supplied by Murray River Council to assist in this independent assessment are listed at Appendix 1. This particular development application relates to a proposed Dwelling House to be erected at Lot 251 DP1111036 Cobb Highway, Deniliquin. The subject land is below the minimum lot size within the zone necessitating a report to Council for Determination. The following assessment is provided in the context of the relevant provisions of the Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011 and related DCP provisions. This assessment report subsequently recommends that Development Application No. 007-17 be approved subject to the imposition of suitable conditions of consent as noted at Appendix 2. 1.1 Scope of this Report This report is structured to firstly provide an overview of the proposed development and the statutory assessment procedure used during processing the development application. An assessment of the development application is then provided which culminates in the recommendations. This report has been divided into the following structure: Section 1 – Introduction: provides an introduction to the development application

and a basic description of the proposed development application. Section 2 – Description of the statutory assessment process used to assess the

development application. Section 3 – Assessment of the Application: identifies the relevant statutory and

strategic land use and development policies and guidelines applicable to the development application and assesses the considered performance of the development application against these policies and guidelines.

Section 4 – Concluding Comments & Recommendations: discusses the recommendations arising from the assessment of the development application.

Appendix 1 – Documents considered Appendix 2 – Proposed Conditions of Consent

34 of 107


1.2 The Site The proposed development site is an irregular shaped parcel described as Lot 251 DP1111036 Cobb Highway, Deniliquin. The property is approximately 119.4 ha in area being situated approximately 10km south west of the Deniliquin Post Office and 22 km north of Mathoura (Figure 1). The property enjoys legal and practical access to the Cobb Highway along the eastern boundary and also has frontage to Line Road to the western boundary (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Locality Plan

Figure 2: Site Context

35 of 107


The subject land is relatively flat with a gentle grade of less than 0.5% from east to west. Although there are a number of scattered paddock trees the property itself has been long cleared for broad acre farming purposes. Current agricultural operations include irrigated horticulture. In support of this landuse it is noted that there is a large linear water storage centrally located within the property which relies upon catchment runoff for supply. The site is located outside of any reticulated services delivery area (i.e. no sewer or filtered water provided to the property).

1.2 Commentary The proposed development involves the construction of a single storey 3 bed room dwelling (Figure 3). The development will rely upon on-site wastewater treatment facilities and rainwater tanks. The dwelling will also be connected to reticulated electricity and a Telstra pit is located on the property. The proposed building site is located to the immediate south on an internal access track which connects with the Cobb Highway to the east. The site is approximately 156m north of an existing pump house and power supply and comprises an existing cleared portion of the property that will not require any removal of vegetation. The required boundary setbacks of 10m are all well exceeded to all property boundaries with the nearest being the Cobb Highway frontage approximately 280m to the east and the northern property boundary at approximately 630m. Figure 3 –Site and elevation plans

36 of 107


Section 2: Statutory Assessment Process 2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

Section 5 Objects

Comment: It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objects of the Act. Section 5A Significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats 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: Not applicable. The proposal is not considered to create any significant adverse environmental impact. Section 79BA Consultation and development consent - certain bush fire prone land Section 79BA of the EP&A Act: 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

37 of 107


(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: For the purposes of the relevant Bushfire Guidelines the proposal is regarded as “infill development” being

“… development of land by the erection of or addition to a residential building (or buildings) which do not require the spatial extension of services including public roads, electricity, water or sewerage and is within an existing allotment.”

Although site survey to determine the actual location of the proposed dwelling site relative to the boundary of the mapped buffer zone hasn’t been undertaken it is readily concluded from perusal of the Bush Fire Prone Landuse Map (Figure 3) that the building site is not mapped as bushfire prone land.

Figure 3: Extract of Murray River Council BFPLM The area around the dwelling is site clear of unmanaged grassland to an extent of at least 50m. Relying on Table 2.4.2 of AS359-2009 the Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) for the vegetation classification surrounding the dwelling, together with the available separation distance and the effective slope determined under the vegetation, a BAL Value of Low can be relied upon. Section 91 What is “integrated development”? Comment: The proposed development of the land is not regarded as an Integrated Development as defined by Section 91 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (1979) requiring approval from a relevant government agency. 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. Table 1: Application history/timeline

Application lodged 26/09/2016 Agency Referral NSW RMS – 11/10/2016 Notified and Advertised Not required Notification Period Expired Not applicable Further information requested 11/10/2016

38 of 107


Further information received 18/10/2016 Site Visit Report 13/10/2016.

2.3 Referrals and Owners Consent Internal Referrals- Not required. External Referrals- NSW RMS. Advertised- Not required Public Notification- There was no requirement to notify or advertise the development in accordance with Murray DCP 2012 Chapter 12 - notification policy. The development is considered not likely to impact on the views, privacy, noise, visual street quality or stormwater drainage of the site. Owners Consent- Provided 2.4 Contributions Section 94A charges are applicable – 1% = $2,346.45. Section 64 charges are not applicable. Section 3: Town Planning Assessment In this section the statutory and strategic land use and development policies and guidelines applicable to the DA are identified and an assessment of the considered performance of the DA against these policies and guidelines is undertaken. Assessment of the DA has been undertaken in respect to relevant considerations arising from section 79C of the EP&A Act 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 (v) 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, (c) the suitability of the site for the development,

39 of 107


(d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, (e) the public interest.

Matters for consideration 3.2(a) The Provisions 3.2(a)(i) Environmental Planning Instruments 3.2(a)(i)a Murray Local Environmental Plan 2011 Part 1 Preliminary Clause 1.2 Aims of Plan Comment: The proposal is not inconsistent with the aims of Murray LEP 2011. Clause 1.9A Suspension of covenants, agreements and instruments Comment: For the purpose of enabling development on land in any zone to be carried out in accordance with this Plan or with a consent granted under the Act, any agreement, covenant or other similar instrument that restricts the carrying out of that development does not apply to the extent necessary to serve that purpose. Part 2 Permitted or prohibited development Clause 2.3 Zone objectives & Land Use Table (development permissibility) The subject land is located within the RU1 Primary Production zone. The Zone Objectives are:

• To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base. • To encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and systems appropriate for the area. • To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands. • To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

Comment: The development is not inconsistent with the RU1 - Primary Production objectives of Murray LEP 2011. Dwelling houses are permissible. Clause 2.6 Subdivision—consent requirements Comment: Not applicable. Clause 2.7 Demolition requires development consent Comment: Not applicable. Clause 2.8 Temporary use of land Comment: Not applicable. Part 3 Exempt and complying development Clause 3.1 Exempt Development Comment: Not applicable. Clause 3.2 Complying Development Comment: Not applicable. Clause 3.3 Environmentally sensitive areas excluded Comment: Noted.

40 of 107


Part 4 Principal development standards Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size Comment: Not applicable. Clause 4.1AA Minimum subdivision lot size for community title schemes Comment: Not applicable. Clause 4.1A Minimum subdivision lot size for strata plan schemes in certain rural, residential and environmental zones Comment: Not applicable. Clause 4.1B Minimum subdivision lot sizes for certain split zones Comment: Not applicable. Clause 4.2 Rural Subdivision Comment: Not applicable. Clause 4.2A Erection of dwelling houses on land in certain rural and environmental protection zones Relevant to this application are the provisions of Clause 4.2A which among other things provide as follows:

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows: (a) to minimise unplanned rural residential development, (b) to enable the replacement of lawfully erected dwelling houses in rural and environmental protection zones. (2) This clause applies to land in the following zones: (a) Zone RU1 Primary Production, (b) Zone E3 Environmental Management. (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.

Comment: The subject land is located within the RU1 Primary Production Zone. The specified minimum lot size within the zone is 120ha. As previously noted the subject land is 119.4ha. The issue of non-compliance is address under Clause 4.6 below. Clause 4.2B Rural workers’ dwellings Comment: Not applicable. Clause 4.3 Height of buildings [Not adopted] Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio [Not adopted]

41 of 107


Clause 4.5 Calculation of floor space ratio and site area [Not adopted] Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards The provisions of Clause 4.6 are as follows:

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows: (a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development, (b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances. (2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause. (3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating: (a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and (b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. (4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless: (a) the consent authority is satisfied that: (i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and (ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and (b) the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained. (5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Secretary must consider: (a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and (b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and (c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Secretary before granting concurrence. (6) Development consent must not be granted under this clause for a subdivision of land in Zone RU1 Primary Production, Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU3 Forestry, Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, Zone RU6 Transition, Zone R5 Large Lot Residential, Zone E2 Environmental Conservation, Zone E3 Environmental Management or Zone E4 Environmental Living if: (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. Note. When this Plan was made, it did not include Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, Zone RU6 Transition, Zone E2 Environmental Conservation or Zone E4 Environmental Living. (7) After determining a development application made pursuant to this clause, the consent authority must keep a record of its assessment of the factors required to be addressed in the applicant’s written request referred to in subclause (3). (8) This clause does not allow development consent to be granted for development that would contravene any of the following: (a) a development standard for complying development,

42 of 107


(b) a development standard that arises, under the regulations under the Act, in connection with a commitment set out in a BASIX certificate for a building to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 applies or for the land on which such a building is situated, (c) clause 5.4, (ca) clause 6.1 or 6.2.

Comment: Clause 4.6 seeks to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development. In this case the proposal relates to a lot that is non-compliant in terms of the minimum lot size provisions. In response the application has been lodged with justification provided in accordance with Clause 4.6(4) largely on the basis that the proposal will be related to the ongoing sustainable use of the land for agriculture and Clause 4.6(6)(b) on the basis that the non-compliance is less than 10% being in this case only 0.6%. In response it is considered that the current proposal is not seen as being inconsistent with the policy intent of the LEP including the aim of protecting agriculture as a land use. The proposed dwelling will be unlikely to impact adversely upon farm gate values. Indeed there will be opportunity for increased productivity gains through higher resource inputs (e.g. labour) than is currently the case. Given the prevailing surrounding rural land uses, the dwelling is not seen as creating an undesirable precedent. The dwelling proposal will sit comfortably within the broad rural landscape context and will not be likely to compromise environmental values. The ‘five part test’ The Guideline entitled “Varying development standards: A Guide”. issued by NSW Department of Planning and Environment was also utilised in the assessment of this application to vary the development standard clause 4.2A - Erection of dwelling houses on land in certain rural and environmental protection zones. Further to the above, it is also noted that Council has assumed concurrence of the Secretary under clause 4.6(4) to make a determination (Planning Circular PS 08–003 Issued 9 May 2008). Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions Clause 5.1 Relevant acquisition authority Comment: Noted. Clause 5.2 Classification and reclassification of public land Comment: Noted. Clause 5.3 Development near zone boundaries Comment: Not applicable Clause 5.4 Controls relating to miscellaneous permissible uses Comment: Not applicable. Clause 5.5 Development within the coastal zone [Not applicable] Clause 5.6 Architectural roof features [Not applicable]

43 of 107


Clause 5.7 Development below mean high water mark [Not applicable] Clause 5.8 Conversion of fire alarms Comment: Noted. Clause 5.9 Preservation of trees or vegetation Comment: No vegetation is proposed to be removed as part of this application. Clause 5.9AA Trees or vegetation not prescribed by development control plan Comment: Noted. Clause 5.10 Heritage conservation Comment: The site does not contain any known items of Environmental Heritage Significance. Clause 5.11 Bush fire hazard reduction Comment: Noted. Clause 5.12 Infrastructure development and use of existing buildings of the Crown Comment: Noted. Clause 5.13 Eco-tourist facilities Comment: Not applicable. Clause 5.14 Siding Spring Observatory—maintaining dark sky [Not adopted] Clause 5.15 Defence communications facility [Not adopted] Part 6 Urban release areas Comment: Not applicable. The subject site is not mapped as an Urban Release Area. Clause 6.1 Arrangements for designated State public infrastructure Comment: Not applicable. Clause 6.2 Public utility infrastructure Comment: Not applicable. Clause 6.3 Development control plan Comment: Not applicable. Clause 6.4 Relationship between Part and remainder of Plan Comment: Not applicable. Part 7 Additional local provisions Clause 7.1 Essential services Development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the proposed development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required:

Subclause Comment

44 of 107


(a) the supply of water, Rain water tanks will be relied upon for potable water. (min 20,000litre) Bore water is also available.

(b) the supply of electricity, Electricity is available. (c) the disposal and management of sewage, On-site effluent disposal will be relied upon,

with the site having more than ample area to contain and treat wastewater in accordance with AS/NZS 1547:2012 “On-site Domestic Wastewater Management”.

(d) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation, Stormwater is to be managed onsite (e) suitable road access Existing access to the property is available

from off the Cobb Highway Clause 7.2 Earthworks Comment: No earthworks are proposed. Clause 7.3 Biodiversity Protection Comment: Not applicable. Clause 7.4 Development of River Front Areas Comment: Not applicable. Clause 7.5 Riparian Land and Murray River and other watercourse Comment: Not applicable. Clause 7.6 Additional provisions—development on river bed and banks of the Murray and Wakool Rivers Comment: Not applicable. Clause 7.7 Wetlands Comment: Not applicable. Clause 7.8 Flood planning Comment: Not applicable. The subject site is not mapped as flood prone land. Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses Comment: Not applicable. Schedule 2 Exempt development Comment: Not applicable. Schedule 3 Complying development Comment: Not applicable. Schedule 4 Classification and reclassification of public land Comment: Noted. Schedule 5 Environmental heritage Comment: Noted. 3.2(a)(i)b Murray Regional Environmental Plan No. 2—Riverine Land Comment: The subject site is not mapped as Murray Regional Environmental Plan 2 – Riverine Land.

45 of 107


3.2(a)(i)c 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 relevant development standards (Rural Housing Code – RU1 zone). 3.2(a)(i)d State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 Comment: The proposal relates to a BASIX affected building. A BASIX certificate (753604S dated 21/09/2016) has been submitted with the application and the commitments have been shown on the plans. Plans appear to be consistent with BASIX commitment. 3.2(a)(i)e State Environmental Planning Policy No 44—Koala Habitat Protection Comment: The subject land is not considered to be core koala habitat or potential core koala habitat. 3.2(a)(i)f State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land Comment: The subject land is not considered to be contaminated or likely to be contaminated and is not listed on Council’s Contaminated Land Register. In accordance with Clause 7 of SEPP 55, Council is satisfied that, the land is suitable in its current state for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out. 3.2(a)(i)g State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 Comment: The proposed development is not inconsistent with this Policy. Clause 7 Rural Planning Principles Comment: The DA is consistent with the Rural Planning Principles outlined under this plan.

Clause 10 Matters to be considered in determining development applications for rural subdivisions or rural dwellings

Matters for consideration Comment

(1) This clause applies to land in a rural zone, a rural residential zone or an environment protection zone.

The subject property is located in a rural zone thus this clause applies.

(2) A consent authority must take into account the matters specified in subclause 3 when considering whether to grant consent to development on land to which this clause applies for any of the following purposes:

(a) subdivision of land proposed to be used for the purposes of a dwelling, (b) erection of a dwelling.

The DA is for the erection of a dwelling so therefore subclause (3) applies.

(3) The following matters are to be taken into account:

(a) the existing uses and approved uses of land in the vicinity of the development,

The existing and approved uses surrounding the subject property are for rural purposes including rural dwellings. The DA is consistent with these uses.

(b) whether or not the development is likely to have a significant impact on land uses that, in the opinion of the consent authority, are likely to be preferred and the predominant land uses in the vicinity of the development,

The DA will not have any impact on the land uses.

46 of 107


(c) whether or not the development is likely to be incompatible with a use referred to in paragraph (a) or (b),

The DA will be compatible with the surrounding land uses.

(d) if the land is not situated within a rural residential zone, whether or not the development is likely to be incompatible with a use on land within an adjoining rural residential zone,

The land is not located in a rural residential zone however the proposed use is considered to be compatible within its site context including surrounding land uses.

(e) any measures proposed by the applicant to avoid or minimise any incompatibility referred to in paragraph (c) or (d).

The DA will be compatible with the surrounding land uses.

3.2(a)(i)h State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 Comment: Not applicable. 3.2(a)(i)i State Environmental Planning Policy (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions) 2007 Comment: Not applicable. 3.2(a)(ii) Proposed instruments Comment: There are a number of draft amendments to Murray LEP 2011 that have been the subject of public consultation under the Act. While these draft amendments apply to land within Murray River Council it is noted that none of these Amendments specifically change the provisions affecting the subject land. As a consequence there are no relevant issues identified. 3.2(a)(iii) Any development control plan Comment: Murray Development Control Plan applies to the proposal. Relevant to this application are the following Chapters of the Murray DCP 2012 (“the DCP”):

Chapter 2 – Residential development Chapter 12 – Notification Policy.

Chapter 1 Introduction Comment: Noted. Chapter 2 Residential Development Comment: This chapter of the DCP applies to all forms of residential development in the former Murray Shire Council area for which a development application is required. The overall purpose of the controls in this chapter is to create well-designed and liveable residential environments for current and future residents of the Shire. The Code includes control for rural development being generally but not exclusively dwellings within the Primary Production (RU1) and Environmental Management (E3) zones.

Subclause Objectives Controls Comment

2.1 Neighbourhood Character

Consistent Consistent

2.2 Streetscape Consistent Consistent

2.3 Landscaping Consistent Consistent

47 of 107


2.4 Private Open Space


2.5 Building Setbacks

Consistent Consistent 10m all sides required. Satisfied.

2.6 Car Parking and Access


2.7 Site Facilities Consistent Consistent

2.8 Security Consistent Consistent

2.9 Privacy Consistent Consistent

2.10 Energy Efficiency

Consistent Consistent In accordance with BASIX certificate number - 753604S

2.11 Outbuildings Consistent n/a

2.12 Rich River Golf Club

n/a n/a The land is not located within the Rich River Golf Club area

Chapter 3 Industrial Development Comment: Not applicable Chapter 4 Commercial Development Comment: Not applicable. Chapter 5 Tourist Accommodation Comment: Not applicable. Chapter 6 Strategic Land Use Plan Comment: This chapter of the DCP applies to land that has been identified within Council’s Strategic Landuse Plan (SLUP). The purpose of the SLUP is to guide future development and use of land within the Shire for the next 20 years and beyond. More specific to this proposal, the purpose of the SLUP is to assist in maintaining productive agricultural land not required for urban expansion. The proposal is not inconsistent with the SLUP being related to a dwelling which will be ancillary to the ongoing rural use of land. Chapter 7 Subdivision Comment: Not applicable. Chapter 8 Urban Release Areas Comment: Not applicable. Chapter 9 Vegetation Removal Comment: No vegetation is proposed to be removed. Chapter 10 Watercourses & Riparian Land Comment: Not applicable. Chapter 11 Flood Prone Land Comment: Not applicable. Chapter 12 Notification Policy

48 of 107


Comment: In accordance with the DCP the application was not required to be notified to adjoining landowners and/or publicly advertised. 3.2(a)(iiia) Any Planning Agreements Comment: No planning agreements apply. 3.2(a)(iv) The regulations Comment: The regulations have been considered in the assessment of this application. It is considered that the application is consistent with the objectives of the regulations. 3.2(a)(v) Coastal Zone Management Plan Comment: Not applicable. 3.3(b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality. Comment: It is anticipated that the proposed development will not have any likely negative impact on the general locality particularly taking into account the existing nature of the development on site. In addition to matters already considered the following additional comments are noted.

Context and siting - Satisfactory. As noted at Figures 1 & 2, the subject land is situated within a broad acre rural landscape. Scattered around the locality are farm houses and associated outbuildings as well as various farm sheds and related infrastructure. The proposal will not be inconsistent with landuse arrangements within the area and given the proposed location of the building envelope the development will be relatively discrete within the broader rural landscape. The development of the land for the purposes of a dwelling will not remove any significant area from the overall agricultural use of the farm holding which will continue to be used for broad acre farming purposes. Having regard to this site context the proposed dwelling is seen as being a consistent with the ongoing rural use of the land. The proposal will also have little or no impact on any adjoining and nearby agricultural land uses.

Environmental Impacts – Satisfactory. No adverse environmental impacts are

anticipated as a result of this proposal.

Natural Environment – The proposal will not impact upon any critical habitat. No issues are raised in respect of threatened or endangered species.

Rural Landscape - Satisfactory. The subject land is situated within rural area

where dwellings such that proposed are scattered across the locality. There is nothing about the current proposal that would lead to a conclusion that there will be an adverse impact from a rural landscape perspective. Because of the relatively small footprint of the proposed building within such a large property the development will not result in a discordant element in the landscape.

49 of 107


Social & Economic Impacts - Satisfactory. The proposal relates to residential development which will not adversely impact upon existing rural landuse. There will be no detrimental social or economic impacts

Amenity: Satisfactory. The proposal will not have an adverse impact on the

amenity of the locality as the development is to be located on a lot 119.4ha in area with the dwelling to be situated over 600 metres from adjoining land.

Noise - Satisfactory. It is considered that the construction of the proposed dwelling

will not produce any undue additional noise within the locality over and above existing levels. Operational noise once the dwelling is occupied will be minimal.

Traffic and Parking - The local and regional road network has more than adequate

capacity to accommodate the proposed development which can rely upon an existing point of access onto the Cobb Highway. Although the existing access way can already accommodate the movement of vehicles associated with the rural use of the land NSW RMS require upgrade to ensure provision of safe access onto the Classified Road network.

Waste - All waste material from the proposed construction phase will be required to

remove to designated waste collection facilities.

Heritage – Not applicable. The site is not subject to any heritage conservation provisions.

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage – No known items on site.

Water Quality & Stormwater - Satisfactory. Stormwater can be adequately dealt

with onsite.

Soils, soil erosion – No known issues of concern.

Utilities – The dwelling will be serviced through the installation of rain water tanks and an appropriate on-site wastewater treatment system. In addition electricity and Telstra facilities can be readily connected to the dwelling.

Signage – Not applicable

Safety, security & crime prevention – Not applicable..

3.4(c) The suitability of the site for the development Comment: Having regard to site context and existing functions of the subject land it is considered to be suitable for the proposed development. The development is appropriately accommodated for within the Murray LEP. Further to the above there are no issues of non-compliance with relevant Murray DCP provisions that would warrant refusal of this application. 3.5(d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, Public Submissions No public submissions were received.

50 of 107


Referral response The response of the NSW RMS is noted and required conditions have been considered for inclusion within any subsequent consent if approved. 3.6(e) The public interest. The public’s interest has been taken into consideration in the assessment of this development application. It is considered that the proposed development will have a net community benefit. 3.7 Summary As a consequence of the above discussion, together with an assessment of the heads of consideration under Section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979, as well as the planning merits of the proposal in this particular location it is felt that on balance the proposed development of a dwelling on land described as Lot 251 DP1111036 Cobb Highway Deniliquin is both appropriate and satisfactory as a result of this assessment. Having regard to the nature of the development proposal it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with relevant planning provisions including the Murray LEP 2012 and is consequently worthy of support. Accordingly, Development Application 070-17 is recommended for APPROVAL subject to the imposition of suitable conditions of consent as attached at Appendix 2. Section 4. Recommendation It is recommended that:

1. The proposed dwelling house located at Lot 251 DP1111036 Cobb Highway Deniliquin be approved, and

2. Development consent be granted subject to the conditions attached at Appendix 2.

____________ 25/11/2016 Peter O’Dwyer RPIA (Fellow) Date EDM Group – Manager Planning & Environment ___________ _________ Reviewed Date

51 of 107


APPENDIX 1

Documents Considered

52 of 107


GENERAL

1. Development Application Form dated 26/09/2016

2. Statement of Environmental Effects

3. BASIX Certificate No. 753604S dated 27/09/2016

4. Site Inspection Report & Photos dated 13 October 2016

CORRESPONDENCE

5. Council email correspondence

6. NSW RMS letter dated 1 November 2016

7. Email correspondence and attached letter from A & D Rowelink dated 18 October 2016

PLANS

8. Proposed Development Plan prepared by Dennis Family Homes (Job No. 70726 [Alberta 19 Grand] - Sheets 1-10 dated 12/08/2016)

9. Details of Carefree Water conditioner

10. Proposed Development Plan (elevations) prepared by Rigby Designs (Two sheets - dated 4 October 2016)

53 of 107


APPENDIX 2

Conditions

54 of 107


CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Conditions prescribed by the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000

(A1) Compliance with Building Code of Australia and insurance requirements under the

Home Building Act 1989

The work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

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.

Note: 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 construction certificate.

(A2) Erection of signs

A 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.

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.

This condition 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.

(A3) Notification of Home Building Act 1989 requirements

For the purposes of section 80A (11) of the Act, the following 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.

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.

If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information notified under this condition becomes out of date, further

55 of 107


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.

This condition 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.

B. Prior to release of a construction certificate

(B1) The payment of Section 94a contributions in accordance with Council’s policy prior to the

commencement of works.

1. Section 94a charges are 1% of the cost of the development which equates to $2,346.45 2.

(B2) An individual Rural Address Number is to be assigned to the dwelling, the fee required for the sign, post & installation is $190 and payable to Council prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

Reason: To ensure the dwelling is able to be identified.

C. Prior to the commencement of works

(C1) An application for a Construction Certificate must be submitted to, and approved by, a nominated Certifying Authority prior to commencement of any work at the site.

(C2) Temporary water closet accommodation is to be provided onsite during construction. This facility

must be located onsite so as to not create a nuisance to any adjoining properties.

(C3) Before any sanitary plumbing and drainage work or water supply work (up to the point of connection) is commenced, a Notice of Work (NoW) is to be submitted to Council 48 hours prior to works commencing. On completion of work, the licensed plumber / drainer shall apply for an inspection (inspection fees apply) and a Certificate of Compliance (CoC) is to be submitted to Council. A sewer service diagram (SSD) must also be provided to Council upon completion of the drainage works.

(C4) The applicant is to apply to Council for approval to install and operate a new on-site

wastewater treatment system (fees apply). This system is to be a NSW Health Approved system. The location of this system is to be approved by Council. The application is to include details of the proposed system, distances from water bodies (i.e. river, farm dam), copy of the accreditation, appropriate unit sizing and details of the absorption system. A soil capability assessment is to be submitted with the application. The land application system is to located at least 100m to permanent surface waters (e.g. river) and 40m to other waters (e.g. farm dam).

D. General

(D1) The development is to be carried out in accordance with the plans (Dennis Family Homes Job

No. 70726 [Alberta 19 Grand] - Sheets 1-10 dated 12/08/2016) and BASIX Certificate 753604S submitted to and stamped by Council as part of the application. Any amendments to these plans will require the approval of Council.

(D2) Appropriate erosion and sedimentation control measures are to be installed and maintained on

site for the duration of construction works.

56 of 107


(D3) The construction site is to be maintained in an environmentally sound manner during building works. Designated waste containment areas are to be provided on site, and maintained so as to prevent any windblown litter escaping from the site.

(D4) Vehicle access to the construction site is to be restricted to a single, all-weather driveway. This

access point is to be stabilized and maintained until construction onsite is completed.

(D5) There is to be no clearing of native vegetation other than that approved by the Murray Local Land Services or in accordance with the provisions of the Native Vegetation Act 2003.

(D6) The applicant is to be made aware that if any Aboriginal sites/relics/remains are discovered

on site that the proponent must; o not further harm the Aboriginal object o immediately cease work at the particular location o secure the area so as to avoid further harm to Aboriginal object o notify OEH as soon as practical by telephoning 131 555, providing any details of the

Aboriginal object and location o not recommence works at the particular location unless authorised in writing by the

OEH (D7) The proposed dwelling must be provided with a subterranean termite management system

conforming to Australian Standard AS3660.1 or Part 3.1.3 of the BCA. (D8) 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.

(D9) 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.

(D10) A minimum of 20,000 litres of stored rainwater shall be provided for domestic purposes unless the site is serviced by the Council filtered water main.

E. Prior to Release of an Occupation Certificate

(E1) Occupation - The applicant shall not allow or permit the building (or part of the building, in the

case of alteration or additions) to be occupied or used, until :-

a. All conditions of this approval have been completed in full; b. An application for an Occupation Certificate has been completed and returned to the

Principal Certifying Authority; and c. The Principal Certifying Authority has issued an Occupation Certificate.

(E2) Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate adequate provisions in relation to the

supply of electricity to the dwelling must be in place. The dwelling additions must be located more than 5m from an overhead power line.

(E3) A final Occupation Certificate will not be issued until all BASIX commitments as stated on the

BASIX certificate provided have been completed in full and certified. (E4) An application for a final Occupation Certificate must be accompanied by the BASIX Certificate

applicable for the development. F. Bushfire Protection Conditions

Asset Protection Zones

57 of 107


The intent of measures is to provide sufficient space and maintain reduced fuel loads so as to ensure radiant heat levels of buildings are below critical limits and to prevent direct flame contact with a building. (F1) At the commencement of building works and in perpetuity an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) is

to be maintained for a distance of 50 metres in all directions around the proposed dwelling as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones'.

Landscaping (F2) Landscaping to the site is to comply with the principles of Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush

Fire Protection 2006'. G. NSW Roads & Maritime Services Condition

(G1) Property access is to comply with the requirements of NSW RMS being Conditions 1 – 10

only as outlined within the attached correspondence dated 1 November 2016. These requirements include but are not limited to:

a. Constructing the driveway as a ‘Rural Property Access’ type treatment in accordance with the Austroads Guide to Road Design as amended by supplements adopted by Roads and Maritime Services; and

b. The access driveway shall be sealed and maintained for at least 10m from the edge of seal of the carriageway of the Cobb Highway in accordance with the Austroads Guide to Road Design.

H. Reasons For Conditions

(H1) The above conditions have been imposed: -

i. To ensure compliance with the terms of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and to ensure compliance with conditions of consent

ii. Having regard to Council's duties of consideration under Section 79C and 80A of the Act iii. As prescribed by the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. iv. To comply with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations. v. To comply with Council and Statutory requirement of Local Government (General)

Regulation 2005. vi. To ensure that the installation of plumbing and drainage work is in accordance with

Australian Standards and the Plumbing Code of Australia. vii. To provide protection for the building from subterranean termites and to comply with the

Building Code of Australia. viii. To ensure an appropriate level of provision of amenities and services occurs within the

Murray River Council LGA and to occupants of sites ix. To ensure the building is afforded an appropriate level of bushfire protection in

accordance with Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006. x. To ensure compliance with NSW Roads and Maritime Services requirements in respect

of access to the Classified Road network. xi. To protect Aboriginal Heritage xii. To improve the amenity, safety and environmental quality of the locality xiii. Having regard to environmental quality, the circumstances of the case and the public

interest xiv. Having regard to the Murray Development Control Plan 2012 xv. To protect public interest, the environment and existing amenity of the locality xvi. To minimise health risk to neighbouring residents and workers. xvii. To ensure adequate storage is available on rural properties for water supply.

58 of 107


xviii. To ensure that Council is able to comment on and inspect the proposed waste water system, and to comply with the Local Government Act 1993.

I. Advisory And Ancillary Matters (I1) Compliance It is the responsibility of the applicant to check, understand and seek assistance where needed so as to ensure full compliance with the conditions of this Development Consent. Please contact the Murray River Council on 1300 087 004 if there is any difficulty in understanding or complying with any of the above conditions. (I2) Bushfire Protection The dwelling has been assigned a construction level of BAL-Low. However, the NSW Rural Fire Service encourages homeowners to provide basic measures such as window screens and gutter guard to minimise ember attack. (I3) Protection of Aboriginal Objects It is noted that it is the responsibility of the Applicant to ensure that the development is consistent with the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW OEH) document entitled: Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales, available: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/cultureheritage/ddcop/10798ddcop.pdf (I4) Covenants The land subject to this consent may have restrictive covenants applying to it. It is the responsibility of the owner and builder to ensure that covenants are adhered to. Council does not enforce or regulate covenants and therefore accepts no responsibility for checking the compliance of building design with such covenants.

59 of 107

Appendix 3 Report 18 Application to waive the requirement to pay contributions for stormwater and road upgrades

60 of 107

From: Date: 30/07/2016 1:29:18 PM To: Cc: Subject: Stormwater and Road Upgrades Contribution

Hi Leigh, Attached are the notes I had for the meeting with David Shaw and Simon Arkinstall on 25/5 while you were away.They said that the Stormwater and Roads discussion should be had with you when you return, hence meeting last week. As per section 2.9 of the Murray Shire Section 94 Development Contributions Plan we may apply for an "In Kind" contribution in lieu of payment. We would like to apply for you to waive both the Stormwater contribution of $450 per lot, and the Road Upgrades contribution of $1500/$1633 per lot . The stormwater is detailed in the NESD Stormwater Management Strategy report supplied for DA 079/14 and covers Lots 9,10,11 and 12 on DP1213161 [see plan attached] and is on the grounds that we have a completely self contained system. With the Road contribution we will again consider Lots 9,10,11 and 12. Total number of lots is approx 188 [see attached plan] at $1500/$1633 gives a loss to Council of $294,768. For the Subdivider there is a loss of saleable land of 700m x 10m = 7000sm. This is say 7 lots at $50000/lot profit = $350,000. Also the cost of developing a wider /heavier trafficked road, estimate 700m @ $325/m = $227,500. Total loss to Developer of $577,500. For this loss to Subdivider I would like to ask Council to get future subdividers to do any upgrade to Perricoota Road intersection [other than road marking] Regards

61 of 107

Appendix 4 Report 18 Public submission

62 of 107

Chris O'Brien Nepeta Cataria P/L Murray Shire Council PO Box 75 PO Box 21 Parkville Vic 3052 Mathoura NSW 2710 [email protected] 11 June 2016 Re: DA 079-14 (modification 4) - Response Dear Chris, thank you for providing Nepeta Cataria Pty Ltd with a copy of the modified proposal for a 95 lot subdivision of Lots 9 and 10 of DP285511. I am responding on behalf of Nepeta Cataria Pty Ltd, who is the owner of Lot 11 of DP285511, street address 312 Perricoota Rd Moama NSW 2731. Lot 11 of DP285511 adjoins the land subject to the proposed modification directly along its northwest boundary. Up to this modification 4, all the approved and proposed development applications for Lots 9 and 10 included three road links to Lot 11. Using the current DA (modification 4) plan as a reference, the road links had been along Pelican Boulevard; approximately along lot 93; and along lot 32. The essence of the proposed modification 4 is to convert one of three road links into a domestic lot, leaving only two road links to the future street network at Lot 11. The advantage this provides to the applicant is the additional revenue from sale of the new domestic lot. We are of the opinion that two road links to the future street network at Lot 11 will be sufficient to service its anticipated number of residences and volume of traffic. We believe that one road link will not be adequate. Thus, we do not have an objection to the applicant proposing to reduce the number of road links from three to two. However, we believe that the applicant has made a poor choice of which road link to close. The applicant chose to close the link at lot 32, which is aligned with the currently unnamed street running parallel to Perricoota Rd, and intersecting with proposed Brolga Avenue at a roundabout. Closing this link has forced conversion of rectangular house lots 1, 2 and 3 into irregularly shaped lots. Closing this link has also closed direct access to the roundabout on Brolga Avenue form all the future residences on Lot 11 located closer to Perricoota Rd than proposed Cormorant St. The road links which the applicant has chosen to retain are along Pelican St (same as before) and now along newly planned very short Cormorant St. Future residents of house lots on Lot 11 of DP285511 located closer to Perricoota Rd than Cormorant St, and who seek egress to Perricoota Rd will now be required to travel away from Perricoota Rd, towards Cormorant St, along Cormorant St, down Heron St and to the roundabout. Access to these residences from Perricoota Rd will comprise the same complicated route in reverse. On our estimation the number of residences so affected comprises approximately twenty residences. The number of unnecessary left and right turns this adds to the very short journey is four, in each direction. We are of the strong opinion that the applicant will achieve his aim of obtaining one more marketable residential block but not at the expense of good town planning by making a better choice of which road link to close and which to keep open. We are of the strong opinion that the correct road link to keep open is at lot 32, while the poorly positioned Cormorant St can be converted back to a residential block. Doing so will allow the future residents of any eventual subdivision at Lot 11 direct access to the roundabout on Brolga St (and then egress to Perricoota Rd). It will also allow the applicant to convert irregular lots 1, 2 and 3 of his own subdivision back to regular rectangular blocks, and increase their sale value from doing so. Please do not hesitate to contact either me or Mr Warwick Horsfall of Habitat Planning ([email protected]) should you have any questions. Can you please confirm receipt of this Response by return email. Yours sincerely,

Alex G. Pitman Director - Nepeta Cataria Pty Ltd

63 of 107

Appendix 5 Report 18 Public submission

64 of 107

Chris O'Brien Nepeta Cataria P/L Murray River Council PO Box 75 PO Box 21 Parkville Vic 3052 Mathoura NSW 2710 [email protected] 08 July 2016 Re: DA 079-14 (modification 5) - Response Dear Chris, thank you for forwarding the amended development plans for the 95 lot subdivision of Lots 9 and 10 of DP2885511 (RAN 290 Perricoota Rd, Moama NSW 2731). I am again responding on behalf of Nepeta Cataria Pty Ltd, who is the owner of Lot 11 of DP285511, street address 312 Perricoota Rd Moama NSW 2731. It is pleasing to see that the amended plans (designated version 5 by North East Survey Design) agree with our prior comments on position of the road links to Lot 11. The essence of the amendment (which appears to be modification 5 by our counting) is to convert the ill-positioned Cormorant St back to a residential block; rename the street running parallel to Perricoota Rd as Cormorant St; and to propose road links to Lot 11 to be along Pelican Blvd (same as before) and now along the newly named Cormorant St. House lots 1, 2 and 3 are now regular rectangular house lots fronting onto the newly named Cormorant St (increasing their sale value for the applicant). We also note a clerical error: Stage 2 of the plan has two lots numbered '60' and no lot numbered '59'. We now would like to turn the Council's attention to an aspect of the proposal which has not been addressed in its entirety, specifically sewerage. On the plan the proposed sewer servicing the development has been indicated with a red line running along Lot 45 of DP1082147 and then between lots 32 and 33; under Egret St; between lots 38 and 39; and between lots 41 and 40 to reach Brolga Avenue. The applicant has not shown where the rest of the sewer pipes are proposed for this development. It makes engineering and regulatory sense for sewer pipes to run under road reserves in preference to running under private land. Thus, it is possible that the applicant intends for the sewer network to run along the streets (Egret St, Brolga Ave, Heron St, Cormorant St, Pelican St) to service the house lots fronting onto these streets. The applicant has also not indicated where the applicant proposes the sewer network will connect with the future sewer network of Lot 11. Assuming that good town planning is adhered to and the sewer network of this subdivision follows its road reserves, then the logical future connections should be planned along Cormorant St and along Pelican St respectively. However, if the applicant plans for the sewer connections to run under private land of the subdivision blocks instead, these plans should also be indicated now in order to allow appropriate easements to be created. We would like to request the Council, and the applicant through the Council, to indicate the proposed sewer network for this subdivision, and to nominate the proposed locations for future extensions of the sewer network to the eventual subdivision of Lot 11. We are of the opinion that the correct locations for future sewer connectivity are along Cormorant St and Pelican St, under road reserves. We ask the Council (and the applicant through the Council) to indicate if the Council and the applicant are in agreement. Please do not hesitate to contact either me or Mr Warwick Horsfall of Habitat Planning ([email protected]) should you have any questions. Can you please confirm receipt of this Response by return email. Yours sincerely,

Alex G. Pitman Director - Nepeta Cataria Pty Ltd

65 of 107

Appendix 6 Report 24 Vehicle Crossing Policy

66 of 107

Murray River Council Vehicle Crossings Policy (POL301.V1)

Page 1 of 5Adopted: [date]

Murray River Council

VEHICLE CROSSINGS POLICY POL301.V1

INTRODUCTION

The Roads Act 1993 and the Local Government Act 1993, requires that a person shall not carry out any activity or works on a public road or place without the approval of Council. Also, a property owner/s is liable for all costs associated with the construction, maintenance and repair of a vehicle access between the road pavement and their property boundary line. OBJECTIVES

1. To require the provision of vehicle crossings and authorise the Director Engineering to set

an appropriate standard for construction and maintenance of crossings.

2. To ensure the construction and maintenance of vehicle and access crossings is to Council’s specifications.

3. To allow for temporary crossings to be provided for short term access.

4. To limit Council’s liability when construction and maintenance work is carried out by the property owner/contractor in the road reserve.

5. To remove unauthorised vehicle and access crossings. REQUIREMENTS

The construction of all vehicle crossings shall require a Vehicle Crossing Application to be made to Murray River Council (‘Council’). The application shall be lodged with Council with the prescribed fee (as per Council’s current Fees & Charges Schedule). Standard requirements may vary depending on the proposed use of the vehicle crossing and a desire to avoid conflict with existing trees, utility services, drainage system and water and sewer reticulation pipes and fittings. Where a proposed vehicle crossing will impact on an existing water, sewerage or drainage asset, all costs associated with the construction of any new pits, pipes, grates and lintels required to resolve the conflict shall be at the applicant’s expense. Where a vehicle crossing will impact on an existing power pole, Telstra pit or any other utility, the applicant shall liaise directly with the service providers and shall be responsible for all costs associated with the adjustment of these utilities. Vehicle crossings shall be constructed perpendicular to the kerb and gutter or road centreline. In special circumstances, including the need to avoid trees, this angle may be varied but any variation will be shown on the vehicle crossing design for that site. A splay can be incorporated into a design for improving access to or from busy roads or other situations where assessed as appropriate by Council.

67 of 107



Where existing laybacks or crossings are made redundant by the construction of a new layback or crossing in an alternate location the following must occur: (a) the layback shall be removed and the kerb and gutter restored to the profile of the

adjacent kerb and gutter at no cost to Council; or (b) the old crossing shall be removed, with any damaged sections of footpath reconstructed

and the area re-grassed to the satisfaction of Council at no cost to Council.

An approved crossing must be provided at all accesses from private property to the public road system. 1. Number of Driveways

Council policy is that two (2) vehicle crossings to each dwelling lot is to be permitted.

2. Specification for Vehicular Crossing

A vehicular crossing must be constructed and maintained in accordance with drawings and specifications as determined by the Director Engineering.

3. Non-Standard Applications

In cases where Council’s standard vehicular crossing specification is not appropriate (eg crossings over watercourses or large drains), the applicant will be required to submit a specific design for the crossing certified by a registered engineer.

4. Temporary Crossings

A temporary crossing may be provided for short term access (eg during construction work). Temporary crossings are to be removed upon completion of the use for which the installation was approved and the road reserve reinstated.

The standard of construction and duration of the temporary crossing are to be as approved by the Director Engineering. Approval is to be obtained prior to installation.

5. Cost of Construction and Maintaining Vehicle Crossings

The full cost of constructing and maintaining a vehicle crossing shall be borne by the owner of the property to which the crossing provides access. The only exceptions will be that Council will replace an approved crossing, including any necessary piped culvert, to an existing dwelling when drains are altered and entrances are affected during the course of road and/or drainage construction. Ongoing maintenance of the crossing remains the responsibility of the property owner. Council will not accept responsibility for restoration of any unauthorised crossing.

Where it comes to Council’s notice that driveway maintenance is required, including temporary crossings and access pipe culverts, which remain outstanding after notification to the landholder, such maintenance will be undertaken by Council and the costs charged to the landholder (Refer Roads Act - Section 138 and Section 218).

Where it becomes necessary for Council to cut through a driveway, there is no guarantee implied or otherwise that driveways installed in other than plain concrete will be matched with existing paving.

6. Authorised Contractors

Vehicle crossings shall be constructed by Council or suitably licensed and authorised contractors. In order to gain acceptance by Council, contractors shall make written application and provide documentary evidence of their workers compensation certificate and public liability insurance, to an amount as determined from time to time by Council.

68 of 107



Only those contractors on Council’s current Authorised Supplier/Contractor list are permitted to undertake these works.

Council makes no representation as to the quality or workmanship of any of the Authorised Suppliers/Contractors. It is the responsibility of the person engaging any supplier/contractor to undertake their own reference checks to determine if the supplier/contractor is suitable for the works to be completed.

Any works in the road reserve carried out by an unauthorised contractor may be deemed illegal and subject to further action, including rectification and/or removal of the unauthorised work at the applicants/owners cost.

7. Inspections

All works on the road reserve are subject to inspection by Council to ensure compliance with specifications. Any works found to be non-compliant will be required to be rectified prior to final approval. Council will remove a contractor from its Authorised Supplier/Contractor list for failure to meet specification or failure to rectify non-compliant works.

8. Unauthorised Crossings

Council does not tolerate the obstruction of drains or gutters with any objects used by the occupier to obtain access. Any structure of this nature is considered unauthorised. Unauthorised crossings will be removed by Council officers after the occupier of the property is given notice in writing.

Where the occupier takes no action to install an authorised crossing following proper notice being given, and subsequently gains access to their property with an unauthorised crossing, Council officers may remove the obstruction without any further notice to the landowner.

Unauthorised crossings are those that have been constructed without prior permission, or have not been constructed in accordance with Council’s levels and specifications, or are creating an obstruction to a road or stormwater drain.

9. Materials and Surface Treatments

As the driveway must also accommodate the needs of pedestrians walking along the verge of the road, it will be required to meet the relevant Australian Standards and AUSTROADS’ Guidelines in terms of skid resistance. Accordingly, broom finished concrete or segmental pavers provide a good textured finish and are preferred. Pavers are to be laid on a mass concrete base.

Loose surfaces will not be permitted in urban areas, as loose material can be washed into gutters or stormwater drains and tracked onto the road causing a hazard and polluting water ways. Un-even surfaces such as stamped concrete will not be approved as they may create a tripping hazard, particularly for elderly persons.

Slick coatings or finishes with low skid resistance in wet weather will not be approved. This may include rounded pebbles in exposed aggregate driveways, silicone sealant paint (used to lift the colours of oxides), glossy ceramic tiles or any other surface that is slippery when wet.

Alternate finishes and colours may be applied for but Council will not be responsible for matching the finish or colours in the event that works necessitate removal of all or part of the crossing.

Driveways to commercial or industrial development are to be constructed from concrete with a broomed or wood float finish.

Laybacks are not to be coloured or patterned in any way.

69 of 107



10. Location In all cases, vehicle crossings shall be designed to maximise vehicle and pedestrian

safety. The location of driveways on corner allotments is to comply with the provisions of Australian Standard AS 2890.

11. Application and Fees

No construction work in the road reserve is to commence until an application for the work is approved by Council.

Applications are to be accompanied by the prescribed fee (as per Council’s current Fees and Charges Schedule).

12. Planning the Driveway

Access to the garage or vehicle parking area is to be considered with any proposed development in conjunction with the requirements of this Policy.

The driveway level at the property boundary will be provided by the Council’s Engineering Department following submission of a driveway application.

The proposed garage floor level is to be determined and indicated in relation to the property boundary level.

For properties serviced by a right-of-way or battle axe access, sufficient turning space shall be provided on site to allow a three (3) point turn so that vehicles can exit the property in a forward direction.

13. Provision for Traffic and Safety of the Public

During the course of the works, the contractor shall be adequately insured for public liability and shall indemnify Council against any claims arising from these works.

The contractor shall, for the duration of the works provide proper fencing, barricades, lighting, signs and such temporary roadways, footways as necessary for the accommodation and protection of pedestrians, motorists and public, in accordance with AS 1742 (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads) and other relevant Australian Standards or documents advised by Council.

The contractor shall fulfil all obligations and responsibilities under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.

14. Utility Services

Consideration should be given to electricity, water, sewerage, drainage, gas and phone and the requirements of each of the service providers.

The relocation or adjustment of any utility pipes, pits, poles etc must be arranged with the responsible authority by the contractor. Any reduction of a standard clearance or adjustment of a condition negotiated between any resident and an authority shall be verified in writing and forwarded to Council.

70 of 107



DOCUMENT CONTROL Documents Linked to this Policy

This Policy is supported by:

Murray River Council Vehicle Crossing Application All Engineering procedural documents, including JSA’s Work Health and Safety documents Risk Management documents (when completed)

Related Materials

Legislation:

Local Government Act 1993 Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 Roads Act 1993 Work Health & Safety Act 2011

Policies: None at this time

Procedures, Protocols, Guidelines, Statements, Plans and/or Documents:

JSA’s Australian Standards AUSTROADS’ Guidelines

Authorisation Portfolio: Engineering

Previously known as: N/A

Review Period: Every two (2) years (or at the time of any relevant legislative changes)

Review Date: December 2018

Position responsible for Review: Director Engineering

Version No. Details Date Resolution No.

1

Initial Issue – On 12 May 2016, the Premier of NSW, The Hon Mike Baird MP, made the Local Government (Council Amalgamations) Proclamation 2016 under the Local Government Act 1993, whereby Murray Shire Council and Wakool Shire Council were amalgamated to constitute the new area to be known as Murray River Council, effective immediately.

Disclaimer: This Policy was formulated to be consistent with Council’s legislative obligations and within the scope of Council’s powers. This Policy should be read in conjunction with relevant legislation, guidelines and codes of practice. In the case of any discrepancies, the most recent legislation should prevail. This Policy does not constitute legal advice. Legal advice should be sought in relation to particular circumstances and liability will not be accepted for losses incurred as a result of reliance on this Policy. Council reserves the right to review, vary or revoke this Policy at any time.

71 of 107

Appendix 7 Report 25 Transport Assets Management Policy

72 of 107

Murray River Council Transport Assets Management Policy (POL300.V1)


Murray River Council

TRANSPORT ASSETS MANAGEMENT POLICY POL300.V1

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 2 Inspections – Road Hazard and Risk Identification ................................................................. 2 1. Purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 2 2. Inspection Intervals ............................................................................................................................. 3 3. Night Inspections ................................................................................................................................. 3 4. Inspection Staff .................................................................................................................................... 4 5. Inspection Process .............................................................................................................................. 4

Control .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Unavoidable Risk ........................................................................................................................ 4 Document Control ....................................................................................................................... 5 APPENDIX 1 : INSPECTION PROCEDURES & INTERVENTION LEVELS ............................... 6

Roads ................................................................................................................................... 6 1. Inspection Frequency ................................................................................................................ 6 2. Procedure .................................................................................................................................. 6 3. Defects (Inspect For) ................................................................................................................ 7 4. Intervention Levels .................................................................................................................... 8 Footpaths, Bike Paths and Shared Paths ............................................................................ 9 1. Inspection Frequency ................................................................................................................ 9 2. Procedure .................................................................................................................................. 9 3. Defects (Inspect For) .............................................................................................................. 10 4. Intervention Levels .................................................................................................................. 10

73 of 107



INTRODUCTION This Transport Assets Management Policy forms a part of the corporate Risk Management Policy. The development of a Road Risk Management procedure for the road asset type is a specific requirement of the corporate Policy. For the purpose of this procedure, “road” shall be defined as the total constructed width of a carriageway or formation including sealed and unsealed pavements, tabledrains, structures across roads, delineation and signage, and includes streets, footpaths, bike paths, shared paths, street lights, kerb & gutter and bus shelters. The progressive implementation of Asset Management Plans for various asset types is one of the objectives of Murray River Council. PURPOSE

The Policy demonstrates that Murray River Council has a systematic and documented approach for reducing risks associated with the maintenance of roads. This, in turn, reducing Council’s exposure to liabilities associated with the maintenance and repair of roads. OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the Policy are:

To apply the risk management principles of identification, evaluation, and treatment of

risks to road maintenance.

To implement a formal system of road inspections which record identified risks including defined hazards.

To develop and maintain a risk register for roads through inspections and incorporate reports of road hazards received from the public and/or employees.

To implement a method of prioritising the risks identified by the various sources.

To establish reasonably practicable response times, in which to effect repairs or provide temporary warnings, for the risks identified based on resources available.

To establish a system of documenting all important steps of the procedure to allow ongoing review and to provide evidence to defend road related claims against Council.

INSPECTIONS – ROAD HAZARD AND RISK IDENTIFICATION

1. Purpose

Road inspections are undertaken to allow the systematic identification of risks on the road network. An inspection program has been developed (see Figure 1), and the information gathered by this program shall be used as the main method of identifying all the known hazards and risks associated with the road network. Inspections are a formalised assessment of sections of the road network, looking for hazards that may require repair and maintenance.

74 of 107



There are three (3) major types of inspection: Formal (planned) Requests/Complaints Received from Road Users Service Requests from Council Employees

Formal (planned): The purpose of formal inspections is to identify: (a) Those assets that have defects; (b) The location of the defect; (c) Action required to correct the defect; and (d) Severity of defect and hence priority for action.

Requests/Complaints Received from Road Users: Requests or complaints from road users are a valuable source of knowledge about the state of the road network between inspections. Each request/complaint is registered via a Service Request and then assigned to an Engineering Department staff member who will then arrange an inspection of the request/complaint.

Service Requests from Council Employees: Council’s staff regularly travel the road network on the way to and returning from work locations at various points throughout the Council area. During this travel, Council staff are encouraged to report defects encountered within the Maintenance Management Software (Reflect).

2. Inspection Intervals

Roads maintained by Council shall be inspected generally in accordance with the intervals listed in Figure 1 below. Figure 1 – Inspection Intervals

Road Category Inspection Timeframe Regional Monthly

Arterial/Collector 6 monthly

Local L1/L2 L3

Annual Biennial

Urban Annual

Path (Low Risk) Biennial

Path (Medium Risk) Annual

Path (High Risk) 6 monthly

Kerb & Gutter Annual

Bus Shelters Annual

3. Night Inspections

All bitumen roads and streets shall be inspected in each direction for sign, pavement and guide post reflectivity and street light functionality every two (2) years.

75 of 107



4. Inspection Staff

The inspections will be undertaken by appropriately trained and experienced personnel who have an understanding of road-related hazards and defects. These may be the Works Foreman, Engineers, Gangers, Soil Technicians, Road Safety Officer or other staff members considered suitable to undertake inspections and accredited by the Director Engineering. All inspectors will be trained in the systems, hazard analysis, and recording methods which support this procedure.

5. Inspection Process Inspectors shall record risks/defects using the Maintenance Management Software (Reflect). Where works are required to remove the risk/defect, a report will be generated and given to the appropriate staff detailing the action required and the action date in accordance with the Council’s procedures and intervention levels (Appendix 1). The program shall be maintained and monitored to ensure risks/defects are actioned within specified timeframes.

CONTROL

Control of risk exposure requires control measures to be implemented. Some of the control measures that Council will be able to use to lessen its exposure to risk are as follows: Effecting repair of the damaged or substandard asset. Effecting temporary repairs and hence lowering the priority for future action. Use of warning signs and lights to alert road users of the potential hazard that exists

ahead. Erection of temporary barriers or barricades and lights around the area until it can be

repaired. Planning and allocating resources for the long term replacement of the road network or

structures. UNAVOIDABLE RISK

Where an identified risk is unable to be eliminated due to the lack of Council resources, a summary report is to be provided to the General Manager detailing the risk and costs associated with eliminating the risk. A detailed risk rating assessment shall be undertaken, which will assist Management to program and prioritise funds to undertake necessary works.

76 of 107



DOCUMENT CONTROL Documents Linked to this Policy

This Policy is supported by: All Engineering procedural documents, including JSA’s Work Health and Safety documents Risk Management documents (when completed)

Related Materials

Legislation:

Local Government Act 1993 Local Government Regulations 1993 Road Transport Act 2013 Roads Act 1993

Policies: None at this time

Procedures, Protocols, Guidelines, Statements, Plans and/or Documents:

JSA’s

Authorisation Portfolio: Engineering

Previously known as: N/A

Review Period: Every three (3) years (or at the time of any relevant legislative changes)

Review Date: December 2019

Position responsible for Review: Director Engineering

Version No. Details Date Resolution No.

1

Initial Issue – On 12 May 2016, the Premier of NSW, The Hon Mike Baird MP, made the Local Government (Council Amalgamations) Proclamation 2016 under the Local Government Act 1993, whereby Murray Shire Council and Wakool Shire Council were amalgamated to constitute the new area to be known as Murray River Council, effective immediately.

Disclaimer: This Policy was formulated to be consistent with Council’s legislative obligations and within the scope of Council’s powers. This Policy should be read in conjunction with relevant legislation, guidelines and codes of practice. In the case of any discrepancies, the most recent legislation should prevail. This Policy does not constitute legal advice. Legal advice should be sought in relation to particular circumstances and liability will not be accepted for losses incurred as a result of reliance on this Policy. Council reserves the right to review, vary or revoke this Policy at any time.

77 of 107



APPENDIX 1

INSPECTION PROCEDURES & INTERVENTION LEVELS

ROADS

ROAD CATEGORY

Abbreviation R A C L1 L2 L3 Urban

Surface Type Sealed Sealed Gravel or Sealed

Gravel Gravel Natural Mixed

1. INSPECTION FREQUENCY

Road Category Inspection Timeframe Regional Monthly

Arterial/Collector 6 monthly

Local L1/L2 L3

Annual Biennial

Urban Annual

Kerb & Gutter Annual

Bus Shelters Annual

2. PROCEDURE

A roof-mounted flashing amber light shall be operating on the vehicle when Council’s staff are undertaking rural road inspections on bitumen roads which require frequent stopping and travel speeds of less than 75km/hr. Defects are to be recorded via the appropriate medium. Information collected will be uploaded either automatically or manually by Council’s staff into the Maintenance Management Software (Reflect).

78 of 107



3. DEFECTS (INSPECT FOR)

Pavement

Edge drop offs (shoulders) Shoves Rutting Edge breaks Crocodile cracking Pot holes Stripping seal Seal bleeding Cracking Oxidation of aggregate Corrugations

Vegetation Growth causing blockage of visibility Overhang growth causing damage to trucks

Regulatory Signs

Give Way, Stop, Speed that are damaged, faded/non reflective, missing or out of date

Speed restriction Roundabout No Stopping

Warning Signs Warning Signs (yellow and black) that are

damaged, faded/non reflective or missing

Other Signs Street/Road signs that are damaged, faded/non

reflective or missing

Pavement Line Marking

Double lines/Single lines Stop and Give Way lines Raised pavement markers Pedestrian Crossing

Drainage Drainage structure failure that has potential to

cause hazard on road way

Guide Post and Reflectors Critical locations such as culverts, crests and

curves that are missing or in need of repair

Debris on Carriageway Fallen limb, etc. that could cause damage to a

vehicle

Kerb and Gutter Raised gutter > 30mm @ seal, > 50mm @ back

of kerb

Street Lights Illumination or flickering

Bus Shelters Glass panel damage Structural defect

79 of 107



4. INTERVENTION LEVELS Identified defects are to be rectified/made safe in accordance with the intervention levels shown below:

Intervention Periods Road Category

R A/C L1 L2 L3 Urban Edge Drop Offs/Edge Breaks Minor < 200mm Major > 200mm

30days 14days

60days 30days

6mths 60days

Shoves (Measured from top to bottom) Minor < 250mm Major > 250mm

30days 14days

60days 30days

6mths 60days

30days 14days

Crocodile Cracking Minor < 20m2/100 lin.m Major >20m2/100 lin.m

60days 30days

90days 60days

120days 90 days

30days 14days

Pot Holes > 300mm wide and, 50mm deep 75mm deep 100mm deep

10days 5days 5days

20days 10days 5days

30days 20days 10days

6mths 3mths 3mths

12mths 12mths 12mths

20days 10days 5days

Seal Stripping/Bleeding > 10m2/ lin.m

6mths

6mths

6mths

12mths

Cracking (longitudinal) 0-5mm 5mm – 10mm

3mths 1mth

6mths 3mths

12mths 6mths

3mths 1mth

Corrugations < 100mm deep (medium) > 100mm deep (large)

3mths 3mths

3mths 3mths

3mths 3mths

3mths 3mths

3mths 3mths

Debris on Carriageway 1day 1day 2days 5days 5days 1day

Visible Obstruction - Vegetation 1mth 1mth 3mths 3mths 3mths 1mth

Signs Regulatory/Warning missing Other missing Regulatory/Warning poor

condition Other poor condition

5days 1mth 1mth 1mth


1mth 1mth 1mth 1mth

2mths 1mth 1mth 1mth

2mths 1mth 1mth 1mth


Line Marking 1mth 3mths 6mths 1mth

Guide Posts 1mth 3mths 6mths 12mths 12mths Guard Rail (make safe) 5days 2wks 1mnth 2mnths 2mnths Drainage 2mths 3mths 6mths 12mths 12mths 1mth

Kerb & Gutter 12mths

Street Lighting Reported to Appropriate Authority within 10 days

Bus Shelters 1mth 1mth

80 of 107



FOOTPATHS, BIKE PATHS AND SHARED PATHS 1. INSPECTION FREQUENCY

Road Category Inspection Timeframe Path (Low Risk) Biennial

Path (Medium Risk) Annual

Path (High Risk) 6 monthly

Low Risk Areas

Low volume pedestrian activity; minimal community infrastructure nearby.

Medium Risk Area Frequent volume of pedestrian activity; in close proximity to community infrastructure (playground, community hall, aged care centres, medical facilities, public transport, etc).

High Risk Areas

High volume of pedestrian activity; directly adjacent to community infrastructure (CBD area, tourist facility, playground, etc).

2. PROCEDURE

A visual survey will be carried out by an appointed Council staff officer to identify defects/risks. The path defects are to be recorded via the appropriate medium. Information collected will be uploaded, either automatically or manually, by Council’s staff into the Maintenance Management Software (Reflect). Once a path defect has been identified, the path is assessed to determine its risk and potential for causing injury to a path user. This assessment takes into consideration the path location category and the environmental risk (lighting/shadows). The following Risk Assessment Criteria is used to determine the path Risk Rating (defect score) and hence, priority for repair.

RISK ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Footpath Hierarchy Council Location

Category Description

Location Score

Inspection Frequency

LOW Low volume of pedestrian activity, minimal community infrastructure nearby 2 Biennial

MEDIUM Frequent volume of pedestrian activity, in close proximity to community infrastructure (playground, community hall, corner shops)

6 Annually

HIGH High volume of pedestrian activity, directly adjacent to community infrastructure (CBD area, tourist facility, playground, etc

10 6 Monthly

81 of 107



Physical Description –

Environmental Risk (Lighting/Shadow) Position in Location

Position Score

Physical Description Score Lighting adequate – no shadows 1 On path 1 Lighting excellent – little shadow 2 On path 1 Lighting good – some shadow 3 On path 1 Lighting inadequate – medium shadow 4 On path 1 No artificial lighting – heavy shadow 5 On path 1

DEFECT SCORE = Position Score + Location Score + Physical Score

Footpath Risk Rating (from Defect Score above)

Defect Score Priority Response Time

(Days) 1 Low 360 2 Low 360 3 Low 360 4 Low 360 5 Low 360 6 Medium 90 7 Medium 90 8 Medium 90 9 Medium 90

10 Medium 90 11 High 30 12 High 30 13 High 30 14 High 30 15 High 30 16 Very High 2 17 Very High 2 18 Very High 2 19 Very High 2 20 Very High 2

3. DEFECTS (INSPECT FOR)

Trip hazards - pavement drop/lift Uneven surface Cracked surface Vegetation obstruction - branches from shrubs/trees obstructing footpath 4. INTERVENTION LEVELS

Determine rating from Defect Score calculated above. Rating Control Procedure Intervention Period

LOW Consideration should be given whether action should be taken

As resources permit

MEDIUM Program into Maintenance works Same year if resources permit, next year if not

HIGH Make safe (as soon as practicable) Temporary or permanent repairs

Within 1 to 2 months as resources permit

VERY HIGH Make safe (as soon as possible) Repair or replace

Within same day Within the week

82 of 107

Appendix 8 Report 30 2017 Naidoc Week School Initiative Competitions sponsorship request and supporting information

83 of 107

ABN 77 334 235 304

MURRAY Ph 03 5884 330221-25 Conargo Street Fax03 5884 3417PO Box 21 E [email protected]

Mathoura NSW 2710 W www.murray.nsw.gov.au

Murray Shire CouncilSPONSORSHIP APPLICATION FORM

HOW TO APPLY

Complete and submit this Application Form to Murray Shire Council, with a covering letter and anyrelevant supporting documents (if required).

The Murray Shire Council Community Donations and Sponsorship Policy (POL122) will provide youwith further information to assist you in completing this Form. This Form relates to a request forSponsorship only, NOT a donation. Should you wish to apply for a donation from Council, please accessthe appropriate Application Form via Council's website (www.murray.nsw.gov.au).

Requests for Sponsorship:> will be assessed on this application only and based on the information provided in this Form, plus

any relevant supporting documents. Please provide sufficient details.> may take a minimum of six (6) weeks to process. Upon receipt of your application, the Council will

forward an acknowledgement via letter or email (preferred).> will not always be successful. Although the Council sees merit in all sponsorship applications, not all

sponsorship applications will be successful.

Please note: Throughout this Application Form, the word 'project' is used to refer to yourevent/activity/program/etc for which you are seeking funding.

ALL SECTIONS OF THIS APPLICATION FORM MUST BE COMPLETED

Section A: APPLICANT DETAILS

Surname: First Name: Ñ\W1Organisation: 00 Oj ABN: g3 \\Ç Cill 30Address: ugTown: S4O4 Postcode: 'LOO iPhone (h): 01 YO 61Cj ( Phone (w):

Phone (m): Fax:Email: /? CÅðf L Of c:, mWebsite:

Section B: ABOUT YOUR ORGANISATION

St tc a arc ivities:

Organisationalstatus (eg sportingclub, business, not-for-profit, etc):

Have you ever Yes No If 'Yes', please provide details belowreceivedsponsorship fromMurray Shire Council

for a project? Al

Murray Shire Council Page 1 of 8Sponsorship Application Form (Per POL122.V1)

Current Executive Members of your organisation and/or relevant staff:

Name: QAn w Position: 6eC /?C10 A )dC nPhone: Email: /?(ÀO O -o C=~7Name: Position:Phone: Email:Name: Position:Phone: Email:Are you requesting use of any Council venue/facility and/or yes Noequipment as part of your sponsorship request for your project?

If 'Yes', please advise details:

Section C: SPONSORSHIP DETAILS

Project to be sponsored O(please reference if thisproject has beenundertaken previously):

Date or timeline of

project: -Location of project:

Brief overview of theproject (including no. of

participants and/or qC r C e O O Ctarget audience):

Is this an annual/ongoing eproject (provide details)?

Do you envisage you willrequire ongoing support

froe moÎe"c"t (ano cont nuein the future)?

Has Council previously ç

sponsored this project ...(provide details)?

Benefits to Council and/orthe community fromSponsorship:


Sponsorship or itemisedrequest for support(provide full details offinancial and/or in-kindsupport, including how thecash sponsorship will beused):

Total cost of project: $ 2Amount of cash sponsorship requested: $ WO

Section D: ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Please address EACH of the assessment criteria below.

1. ECONOMIC BENEFIT

To what extent will theproject stimulate economicactivity in Murray Shirecommunities and theregion?

To what extent will theproject generate flow-oneconomic activity (eg will itgenerate awareness oftheregion and/or repeatvisitation?)?

2. PROJECT GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY

Doesn sen)rojaevct (and its

success? e h SWceSdIs the project sustainable?

Do the project organisershave capacity to deliver theproject?

Is the amount beingrequested commensuratewith the benefits the projectwill deliver?

How will the project pt Aorganisers ensure theproject has a low impactupon the environment?


3. COMMUNITY/SOCIAL BENEFITS

Will the project involvecommunity members?

How will the project enrich S OACt C O Othe community?

Will the project fill a gap inthe community?

o hat tent thenefitsto Murray Shirecommunities?

4. COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT

Does the project supportstrategies within Council'sCommunity Strategic Plan(available on Council'swebsite)OR

other relevant plans (egRegional DevelopmentAustralia (RDA) StrategicPlan, Murray Regional lTourism Board's (MRTB)Strategic Plan, EchucaMoama Tourism (EMT)Strategic Plan, The Plan forEchuca Moama, etc)?

o obe) cv i 3) tbA-O C Zevv0 (tCo-n z cuy sO (eccmc|o an

onb?D f c<Í,c>n -{o Cy(f %.. e afcy 3l : e on pc>r «_m c

5. PARTNERSHIPS

Does the project involvepartnerships with otherorganisations and/orgroups?

Does the project require wjoLocal Government supportin order to gain supportfrom State Government (orother funding bodies)?


Does the project involvecontributions (cash and in-kind) from otherorganisations or groups?

How will the projectrecognise Council'sSponsorship?Note: Council would preferto receive public recognition(eg logo on promotionalmaterials) for itscontribution, as due toCouncil policy event ticketsare unable to be accepted.

o c O o cdh C

6. ACCESS TO ADDITIONAL SUPPORT

Are there other avenuesavailable to the projectorganiser to seek supportfor the project (eg are thererelevant grant programsthat can be applied for)?

S~wa domMc>, % Aoweso k>ced Jáoo (5

Section E: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Please provide anyadditional comments thatsupport your request forSponsorship from Council(eg details around an eventrisk management plan,marketing plan, how youplan to evaluate the project,etc):

FURTHER INFORMATION AND/OR ASSISTANCE

Beck HaywardEconomic Development OfficerMurray Shire Council, PO Box 21, Mathoura NSW 2710Phone: 03 5482 3852 / 0427 560 934Email: [email protected]


SUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS- REQUIREMENTS

Successful applicants will agree to:> Abide by the signed Declaration.> Expend the sponsorship monies only in accordance with the successful project application. Any

unspent funds must be returned to the Murray Shire Council after the project, unless prior approvalhas been sought.

> Acknowledge the support of the Murray Shire Council on all promotional material produced inrelation to the project through the use of the Murray Shire logo.

> Provide the Murray Shire Council with a tax invoice before payment of sponsorship is received (ifyour organisation is registered for GST).

> Any variance from the successful project application must be approved in writing by the GeneralManager, Murray Shire Council.

On completion of the project, successful applicants will provide:A detailed Acquittal Form within 30 days of the conclusion of the project outlining how thesponsorship monies have been expended. The Acquittal Form can be found as Appendix A of thisApplication Form.

DECLARATION

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, all the details supplied in this SponsorshipApplication Form and in any of the attached/supporting documents are true and correctand that the application has been submitted with the full knowledge and agreement of theorganisation as detailed in Section A.I have read and understand the Murray Shire Council Community Donations & SponsorshipPolicy (POL122).

I hereby undertake that any and all funds granted to the organisation (as detailed inSection A) by Murray Shire Council will be expended on the project for which thesponsorship was sought and applied for in this Application.

Name: wSignature: Date: G / /MG

OFFICE USE ONLY

Assessment Criteria complianceComments:

Recommendation Ü Approved Ü Refer to Council Ü RejectComments:

Name/Signature: Date:


LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA STATISTICS

(Murray Shire Council)

Percentage of Participation of students within councils LGA

Overall Entries

Received in 2016

Entries Received in 2016 from LGA

Participating Schools within LGA

NAIDOC Medals of Excellence and prizes awarded in 2016

Encouragement Awards awarded in 2016

206,110 218 3 43 410

The following statistical information is based on the entries received from schools within council’s local

government area (LGA). There was an increase from last year in the number of entries that were received

from local schools in the initiatives. This demonstrates that students are taking an active role in the

initiatives and gaining an insight into the importance of NAIDOC Week Cultural Diversity and Indigenous

history.

Schools that participated in this year’s initiatives included both government and catholic primary and

secondary schools. We also saw an increase in the amount of entries received from secondary school

students.

Schools participation within councils LGA has seen a steady growth since the initiatives were incepted into

schools. Each year the initiatives provide education and public awareness on a variety of subjects that

pertain to Indigenous history.

90 of 107

The NAIDOC Week School Initiative Competitions have brought a coordinated educational component to the week-long celebrations.

The competitions have been overwhelmingly successful and last year was no exception which produced over 206,110 entries from schools who participated in a variety of competitions and we are delighted to announce this year’s “2017 NAIDOC Week” Colouring-in/short story and Creative/Essay writing Competitions.

Entry is open to all primary and secondary school students in communities.

The ultimate aim of these initiatives is to provide our kids with a greater understanding on the importance of friendship and cultural diversity. The competitions reflect Aboriginal ancestry and promote the growth of positive attitudes in all students towards Aboriginal people. They are broadly based around each year’s national NAIDOC theme. The colouring-in/ Short-Story competitions are open to all primary school students and the creative writing/ Essay Writing competition will be open to all secondary students. The winning students are each year awarded prizes from our major sponsors.

As part of National NAIDOC Week celebrations Koori Kids coordinates, with the support of various government departments and local councils an educational component to provide a link of cultural diversity to our kids with the NAIDOC Week School Initiative Competitions. These competitions have been a successful part of NAIDOC Week and to date we have received over 2,018,783 entries which include colouring-in, short story, creative writing and essay writing. As a result we have awarded over 420 major prizes including; Computers, Televisions, Mountain Bikes, XBox consoles, DVD Players, MP3 Players, Mini Stereos, and Encyclopedia’s. We have presented some 4150 encouragement awards including; CDS, DVDS, Movie Tickets and certificates to all participants

This year our highlighted Indigenous role models include a broader spectre recognising Indigenous talent in entertainment and sport and their contribution to the national identity Jessica Mauboy (Indigenous Singer) and Greg Inglis (Indigenous sportsman).

Our message this year is that “Education is knowledge and knowledge is GOLD”

NAIDOC Week July 2nd - 9th, 2017

91 of 107

The logistics of the initiatives involve packages being sent to all school principals inviting students to participate in the competitions. Prizes will be awarded to the winning students along with the “NAIDOC Medal of Excellence” The Prime Minister has previously provided a message of support for the initiatives encouraging students to participate. “The wonderful work of student winners – and indeed all entrants – gives me great confidence for the future and our ability to forge a more united, harmonious and respectful future together in the spirit of reconciliation. We can draw inspiration from their idealism and creativity, and their instinctive sense of possibility and openness to change. That is why I am so delighted to be associated with the successful NAIDOC Week School Initiatives”

The judging of entries last year was adjudicated by a panel including; our patron, Aboriginal Elders and Sponsoring agency delegates. The judging this year will take a similar precedent. At an awards presentation held during NAIDOC Week the Minister praised the competitions and their purpose “The initiative we are here to celebrate today provides a perfect illustration of how general public awareness has been raised around these issues in recent times. The NAIDOC School Initiative competitions are a perfect opportunity to bring Australians together. They have clearly done so”.

We acknowledge and appreciate the support of the council last year and seek your involvement again in this year’s competitions. We are asking that you assist this year by preparing a report to council and continuing your support to the initiative with a $450.00 contribution towards printing and distribution for students within councils LGA. Support last year was recognised by the Prime Minister and Minister – Indigenous Affairs at the NAIDOC Awards presentation held during NAIDOC Week. Logo was displayed on all materials sent to both principals and student’s across council’s LGA and a proof the 2017 competition entry forms for your information is attached. Support was also recognised in all media which included the Advertiser, National Indigenous Times, ABC Radio, Local media and ABC TV’s Message Sticks.

Presentation of NAIDOC Medals of Excellence were presented to winning students at special school assemblies and were attended by Elders, Executive Director, NAIDOC Week School Initiatives, Director, Social Wellbeing & Community – Koori Kids, local Mayor or representatives, Regional Director of Schools, Delegates from the Department Education NSW and Australia Post. I would particularly like to acknowledge; Hon. Adrian Picolo M.P – Minister for Education, Hon. Leslie Williams M.P – Minister for Early

92 of 107

Childhood Education and Aboriginal Affairs, Ms Mary Senj (NSW CEC), Local Mayors and Mayoral Representatives; Inner West Council, Forbes Shire Council, Wollongong City Council, Sutherland Shire Council, Parkes Shire Council, Orange City Council, Shoalhaven City Council, Queanbeyan City Council, Port Macquarie Hastings Council, Liverpool Plains Shire Council, Tamworth Regional Council, City of Canada Bay, Kiama Municipal Council, Parramatta City Council, Eurobodalla Shire Council, Canterbury Bankstown Council, Lake Macquarie City Council, Botany Bay City Council, Wollondilly Shire Council, Goulburn-Mulwaree Council, Tweed Council, City of Ryde, Walcha Council, Northern Beaches Council, Coffs Harbour City Council, Bega Shire Council, Kyogle Council, Waverley Council, Mid Coast Council, Wingecarribee Shire Council and Representatives of the Aboriginal Land Council for taking time out of their schedules to attend the school presentations...

Without support these initiatives would not have been an overwhelming success and we hope that yo u will be able to assist us with this small community contribution.

For further please contact the co-ordinator on (02) 8088-0791 or send an Email to [email protected]

Warm Regards

Dylan WilliamsExecutive DirectorNAIDOC Week 2017School Initiative Competitions

93 of 107

‘ANNEXURE’

NAIDOC Week 2017 School InitiativesKoori Kids – Request for financial partnership

Mayor,Chief Executive OfficerCC: Director: Community Services

Report in BriefKoori Kids is a community organisation that engages young people in a range of school initiatives to promote education and awareness of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander culture. Each year Koori Kids conducts the NAIDOC Week School Initiative Competitions for school aged children. This is broken up into primary and secondary school categories being; colouring-in, short story writing and creative and essay writing. Koori Kids is seeking continued support from council and request consideration of council to be an associate partner with a $450 towards the program

PurposeThe purpose of this annexure to the proposal is to inform council of the Koori Kids 2017 School Initiatives program. The initiatives are coordinated in partnership with Department of Education & Communities, Department of Education, Department of Health, Transport NSW, NSW Catholic Education Commission and Department of Premier & Cabinet.

Koori Kids has provided a proposal and draft entry forms for the 2016 initiatives. The contribution sought ($450) will be utelised towards the costs for printing and distribution of information packs, posters and entry forms to schools across councils LGA. These initiatives are designed to educate all students on cultural diversity and involve a whole of community approach in the spirit of reconciliation and bringing us ‘all together as one community’.

Costing Description CostPrinting Entry forms – (LGA Schools) 325.00Distribution Postage and Delivery 125.00

SummaryThis worthwhile cross cultural initiative has been operating very successfully since 2001 and is aligned with NAIDOC Week, celebrated in July each year. Hundreds of entries are received each year from schools within councils LGA, and the success of the program is due in part to the support of councils and partner organisations. The contribution sought ($450) will be utilised towards the costs for printing and distribution of information packs, posters and entry forms for colouring-in, short story writing and creative essay writing competitions held in schools across the local government area (LGA). These initiatives are designed to educate all students on cultural diversity and involve a whole of community approach in the spirit of reconciliation and bringing us ‘all together as one community’.

94 of 107

Strategic

Strategic Plan – People and Culture• A harmonious community based on respect and responsibility, where everyone is valued • Recognition of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander heritage• Cultural and community activity encouraging harmony and reconciliation

EnvironmentalThe initiatives will enable participants to explore concepts linking environmental; and social/ cultural issues and foster harmony in the community.

Social The initiatives enables a diverse range of children to benefit from discussion and curriculum topics focused around the development of NAIDOC Week and the broader history of Indigenous culture.

Recreation Each year at some of the winning schools Koori Kids host some ‘Healthy Lifestyle Clinics’ with visiting celebrity sports persons the ultimate aim of these clinics is to encourage an active lifestyle; including nutrition, sportsmanship and skill development. All Students participating are provided a T-Shirt, Water Bottle and Ball.

Council AcknowledgementCouncil is acknowledged through logo inclusion as an associate partner on information packs sent to schools throughout councils LGA. If there is a winner from a school within council LGA, an invitation for the Mayor and or a representative is invited to attend the school, along with Executive Director, NAIDOC Week Initiatives, Director, Social Wellbeing and other dignitaries to make special presentation of the NAIDOC Medal of Excellence and the student’s prize. (only 30 Medals issued across the state). Media release for the winning school is prepared in consultation with council’s media officer. Council is also forwarded a final report and a special NAIDOC plaque.

ConclusionThe NAIDOC Week School Initiatives are the only activity throughout NAIDOC Week that provides students with an educational component to NAIDOC Week and Indigenous culture and heritage.

95 of 107

WEEK 2017

WEEK 2017

WEEK 2017 COLOURING IN COMPETITIONEntry is open to all students in Years K-2

All competitions: Entries must be received by close of business on Friday 24th June 2017 at the co-ordination centre GPO Box 454, Sydney NSW 2001. Judging will take place on Thursday 30th June 2017. Winners will be notified through principals and presentations will take place at school assemblies with local Mayor, Elders and other dignitaries.

Name_____________________________________________________________ Age________ School _______________________________________________________Year __________

SPONSORS

DVD PLAYERS

NAIDOC Week Celebrations are held across Australia each July to celebrate the history, culture and achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

MP3 PLAYERS

PRIZES

HUNDRED OF PASSES TO SEE“SPIDER-MAN - THE HOME COMING”

96 of 107

WEEK 2017

WEEK 2017

WEEK 2017

SHORT STORYCOMPETITION

Entry is open to all students in Years 3-6

NAIDOC Week Celebrations are held across Australia each July to clebrate the history, culture and achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Stait Islander Peoples

Write a poem entitled

“We Are one people”

All competitions: Entries must be recieved by close of business on Friday 24th June 2017 at the co-ordination centre GPO Box 454, Sydney NSW 2001. Judging will take place on Thursday 30th June 2017. Winners will be notified through principals and presentations will take place at school assemblies with local Mayor, Elders and other dignitaries.

Name_______________________________________ Age_____School __________________________________Year _____

PRIZES SPONSORS

Jessica MauboyIndigenous Recording Artist

Greg Inglis Indigenous Rugby League Player

**Entry must be typed and on A4 Paper. Entries will be judged on story outline, creativity, and il-lustration. Please ensure the name grade and calss are clearly includ-ed on both your story and on the official NAIDOC School initiatives entry form.

SONY DVD PLAYER

HUNDREDS OF PASSES TO SEE “SPIDER MAN - THE HOME COMING”

The poem will be judged on it’s quality, it’s meaning and it’s creativity

SPONSORS

97 of 107

WEEK 2017

WEEK 2017

WEEK 2017

ESSAY WRITING COMPETITION



INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS TO ASPIRE TO

“Stolen Generation The Stolen Generation has had a traumatic effect on Aboriginal people, their identities and links with their Aboriginal culture.

These tremendous effects are still continuing towards the Aboriginal society through the policies and practices that were in place at the time.”

From an Aboriginal perceptive explain the stolen generation, its impact on Indigenous people, communities & families. Maximum words 1500

(entries will be judged on knowledge of subject and quality of essay)


Name_______________________________________ Age_____School __________________________________Year ______

PRIZES SPONSORS



**Please ensure name grade are clearly included on both your work and on the official NAIDOC School Initiaves entry form.

APPLE IPHONE 7APPLE MACBOOK PRO

MOUNTAIN BIKE SAFE DRIVING LESSONS

98 of 107

WEEK 2017

WEEK 2017

WEEK 2017

CREATIVE WRITING COMPETITION



INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS TO ASPIRE TO


Name_______________________________________ Age_____School __________________________________Year ______

PRIZES SPONSORS



**Maximum 1000 words or less. Entry must be typed and on A4 paper. Please ensure name and grade are clearly included on both your work and on the official NAIDOC School Initiatives entry form.

BLU RAY PLAYERSONY MEGA BLASTER

DIGITAL CAMERA SONY PS4 SAFE DRIVING LESSONS

”Write a newspaper editorial explaining how an accurate knowledge of events in Australia’s past

helps to understand Australia today?”

99 of 107

fi nal reportNAIDOC Week

School Initiatives2016

Submitted by Executive Director

NAIDOC Week SCHOOL INITIATIVES

100 of 107

101 of 107

NAIDOC WEEK | School Initiatives 2016 | Final Report | 1

IntroductionThe 2016 NAIDOC Week School initiatives have again proven to be an overwhelming success that brought out the best creativity of schools students across the state. The initiatives were coordinated in April for inception into both public and catholic schools with the aim of providing students with a greater understanding on NAIDOC Week and the importance of friendship and cultural diversity.

The concept was again supported by various state and federal departments who supported the initiatives for the tenth year. Over the years since they were introduced it has been supported by many government agencies including; Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet, Australia Post, Department of Education, Department of Health (OATSIH), Department of Education NSW, Abo-riginal Affairs NSW and Transport for NSW. We thank these agencies for the different levels of support they have provided the initiatives.

Two Indigenous Australians were selected; Jessica Mauboy (Indigenous Singer & Actress) & Adam Goodes (Indigenous Sportsperson) as Indigenous Australians to aspire and the message on the entry form to students “Be Smart, Stay Clean and Live the Dream”.

Initial submissions were presented to the Department of Education, Department of Education NSW, and Aborigi-nal Affairs NSW after negotiation on this year’s topics and with the support of these units the initiatives were launched for 2016.

Information packages including entry forms, information sheets detailing conditions of entry and prizes to be won by students and posters were sent around the state to all school principals, Aboriginal education assistants and district offi ce Aboriginal community liaison offi cers.

The response from schools this year was overwhelming and ma-jority of schools across the state participated in the initiatives with 206,110 entries received for judging, this was an increase of entries that was received last year.

Presentations to the winning students were held at special school assemblies that were attended by Elders, Executive Director, NAIDOC Week School Initiatives, Director, Social Wellbeing & Community – Koori

Kids, local Mayor or representatives, Regional Director of Schools, Delegates from the Department Educa-tion NSW and Australia Post. I would particularly like to acknowledge; Hon. Adrian Picolo M.P – Minister for Education, Hon. Leslie Williams M.P – Minister for Early Childhood Education and Aboriginal Affairs, Ms Mary Senj (NSW CEC), Local Mayors and Mayoral Representatives; Inner West Council, Forbes Shire Council, Wollongong City Council, Sutherland Shire Council, Parkes Shire Council, Orange City Council, Shoalhaven City Council, Queanbeyan City Council, Port Macquarie Hastings Council, Liverpool Plains Shire Council, Tamworth Regional Council, City of Canada Bay, Kiama Municipal Council, Parramatta City Council, Eurobodalla Shire Council, Canterbury Bankstown Council, Lake Macquarie City Council, Botany Bay City Council, Wollondilly Shire Council, Goulburn-Mulwaree Council, Tweed Council, City of Ryde, Walcha Council, Northern Beaches Council, Coffs Harbour City Council, Bega Shire Council, Kyo-gle Council, Waverley Council, Mid Coast Council, Wingecarribee Shire Council and Representatives of the Aboriginal Land Council for taking time out of their schedules to attend the school presentations.

Support of Local Councils and Shires was sought through submission to respective General Managers seeking council’s support. The response of local govern-ment was overwhelming and involved local council and shires that assisted the initiatives in a variety of ways including monetary support, publicity support for local schools and agreement to display entries received from their respective local government area schools in council chambers and libraries during NAIDOC Week 2016.

102 of 107


WinnersThe following students were recipients of the NAIDOC Medal of Excellence and prizes in the 2016 NAIDOC Week School initiatives and presentation have or are being scheduled to take place at individual school assemblies with Aboriginal Elders, District School

Superintendent, Mayor and or representatives, department delegates and Director – NAIDOC Week School Initiatives) 320+ encouragement awards were also won by students who displayed excellence in their entries.

Jakai Knox Colouring-In Westdale Public School

Kaleb Gee Colouring-In Telerah Public School

Falyn Scott Colouring-In St Patricks School, Bega

Rachel Gilroy Colouring-In St Marys Primary School

Thieste Cauchois Colouring-In Bowral Public School

Jarrod Dingle Colouring-In St Agnes Primary School

Milla Barrott Colouring-In Illaroo Road Public School

Lylah Gibson Colouring-In Pottsville Beach Public School

Daisy Macer Colouring-In Russell Lea Infants School

Rueben Brooks Colouring-In Scone Public School

Airlie Green Colouring-In Kiama Public School

Jasmine Summers Colouring-In Forster Public School

Thomas Russell Colouring-In Queanbeyan Sth Public School

Sasha Miller Colouring-In Bonnet Bay Public School

Chelsea Cornish Colouring-In Blackville Public School

Myriam Colouring-In Eastlakes Public School

Sonny Macgregor Colouring-In Parkes Public School

Kayla Callander Colouring-In Kyogle Public School

Talia Iskandar Colouring-In Picnic Point Public School

Olivia Dihel Colouring-In Orange Public School

Phoebe Fenwicke Colouring-In Walcha Central School

Tyreece Nye Short Story Mogo Public School

Chloe Riley-Pourau Short Story Bondi Beach Public School

Angelina .K Short Story Dulwich Hill Public School

Samuel El-Rachi Short Story Gladesville Public School

Nate Evans Short Story Wollondilly Public School

Toby Carter Short Story Cudgegong Valley Public School

Hannah Davey Short Story Macarthur Anglican School

Mitchell Cannon Short Story St Nicholas Primary School

Jaryn Short Story Avalon Public School

Isabelle Stewart Short Story Lakelands Public School

Vhora Adib Short Story Auburn North Public School

Samuel Carr Short Story St James Primary School

Lola Hazelwood Short Story Narraweena Public School

Mariah Giles Creative Writing John Edmondson High School

Holly Hayes Creative Writing St Marys High School

Whitney Duffy Creative Writing Forbes High School

Finn Ball Creative Writing Alstonville High School

Aaron Smith Creative Writing St Clare’s Catholic High School

Jennifer Nguyen Essay Writing Chester Hill High School

103 of 107


104 of 107


NAIDOC WeekThe NAIDOC Week 2016 School Initiative competitions comprised of the following (4) separate competitions;

1. Colouring-in Competition Illustration of Traditional Indigenous Art

(Open to all Primary School Students Years K - 2) Prizes: MP3 Players DVD Players, DVDs & CDs

2. Writing Competition Short Story “The Day I Met My Indigenous Role Model”

(Open to all Primary School Students Years 3 - 6)Prizes: Bicycle & Safety Helmet, Mini Hi-Fi and DVD Players

3. Creative Writing Competition Write a “Nomination Brief for Indigenous Role Model as Indigenous Person of the year”

(Open to all Secondary School Students Years 7 - 9)Prizes: Digital Camera, Sony PS4 Console, Ipod Tower and Ipads.

4. Essay Writing Competition “The Past and the Present: How does Indigenous

Australia Look in 2016 Explain the developments that have taken place in the areas of Education, Health and Justice “

(Open to all Secondary School Students Years 10 - 12)

Prizes: Safe Driving Lessons (partnered by Transport NSW), Apple Macbook, IPhone 6

Encouragement Awards:

Bicycle Safety helmets, Autographed Football Jerseys, Autographed Balls, VIP Passes to NRL games and meet and greet with players, DVDs, Videos, CDs and Certifi cates. We also distributed 100s of movie passes to watch the ‘Ice Age 5 – Collision Course’ movie.

Some 206,110 entries were received and the judging was adjudicated by a panel of judges that included delegates from the Communities, Aboriginal elders, and the coordinator. The judging took place at the Aboriginal Cultural Centre in mid July 2016. Winning schools and students were advised by phone of their successful entries and offi cial NAIDOC Week awards presentations, sporting development events, with visiting sports stars at school assemblies are being coordinated. Presentations took place at individual school assemblies with Elders, District Superintendent of schools, Mayoral representative, Australia Post and Regional Representatives.

The NAIDOC Week 2016 Schools Initiative Competitions are deemed to have been an overwhelming success. The overwhelming response that was received from both the schools and students is an indication that the initiatives achieved its aim in promoting the importance of NAIDOC Week and Cultural Diversity within our community. The calibre of entries received from students in this year’s initiatives has been described as outweighing their years.

105 of 107


ConclusionThese initiatives could not have been possible without the support of both government departments and corporations.

I personally would like to thank Hon. Mike Baird - NSW Premier, Dr Michele Bruniges – Director General and Cindy Berwick – Director, Aboriginal Education Directorate from Department of Education NSW, Department of Education, Department of Health, Aboriginal Affairs NSW, Transport for NSW, NSW MAA, Mary Senj from NSW CEC, Robyn Yates, AIS, Karan Taylor, Kelly Humphrey, Greg Whitby, Kerry O’Callaghan, Doreen Flanders, Sharon Cooke, Peter Hammill, Ray Collins and CEO Aboriginal Land Council and every agency, council or shire for their support and display of respect towards indigenous initiatives and we look forward to your ongoing support towards the initiatives.

106 of 107

“Be Smart, Stay Cleanand Live the Dream!”

107 of 107

APPENDICES MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL DECEMBER ORDINARY … › sites... · “Protect the rural...

Documents

Transcript of APPENDICES MURRAY RIVER COUNCIL DECEMBER ORDINARY … › sites... · “Protect the rural...