YVC_logo_test_transparent

Minutes of the

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Thursday 24 February 2022

4.00pm

Council Chambers
209 Comur Street, Yass

Table of Contents

1. Prayer. 3

2. Apologies. 3

3. Declaration of Interest/Disclosures. 3

4. Confirmation of Minutes. 4

5. Mayoral Minute. 4

6. Reports to Council 4

6.1 Tender Evaluation - Wee Jasper Road and Hillview Drive Road Rehabilitations - YVC/IA/51.2021. 4

6.2 Tender Evaluation - Yass Public School Safety Upgrades - YVC/IA/52.2021. 4

6.3 Yass Valley Open Space Committee and Yass Main Street Committee Nominations. 5

6.4 Yass Business Fibre Zone. 5

6.5 Development Consent DA190157B - Subdivision, 141B Rossi Street, Yass. 5

6.6 Variations to Development Standards Quarterly Report. 6

6.7 Yass Valley Development Contributions Plan 2018 - Review of Operation. 6

6.8 Safety Around Schools Update - Gundaroo Public School and Rossi Street Yass. 6

6.9 Change of Location for Water Treatment Plant Solar Power Installation. 7

6.10 Yass Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Project Update. 7

6.11 Investment and Borrowings Report - November 2021, December 2021 and January 2022. 8

6.12 Rates Arrears. 8

6.13 2nd Quarter Budget Review 2021/22. 8

6.14 Six Monthly Progress Reporting on the 2017/18 - 2020/21 Delivery Program.. 9

6.15 Draft Community Strategic Plan - Public Exhibition. 9

6.16 Leasing/Licencing of Council Land & Buildings Policy. 10

6.17 Draft Financial Assistance, Grants & Donations Policy. 10

6.18 Draft Asset Management Policy. 10

6.19 Council Committees. 11

7. Notice of Motion. 13

7.1 Grant Information 2016-2021. 13

8. Questions with Notice. 14

9. Minutes and Recommendations of Council Committees. 14

9.1 Minutes of the HumeLink Community Consultative Group held on 27 October 2021 and
17 November 2021. 14

9.2 Minutes of the Bango Wind Farm Consultative Committee held on 15 November 2021. 15

9.3 Minutes of the Local Rescue Committee and Local Emergency Management
Committee held on 30 November 2021. 15

10.1 Tender Evaluation - Wee Jasper Road and Hillview Drive Road Rehabilitations -
YVC/IA/51.2021. 16

10.2 Tender Evaluation - Yass Public School Safety Upgrades - YVC/IA/52.2021. 16

10.3 Yass Open Space Committee and Yass Main Street Project Committee - Nominations. 17

10.4 Yass Business Fibre Zone. 17

Presentations to Council

Inspector Dave Cowell –OIC Yass Local Police Station

Council Meeting - The Mayor declared the meeting open at 4.39 pm.

Present

Councillors Allan McGrath, Mayor, in the chair, Jim Abbey, Cecil Burgess, Adrian Cameron, Jasmin Jones, Cayla Pothan, Mike Reid and Kim Turner.

Also present were the General Manager – Chris Berry, Acting Director Planning & Environment – Liz Makin, Director Infrastructure & Assets – James Dugdell, Director Corporate & Community – Lynette Safranek and Corporate Planning & Executive Support Officer – Shirree Garland.

Acknowledgement of Country

1. Prayer

A minutes silence was observed to show respect and support to the Director of Planning & Environment, and her family, on their recent loss.

2. Apologies

RESOLVED that apologies be received from Councillor Butler and leave of absence be granted.

(Jones/Reid) 22

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

3. Declaration of Interest/Disclosures

Councillor Burgess declared a pecuniary conflict of interest in Item 9.2 Minutes of the Bango Wind Farm Community Consultative Committee and stated that he believed his interest would preclude him from voting.

Reason: Councillor Burgess declared an interest as he could be a possible beneficiary of money from the Bango Wind Farm.

Councillor Jones declared a pecuniary conflict of interest in Item 6.19 – Council Committees (Rye Park, Bango and HumeLink Community Consultative Committees) and stated that she did believed her interest would preclude her from voting.

Reason: Councillor Jones declared an interest as the Rye Park and Bango Wind Farm proponents and HumeLink are advertisers in the paper this week that she co-owns.

4. Confirmation of Minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 12 January 2022 covered by resolution numbers 1-7 inclusive, and Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 27 January 2022 resolution numbers 8-21 inclusive, copies of which had been circulated to all Councillors, be taken as read and confirmed.

(Cameron/Reid) 23

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

5. Mayoral Minute

6. Reports to Council

6.1 Tender Evaluation - Wee Jasper Road and Hillview Drive Road Rehabilitations - YVC/IA/51.2021

SUMMARY

Providing advice and recommendations on the submission of tenders for the Wee Jasper Road/Hill View Drive Road Rehabilitations under contract YVC.IA.51.2021.

RESOLVED that item be classified CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 10A(2)(di) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed, prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied

(Jones/Turner) 24

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.2 Tender Evaluation - Yass Public School Safety Upgrades - YVC/IA/52.2021

SUMMARY

Providing advice and recommendations on the submission of tenders for the Yass Public School Safety Upgrades under contract YVC.IA.52.2021.

(Jones/Turner) 25

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.3 Yass Valley Open Space Committee and Yass Main Street Committee Nominations

SUMMARY

To recommend nominations for the positions on the Yass Valley Open Space Project Committee and the Yass Main Street Project Committee.

RESOLVED that this item is classified CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 10A(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors)

(Jones/Turner) 26

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.4 Yass Business Fibre Zone

SUMMARY

NBN announced the Business Fibre Initiative and created more than 200 Business Fibre Zones across the country. The Business Fibre Zones were selected based on a variety of factors, including the density of businesses and current NBN infrastructure available within the zone. Yass has been selected as one of the Business Fibre Zones.

(Jones/Turner) 27

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.5 Development Consent DA190157B - Subdivision, 141B Rossi Street, Yass

Summary

Presenting the assessment of a request to modify Development Consent DA190157B for a three lot rural residential subdivision at 141B Rossi Street, Yass. The application proposes to stage the subdivision and seeks a variation to Council policy, requesting that a grid electricity connection not be required to be supplied to proposed Lot 2.

RESOLVED that :

1. Development Consent DA190157B be modified to stage the three lot subdivision at 141B Rossi Street, Yass

2. The request to vary Council’s Electricity Supply and Telecommunication Service for Subdivision Policy to not require a grid electricity connection to proposed Lot 2 is refused on the following grounds:

· The policy requires the supply of grid electricity to new lots in subdivisions which are zoned R5 Large Lot Residential

· The circumstances of the proposal are not unique and supporting the variation would currently set an undesirable precedent for subdivisions in the R5 Large Lot Residential

(Jones/Reid) 28

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.6 Variations to Development Standards Quarterly Report

Summary

Reporting on development standard variations approved in the fourth quarter (October – December) of 2021.

RESOLVED that the report on approved development variations for the fourth quarter of 2021 be noted

(Jones/Abbey) 29

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.7 Yass Valley Development Contributions Plan 2018 - Review of Operation

SUMMARY

Reporting the outcome of the public exhibition of the Yass Valley Development Contributions Plan 2018 as updated with administrative changes.

RESOLVED that Council adopted the Yass Valley Development Contributions Plan 2018 - updated October 2021

(Turner/Reid) 30

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.8 Safety Around Schools Update - Gundaroo Public School and Rossi Street Yass

SUMMARY

Presenting a report on the outcome from reviewing the scope and new procurement process for safety around school works for Gundaroo Public School and Rossi Street Yass.

RESOLVED that :

1. An additional up to $130,000 be allocated to the 2021/22 Operational Plan from the Infrastructure Reserve, which will cover the funding shortfall for the construction and project management expenses

2. Council continue to work with TfNSW to fund the project shortfall or part thereof from the Road Safety grant programs

3. The 2021/22 Operational Plan be adjusted to reflect any additional grant funding received

(Jones/Reid) 31

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.9 Change of Location for Water Treatment Plant Solar Power Installation

SUMMARY

In the 2021/2022 Operational Plan, Council approved the installation of Solar Power on the Yass Water Treatment Plant. This report seeks Council’s approval to change the location of the Solar Power from the Yass Water Treatment Plant to the Morton Street Pump Station.

RESOLVED that :

1. The installation of the Solar Power system initially planned for the Yass Water Treatment Plant be relocated to the Morton Street Pump Station

2. Options for the installation of Solar Power be included in the Yass Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Stage 2 and 3

(Turner/Jones) 32

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.10 Yass Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Project Update

SUMMARY

The Yass Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Project is an important and challenging project for the Yass Valley Council. Council requested bimonthly update reports be provided on the project.

RESOLVED that the updated report and work completed on the Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Project be noted

(Reid/Pothan) 33

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.11 Investment and Borrowings Report - November 2021, December 2021 and January 2022

SUMMARY

In accordance with clause 212 Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, this report provides a summary of Council’s investments as of 30 November 2021, 31 December 2021 and 31 January 2022. In accordance with paragraph (1)(b), it can be certified that the investments listed have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

RESOLVED that the November 2021, December 2021 and January 2022 Investment Reports be noted

(Turner/Burgess) 34

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.12 Rates Arrears

SUMMARY

To provide an update on rate arrears for the second quarter of 2021/22 financial year. Rate arrears totalled $1,241,261 at 30 June 2021 and has now been reduced to $837,346 at 31 December 2021. This represents an improvement of $403,915 or 32.54 %.

RESOLVED that the report on Rates Arrears be noted

(Reid/Pothan) 35

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.13 2nd Quarter Budget Review 2021/22

SUMMARY

Providing the 2021-22 Second Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS) for the period 1 July to 31 December 2021. Council’s projected year end net operating result before capital is expected to improve from a budgeted surplus of $32k to a budgeted surplus of $447k for 2021/22 financial year. These adjustments will result in Operating Performance ratio move from original projection at -1.36% to -0.03%.

RESOLVED that :

1. The Quarterly Budget Review Statements adjustments be adopted and the relevant income and expenditure budget adjustments be approved

2. In accordance with the Local Government (General) Regulation (NSW) Clause 203 (2)(a), Council’s financial position as at 31 December 2021 is satisfactory, having regard to revised projected estimates of income and expenditure, and the original budgeted income and expenditure

(Jones/Reid) 36

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.14 Six Monthly Progress Reporting on the 2017/18 - 2020/21 Delivery Program

SUMMARY

In line with the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework, Council is required to report on progress against the actions and activities identified in its Delivery Program. This report contains the status of actions and activities undertaken for the period 1 July 2021 to 31 December 2021.

RESOLVED that the six monthly Progress Report for the 2017/18 – 2020/21 Delivery Program for period 1 July 2021 to 31 December 2021 be noted

(Pothan/Reid) 37

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.15 Draft Community Strategic Plan - Public Exhibition

SUMMARY

The Draft Yass Valley Council Community Strategic Plan (CSP) has been prepared. This report is to present the draft and recommend that the document on public exhibition for 28 days.

RESOLVED that, in accordance with paragraph 1.6 of the integrated planning and reporting guidelines for local government in NSW, the draft community strategic plan be placed on public exhibition, commencing 28 February 2022 and concluding 28 March 2022 with the following amendments:

· Strategic Objective EN.1 Our natural and built environment is maintained, protected and enhanced in line with community expectations

· Strategies EN.1 Advocate for and deliver on the protection of our built form environment and heritage

· Strategic Objective EN.3 We have a robust planning framework that considers our rural character including heritage values and natural landscapes

(Jones/Reid) 38

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.16 Leasing/Licencing of Council Land & Buildings Policy

SUMMARY

The Leasing of Council Property Policy has been updated, renamed, and reviewed to better reflect the leasing and licencing options available throughout the Yass Valley area.

RESOLVED that the Leasing/Licencing of Council Land & Buildings Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and adopted if no significant submissions are received

(Turner/Reid) 39

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.17 Draft Financial Assistance, Grants & Donations Policy

SUMMARY

Council is committed to providing consistent, open and equitable financial assistance to the community with the Yass Valley Local Government Area. Council is looking to manage funding opportunities to support community organisations and individuals to conduct activities, build capacity, host events, and build strong partnerships.

RESOLVED that the draft Financial Assistance, Grants & Donations Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and adopted if no significant submissions are received

(Reid/Pothan) 40

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.18 Draft Asset Management Policy

SUMMARY

The purpose of Asset Management is to ensure that Council has an appropriate range of equipment, facilities and infrastructure for current and future needs provided in a sustainable manner through consistent and strategic management of assets ensuring appropriate and affordable levels of service to residents, visitors and the environment.

RESOLVED that the draft Asset Management Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and adopted if no significant submissions are received

(Turner/Reid) 41

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

At 5.48pm Councillor Jones left the Chambers

6.19 Council Committees

SUMMARY

To assist with various Council functions and projects there are a variety of Committees that Council could use. A Committee Framework was adopted in July 2021. Council representatives to Committees of Council, Advisory Committees, Focus Groups, Project Working Parties/Steering Committees and external Committees need to be determined.

RESOLVED that the following appointments to Committees be adopted:

*Committee*	*Council Representative*	*Frequency of Meeting*
*External Committees*
*Rye Park Community Consultative Committee*	*Cr Jim Abbey* *Tilt Renewal Representative – Martine Holberton*
*HumeLink Community Consultative Group*	*Cr Adrian Cameron*	*To be reviewed in 2022*
*Bango Wind Farm Community Consultative Committee*	*Cr Jim Abbey*

(Pothan/Burgess) 42

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

At 5:54pm Councillor Jones returned to the Chamber.

Motion

RESOLVED that the meeting move into Committee of the Whole.

(Jones/Burgess) 43

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

RESOLVED that :

1. The revised Committee Framework and Guidelines (February 2022) be endorsed with the Memorial Hall Focus Group being amended to be an Advisory Committee.

2. The negotiations continue with community organisations interested in operating Council facilities in accordance with an appropriate Memorandum of Understanding, lease or licence.

3. The following appointments to the Committees be adopted:

*Committee*	*Council Representative*	*Frequency of Meeting*
*Committees of Council*
*General Manager Performance Review Committee*	*All Councillors*	*Annually*
*Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee*	*Mayor and Cr Jim Abbey*	*3 meetings per annum*
*Advisory Committees*
*Economic Development Advisory Committee*	*Crs Mike Reid and Jasmin Jones*	*4 meetings per annum*
*Aboriginal Consultative Committee*	*Crs Kim Turner and Mike Reid*	*4 meetings per annum*
*Youth Council*	*Cr Cayla Pothan*	*4 meetings per annum*
*Memorial Hall Advisory Committee*	*Crs Jim Abbey, Kim Turner & Cayla Pothan*	*4 meetings per annum*
*Coppabella Wind Farm Community Enhancement Fund Advisory Committee*	*Mayor* *General Manager or delegate*	*2 meetings per annum*
*Rye Park Community Enhancement Fund Advisory Committee*	*Mayor* *General Manager or delegate*	*2 meetings per annum*
*Bango Wind Farm Community Enhancement Fund Advisory Committee*	*Cr Abbey* *General Manager or delegate*	*2 meetings per annum*
*Springdale Solar Farm Community Enhancement Fund Advisory Committee*	*Mayor or Councillor delegate* *General Manager or delegate*	*2 meetings per annum*
*Focus Groups*
*Public Art Focus Group*	*Crs Cayla Pothan and Jasmin Jones*	*As required*
*Murrumbateman Recreation Grounds Focus Group*	*Crs Mike Reid and Kristin Butler*	*Annually*
*Sports Council*	*Cr Kim Turner*	*2 meetings per annum*
*Project Working Parties / Steering Committees*
*Open Space Strategy Project Committee*	*Crs Kristin Butler and Kim Turner*	*As per project brief*
*Yass Main Street Project Committee*	*Crs Jim Abbey, Kim Turner and Cayla Pothan*	*As per project brief*
*External Committees*
*Canberra Region Joint Organisation*	*Mayor*	*4 meetings per annum*
*Regional Planning Panel*	*Cr Jim Abbey - an alternate to be sourced if there is a conflict of interest*	*As required*
*Local Emergency Management Committee*	*Director Infrastructure & Assets and LEMO*	*4 meetings per annum*
*Local Rescue Committee*	*Director Infrastructure & Assets*	*4 meetings per annum*
*Regional Emergency Management Committee*	*Director Infrastructure & Assets*	*As required*
*Local Traffic Committee*	*Cr Adrian Cameron*	*4 meetings per annum*
*Ginninderry Conservation Trust*	*Cr Jasmin Jones*
*ACT & Region Catchment Management Coordination Group*	*General Manager* *Alternate - Director Planning & Environment*	*4 meetings per annum*
*South East Australia Transport Strategy Inc*	*Director Infrastructure & Assets*	*4 meetings per annum*
*Southern Tablelands Regional Arts*	*Cr Cayla Pothan* *Director Corporate & Community*	*2 meetings per annum*
*South East Weights of Loads Group*	*Manager Engineering Services*
*South West Regional Waste Management*	*Manager Facilities & Waste Assets*
*Coppabella Wind Farm Community Consultative Committee*	*Cr Kim Turner*

4. Council staff prepare a report for the March 2022 Council meeting exploring options for the formation and terms of reference of a Sustainability Advisory Committee, together with options for reviewing the existing Council Environmental Sustainability Policy.

(Cameron/Jones) 44

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

Motion

RESOLVED that the meeting move out of Committee of the Whole.

(Turner/Pothan) 45

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

7. Notice of Motion

7.1 Grant Information 2016-2021

To assist Councillors in developing the 2022/3 budget and ensuring its alignment with adopted strategic priorities, Councillor Adrian Cameron has given notice that at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 February 2022 he will move the following motion.

MOTION

A report to Council be prepared that provides the following information for the last five years (2016-2021):

1. Details, and an analysis, of non-road related grant revenues Council has received, including dollar values and their percentage of total Council revenue

2. Details of road-related grants received, where Council has actively sought the funding (and not part of ongoing agreements with Roads and Maritime Services, for example).

3. A comparative analysis of non-roads related grants income data from equivalent and adjoining Councils, including (but not limited to Goulburn Mulwaree, Queanbeyan-Palerang, Snowy Monaro, Upper Lachlan and Hilltops Councils)

4. Details of major, available non-road related grant sources, from Commonwealth and State Government, including recurrent and one-off opportunities

5. Details of the grants Yass Valley Council applied for in each of the years which were successful.

6. Details of the grants Yass Valley Council applied for in each of the years which were not successful and the reasons why the application was not successful

(Cameron/Pothan)

FOR: Councillor A Cameron

AGAINST: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

MOTION LOST

Foreshadowed Motion

RESOLVED that a report be prepared prior to Budget on the implications of a full time Grants Officer position.

(Jones/Reid) 47

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

8. Questions with Notice

Nil

9. Minutes and Recommendations of Council Committees

9.1 Minutes of the HumeLink Community Consultative Group held on 27 October 2021 and 17 November 2021

RESOLVED that the minutes of the HumeLink Community Consultative Group meetings held on 27 October 2021 and 17 November 2021 be noted.

(Turner/Pothan) 48

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

9.2 Minutes of the Bango Wind Farm Consultative Committee held on 15 November 2021

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Bango Wind Farm Consultative Committee meeting held on 15 November 2021 be noted.

(Turner/Abbey) 49

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

9.3 Minutes of the Local Rescue Committee and Local Emergency Management Committee held on 30 November 2021

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Local Rescue Committee and Local Emergency Management Committee meetings held on 30 November 2021 be noted.

(Turner/Pothan) 50

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

10. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 10A of the Local Government Act, 1993 the following items on the agenda be classified as CONFIDENTIAL and considered in the Closed Meeting of Council in accordance with Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act for the reasons as specified:

10.1 Tender Evaluation - Wee Jasper Road and Hillview Drive Road Rehabilitations - YVC/IA/51.2021

Item 10.1 is confidential in accordance with section s10(A)(2)(di) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it and discussion of the matter in an open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

10.2 Tender Evaluation - Yass Public School Safety Upgrades - YVC/IA/52.2021

Item 10.2 is confidential in accordance with section s10(A)(2)(di) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it and discussion of the matter in an open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

10.3 Yass Open Space Committee and Yass Main Street Project Committee - Nominations

Item 10.3 is confidential in accordance with section s10(A)(2)(a) of the Local Government Act because it contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors) and discussion of the matter in an open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

10.4 Yass Business Fibre Zone

Item 10.4 is confidential in accordance with section s10(A)(2)(di) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it and discussion of the matter in an open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

(Jones/Cameron) 51

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

Closed Council commenced at 6.25 pm.

10.1 Tender Evaluation - Wee Jasper Road and Hillview Drive Rehabilitations - YVC/IA/51.2021

SUMMARY

Providing advice and recommendations on the submission of tenders for the Wee Jasper Road/Hill View Drive Road Rehabilitations under contract YVC.IA.51.2021.

RESOLVED that :

1. The tender submitted by Lentro Earthworks Pty Ltd under the Wee Jasper Road and Hillview Drive Rehabilitations Tender; Wee Jasper Road portion be accepted for a total cost of $599,785.30.

2. An additional $170,000 be allocated to the 2021/22 Wee Jasper Road budget from the Contributions Reserve, which will cover the shortfall from the construction costs plus project management and contingency.

3. The tender submitted by Lentro Earthworks Pty Ltd under the Wee Jasper Road and Hillview Drive Rehabilitations Tender; Hillview Drive portion be accepted for a total cost of $419,638.22.

(Reid/Turner) 52

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

10.2 Tender Evaluation - Yass Public School Safety Upgrades - YVC/IA/52.2021

SUMMARY

Providing advice and recommendations on the submission of tenders for the Yass Public School Safety Upgrades under contract YVC.IA.52.2021.

RESOLVED that :

1. The tender submitted by Denrith Pty Ltd To under the Yass Public School Safety Upgrades Tender be accepted for a total cost of $828,671.58 excl GST.

2. An additional up to $344,000 be allocated to the 2021/22 Operational Plan from the Infrastructure Reserve, which will cover the funding shortfall for the construction and project management expenses.

3. Council continue to work with TfNSW to fund the project shortfall or part thereof from the Road Safety grant programs.

4. The 2021/22 Operational Plan be adjust to reflect any additional grant funding received.

(Jones/Pothan) 53

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

10.3 Yass Open Space Committee and Yass Main Street Project Committee - Nominations

SUMMARY

To consider nominations for the Yass Valley Open Space and Yass Main Street Project Committees.

RESOLVED that :

1. The following community nominations to the Yass Valley Open Space Project Committee be accepted:

· Annaliese Caston

· Stephanie Helm

· David O’Brien

· Karen Visser

· Ross Webster

Reserve Committee member: Peter Davidson

2. The following community nominations to the Yass Mainstreet Masterplan Project Committee be accepted:

· Andrew Curlewis

· Tanya Cullen

· Marie-Nicole Roberts

· Shobha Varkey

· Mandy Carter

· Harvey Walsh

· Patricia Barber

Reserve Committee member: Chris Wain

3. The remaining nominees be thanked for their interest and offers of assistance and encourage them to participate in the projects during the community consultation stages.

(Jones/Cameron) 54

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

10.4 Yass Business Fibre Zone

SUMMARY

RESOLVED that the 2021/22 budget be amended to allocate $75,000 from reserve funding for the Yass NBN Business Fibre Zone.

(Turner/Reid) 55

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

RESOLVED that the meeting move into Open Council.

(Jones/Pothan) 56

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

Open Council resumed at 6.38 pm.

RESOLVED that the recommendations in Closed Council be adopted.

(Turner/Burgess) 57

FOR: Councillors J Abbey, C Burgess, A Cameron, J Jones, A McGrath, C Pothan, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

The meeting closed at 6.39 pm.

Ordinary Council Meeting 24 March 2022

6.1 Planning Proposal - 7 Iceton Place, Yass

SUMMARY

To present the outcomes of the consultation for the Planning Proposal seeking to amend the Yass Valley LEP 2013 by amending the land use zoning and minimum lot size of part of 7 Iceton Place, Yass. It is recommended that the Planning Proposal be adopted and the Yass Valley LEP 2013 be amended.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The Planning Proposal – 7 Iceton Place, Yass (PP.2020.03) be adopted

2. The Department of Planning & Environment be requested to prepare the legal draft for the map amendment to the Yass Valley LEP 2013

3. The amendment to the Yass Valley LEP 2013 be made as a local plan-making authority

Financial IMPLICATIONS

Resources for the assessment of Planning Proposals are provided for in the 2021/22 Operational Plan - Fees and Charges.

POlicy & Legislation

· Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

· Yass Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013

· Yass Valley Settlement Strategy 2017

REPORT

1. Background

On 27 July 2020, Council received a Planning Proposal to amend the minimum lot size of land known as 7 Iceton Place, Yass. Accordingly, Council endorsed the Planning Proposal at its meeting of 23 September 2020 to proceed to the Gateway determination.

The land is known as Lot 2 DP 1243702 and Lot 13 & 14 DP 786575 being 7 Iceton Place, Yass (the site). The site is located approximately 3km from the Yass town centre and abuts to the Yass Valley Way to its north and Cusack Place and Gums Lane to its west. O’Brien’s Creek flows through the site and runs into the Yass River towards the north (refer Figure 1).

The site is comprised of three parcels of land and has a total area of 173.3ha. The site is currently zoned R5 Large Lot Residential with a minimum lot size of 10ha under the Yass Valley LEP 2013.

The surrounding development is characterised as rural residential comprising detached houses.

Figure 1: Site Location

2. Planning Proposal

Council endorsed the Planning Proposal to amend the minimum lot size of 7 Iceton Place, Yass from 10ha to 1ha and 2ha. Subsequently, Council requested the Department of Planning & Environment (DPE) to issue a Gateway determination.

In accordance with the conditions of the Gateway determination, Council consulted with the nominated State agencies, authorities and community seeking their feedback.

The Proponent revised the Planning Proposal to address the issues and concerns raised by the State agenices, authorities and community during consultation.

The revised Planning Proposal (refer Attachment A) now intends to amend the Yass Valley LEP 2013 by:

· Amending the minimum lot size of part of 7 Iceton Place, Yass from 10ha to 1ha and 2ha

· Amending the land use zoning of part of 7 Iceton Place, Yass from R5 Large Lot Residential zone to C2 Environmental Conservation zone

3. Gateway Determination

Council requested the Department to issue a Gateway determination and accordingly, the Gateway determination was issued on 18 November 2020.

The revisions made to the Planning Proposal were minor and resulted from the consultation, however the intent of the Planning Proposal was changed and the Department issued an altered Gateway determination (refer Attachment B) on 8 February 2022.

4. Public Exhibition

The Planning Proposal was publicly exhibited from 19 November to 20 December 2020 via Council’s website, Facebook and newsletters. Adjoining and adjacent landholders were also notified via mail.

Eight submissions were received from the community (refer Attachment C).

5. Public Submissions

The main issues raised in the submissions and the planning response are discussed as follows.

5.1 Connectivity with neighbouring estates

It was submitted that the proposed development should have a connecting link with the neighbouring estates for mountain bikes, pedestrian and horse riding.

Response:

The proposal only relates to the amendment of the zoning and minimum lot size of the site. The decision about the detailed design including connectivity of the site with the neighbouring estates will be dealt with at the development assessment stage

5.2 Direct vehicular access to Yass Valley Way

Some submissions were concerned that the creation of direct access to Yass Valley Way will result in major increases to traffic flow. One submission also raised increased traffic volume will increase the likelihood of a vehicle accident, while another suggests a cul-de-sac instead of direct access to Yass Valley Way.

Response:

Traffic modelling has been undertaken for the proposed intersection with Yass Valley Way. The results suggests that Yass Valley Way has sufficient capacity to operate without significant delays to vehicles travelling on Yass Valley Way or those entering and exiting the development.

5.3 Traffic speed on Yass Valley Way

A couple of submissions argue that the traffic speed on Yass Valley Way should be reduced to 50 - 80km/h. There is concern that based on the number of buses travelling between Dog Trap Road and Yass town centre, it is an accident waiting to happen. Frustrated that no action has been taken despite being raised as an issue before.

Response:

This matter does not relate to the proposal directly and should be brought to Council’s Traffic Committee for consideration.

5.4 Tree planting

It is suggested that the proposed development should be surrounded by tree planting. Another submitter suggests that trees should be offset from the boundary fences for the protection of fences.

Response:

This issue would be more approrpiately considered during development assessment for any future subdivision.

5.5 Open Space and Facilities

Some submissions consider that the proposed development should incorporate a park, playground and small businesses for the community.

Response:

The concept layout plan indicates that there is a communal open space area proposed along O’Brien Creek, however this will be dealt with at the development assessment stage in terms of management, ownership and access. The current Parks and Playground Strategy and the new Yass Valley Open Space Strategy underway will guide future provision of open space and infrastructure.

Some commerical type uses are permitted within the current zoning, however there is no intention to provide a dedicated business zone in this location.

5.6 Water source for fire fighting

A submission raised concerns that the site should have a sustainable source of water for firefighting (e.g. dams/ponds), preferably within the community area.

Response:

This matter will be dealt with at the development assessment for the subdivision through referral to Rural Fire Services (RFS). Any requirements will form conditions of development consent.

5.7 Access to and management of O’Brien Creek

Some submissions are concerned about how to manage access to O’Brien Creek especially the riparian area for humans and stock.

Response:

The Planning Proposal has proposed that the O’Brien Creek riparian area (proposed Lot 72) be managed as community land. The final management arrangement and ownership of this land will be considered through the development assesment process.

5.8 Standards for property fences

Concerns were raised around the quality and standards of boundary fences and entrance gates, as well as the potential for dog attachs on livestock.

Response:

This matter will be dealt with at the subdivision stage of development and fences and gates will be required in accordance with the Council’s Policy for Non Urban Fencing.

5.9 Contruction of Iceton Place

A submission notes that Iceton Place is currently unsealed, and with an increase in traffic following the development of the site will become a source of dust. Therefore, it is requested to seal the road as a priority.

Response:

Any proposal to seal Iceton Place would need to be considered and captured wiithin Council’s Delivery Plan.

5.10 Community Strategic Plan

A submission argues that the proposed development contradicts Council’s CSP, in particular, the the following three goals:

· A diverse environment interconnected by biodiversity corridors

· Healthy and connected communities

· Environmentally sustainable housing choices

Response:

The proposed development includes a 24 ha plus lot along O’Brien Creek to manage the area of significant biodiversity value that includes legless lizard and Golden Sun Moth. As such, a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) will be required as a condition of future subdivision consent to ensure the protection of significant biodiversity values. This will ensure that the proposed development offers a diverse living environment that connects through significant biodiversity corridors.

Furthermore the development application will consider how the land can be connected with neighbouring land for pedestrian, bike and horse access to achieve a healthy and connected community.

Lots of 1ha and 2ha in size will offer an opportunity to future residents to landscape and provide a range of environmentally sustainable housing choices.

5.11 Groundwater contamination

A submission is concerned that the proposal which includes on site sewerage management systems would present a high risk of groundwater contamination.

Response:

The land capability assessment suggests that the soil quality can accommodate on-site sewerage management systems that would not impact the groundwater quality.

5.12 Proposed lot size

Concerns were raised that the proposed lot sizes are too small, and inconsistent with the zone objective. The submissions further state that the proposed lot size is incompatible with neighbouring properties and would impact the rural setting, and conservation of biodiversity values.

Response:

The proposed development would facilitate a rural residential setting which is compatible to the surrounding land especially with the existing rural residential setting in the west and east of the site. As such, land to the west and east are also zoned R5 Large Lot Residential and have minimum lot size of 2ha and 5ha respectively. Land to the east of the proposed development would not be unduly impacted as it has a similar development pattern. In addition, a 24 ha lot will be set aside to conserve biodiversity values including Legless Lizard and Golden Sun Moth habitat.

Furthermore, the proposed development is consistent with the zone objectives of the R5 Large Lot Residential zone as following will be achieved:

· The proposed development will provide residential housing in a rural setting while preserving and minimising impacts on, environmentally sensitive locations and scenic quality. The Biodiversity Development Assessment Report indicate that 24 ha corridor is to be managed through a VPA.

· The proposed development would not hinder any further development of neighbouring land should there be a need and potential for further growth in future.

· The proposed development would not unreasonably increase the demand for public services or public facilities. The land is contiguous with existing development and is close proximity to services within Yass Town.

· There will be no land use conflict between the zoning of the site and neighbouring properties especially the land to east and west of the site are also zoned R5 Large Lot Residential.

· Water supply can be provided through a combination of groundwater and rainwater collection, with adequate areas and soil profile for sewage disposal.

6. Agencies Submissions

The Gateway determination required consultation with the nominated State agencies. The responses (refer Attachment D) received from the agencies and organisations and the response to their concerns are dicussed as follow.

6.1 Biodiversity & Conservation Division

In the initial response of 11 December 2020, the Biodiversity & Conservation Division (BCD) objected to the Planning Proposal advising that the direct and indirect impacts to the threatened species habitat had not been mitigated and avoided.

BCD advised that the Golden Sun Moth is a serious and irreversible impact species, and the Planning Proposal did not demonstrate adequate avoidance and ongoing protection of this species and habitat. Striped Legless Lizards were also recorded on site, and it was estimated that more than 40% of their habitat would have been impacted. The proponent was advised to revise the Planning Proposal to demonstrate that the habitat for this species has been further avoided.

It was also advised that the Planning Proposal did not adequately assess nor consider the implication of increased development and encroachment on flood prone land. It was advised that the proposal should allow for appropriate flood and riparian buffers, assess climate change and address risk to life in extreme flood event including the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF).

In the most recent submission of 21 February 2022 to the revised Planning Proposal, BCD advised that increased avoidance of the Golden Sun Moth and Striped Legless Lizard habitat in the amended lot layout as well as added protection measures addresses their earlier concerns. The additional proposed C2 Environmental Conservation zone to enhance environmental protection of significant biodiversity land was supported.

BCD support the proposed VPA for biodiversity conservation conditioned in the future development consent of the land subdivision.

BCD – Flood Unit advised that Council should consult with SES, RFS, police and ambulance to discuss the emergency services plans in case of a flood event considering the increased dwelling density on the site. May have a potential isolation and accessibility issue for emergency services during extreme events. It is also noted that 12 lots have parts of building envelopes situated within high hazard area of the Yass River PMF flood extent. Council should satisfy that the risk to life can appropriately be managed for the full range of flood including safe occupation and evacuation.

Response:

The suggestions and further observation made by BCD and its flood unit are noted. In relation to the protection of Golden Sun Moth and Striped Legless Lizard habitat, 24.9 ha land will be set aside to be zoned C2 Environmental Management and will be managed under community title and a VPA between Council and the proponent will also be put in place at the development application stage.

Regarding flood, further assessment of flood impact and mitigation measure to reduce the flood impact will be put in place at the development assessment stage. The relevant emergency services including SES and RFS will also be consulted to have a safe occupation and evacuation plan in place to avoid any risk to life. It should be noted that the concerns raised relate to a PMF event, and currently only sensitive uses are considered up to a PMF event in the Yass Flood Risk Management Plan.

6.2 Transport for NSW

TfNSW does not raise any objection to the Planning Proposal. The site will mainly be accessed from Yass Valley Way (unclassified regional road), however it is noted that a portion of traffic will rely on access to Wee Jasper Road (classified regional road) via Gums Lane and therefore, advises that the intersection should comply with the Austroads Guide to road design.

Response:

Noted, and will be addressed at the development application stage with further consultation with TfNSW.

6.3 Natural Resources and Access Regulator

The Natural Resources and Access Regulator (NRAR) has recommended the following:

· Reticulated water and sewer be provided to ensure adequate supply of water to the site and to mitigate impact to surface water and groundwater sources

· The demand for portable and non-portable water for the proposed development and confirmation of viable water supply be provided

· Sufficient buffer should be in place where required between water bores, dwelling and effluent management systems to mitigate any groundwater contamination

· Adequate buffers should be put in place along O’Brien Creek for continued riparian functioning

· The existing dams will need to be sized consistent with the maximum harvestable right dam capacity

· The proposed road crossing over the O’Brien Creek would require a Controlled Activity Approval under the Water Management Act 2000

Response:

The suggestion and recommendation made by NRAR are noted and will be incorporated at the development assessment stage.

6.4 Heritage NSW

Heritage NSW notes that the site is situated south of State Register Heritage Item (I283) ‘Cooma Cottage’ which include landscape setting, views and visual links as heritage significant. Heritage NSW recommend undertaking a visual impact analysis to assess and identify the impact of proposed smaller lots and subsequent development on views to and from ‘Cooma Cottage’.

Response:

The topography of the subject site and Cooma Cottage, as well as the landscape setting would result in a very low visual impact to and from Cooma Cottage.

6.5 Water NSW

WaterNSW assets are not affected by the proposal nor lie in proximity to the site and therefore has no comment to make on the proposal.

Response:

Noted.

6.6 DPI Agriculture

DPI Agriculture has no concerns in reducing the minimum lot size and therefore has no objection. However, considers that the proposal has a potential to increase the land use conflict with the adjoining land to its south and therefore DPI Agriculture suggest Council seek following from the proponent:

· Land use conflict risk assessment to address the potential conflict

· Reduce the number of lots to south and increase their sizes to achieve a suitable buffer area between the site and land to its south

Response:

Noted. The area is already characterised by rural residential development, and Council will seek to minimise the risk of land use conflict especially through appropriate fencing of the development.

6.7 DPI Fisheries

DPI Fisheries notes that O’Brien Creek is mapped as key fish habitat and it is important to include following measures to protect and improve the key fish habitat value of this waterway:

· Protection of riparian buffer requirement

· Waterway crossing over O’Brien Creek to be constructed in accordance with the prescribe guidelines

· Use of erosion and sediment control measures

· Consideration of water sensitive urban design principles

· Best practice wastewater treatment

Response:

Noted. These can be incorporated at the development assessment stage.

6.8 TransGrid

TransGrid confirmed that the proposed Lot 63 has a TransGrid transmission line easement and request a minimum lot size of 9 ha.

Response:

Noted. The minimum lot size of the proposed Lot 63 is 10ha and meets TransGrid’s requirement.

6.9 Telstra

Telstra advised they do not have any assets within the site and have no comments.

Response:

Noted.

6.10 Essential Energy

Essential Energy had no comments to make regarding the potential safety risk arising from the proposed development.

Response:

Noted.

6.11 Optus

Optus advises their cables are legally installed and as such have no objection to the proposal.

Response:

Noted.

7. Conclusion

In regard to the Planning Proposal at this stage, Council can:

· Reject the proposal

· Modify the proposal

· Adopt the proposal as exhibited

The Planning Proposal meets the Gateway conditions, is consistent with the Ministerial 9.1 Directions and complies with the relevant State Government and Council strategies and policies. The technical assessment of the Planning Proposal and advice received from the State agencies has not raised any significant or critical issues warranting rejection or any further modification. Most of the concerns raised in the submissions has been addressed in the revised Planning Proposal and the remaining are the matters that can be dealt with at the Development Application stage should the Planning Proposal be approved.

Strategic Direction

Key Pillar 1. Our Environment

CSP Strategy EN4 - Maintain a balance between growth, development and environmental protection through sensible planning

Delivery Program Action EN4.1 - Ensure Council's statutory planning instruments are up to date and reflective of the community needs

Operational Plan Activity EN4.1.1 – Complete the comprehensive development control plan

ATTACHMENTS: a. Amended Planning Proposal (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

b. Gateway and Altered Gateway (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

c. Public Submissions (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

d. Agencies Submissions (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

e. Flood Assessment (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

Ordinary Council Meeting 24 March 2022

6.3 Development Consent No DA210063 - Review of Determination, Subdivision, 3 Burrai Place, Yass

Summary

To present a request for a review of determination of Development Consent DA210063 for the subdivision at 3 Burrai Place, Yass. Specifically, the request seeks to review conditions relating to the description of the approved development, the maintenance responsibility period for the development on the open space, and the conditions relating to heavy vehicle movements. The review request received two objections. Amendments to the conditions of Development Consent are recommended.

Recommendation

That:

1. The description of the approved development on the Development Consent be amended to be a 58 lot subdivision (including an open space lot and a future development lot) in order to correct the administrative error

2. The maintenance responsibility period for the developer be reduced from five years to 12 months from the date of the issue of a Subdivision Certificate

3. The condition relating to limits of heavy vehicle movements be deleted. The conditions relating to the traffic management component of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) be amended to clearly set out the matters that need to be addressed. The conditions relating to hours of construction also be amended to clarify that it includes heavy vehicle movements and to clarify the construction and heavy vehicle movement hours once the current NSW COVID Development Order ceases

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Resources for development assessment are provided for in the current Operational Plan.

POLICY & LEGISLATION

· Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

· Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000

· Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

· Roads Act 1993

· Local Government Act 1993

· Yass Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013

· Yass Valley Settlement Strategy

· Yass Valley Community Engagement Strategy

· Yass Valley Development Contributions Plan 2018

· Road Standards Policy

· Building Line Policy

· Application Assessment & Decision Making Policy

· Parks & Playgrounds Strategy

· Environmental Planning & Assessment (COVID-19 Development – Construction Work Days Order) 2022

REPORT

1. Application Details

Date Review Received	-	9 December 2021
Land	-	Lot 1 DP 1185454, 3 Burrai Place, Yass
Area	-	6.37ha
Zoning	-	R1 General Residential

2. Site Description and Locality

The development site is approximately 6.37ha and is located in Burrai Place, Yass. It is an irregular shaped vacant lot, with frontage to Grand Junction Road, Burrai Place and Wellington Road. The land surrounding the site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and RE1 Public Recreation to the north west, E3 Environmental Management to the north and north east and R1 General Residential to the east, south and west. Existing development within the locality is characterised by single storey, detached dwellings and ancillary outbuildings. Historically the site has been cleared and used for grazing and any vegetation on the site is comprised almost entirely of exotic grassland. The site slopes towards Grand Junction Road and contains a dam which is required to be filled to enable road construction.

A Locality Plan is included in Attachment A.

3. Background and Proposal

In September 2021 Council resolved to grant Development Consent DA210036 for a 58 lot subdivision (including an open space lot and a future development lot).

The approved plan of subdivision is included as Attachment B.

The Applicant has now lodged a request for review of determination of Development Consent (refer Attachment C). The request seeks review of the determination including the number of lots described on the Development Consent, the developer maintenance period associated with the open space, and a condition restricting the number of heavy vehicle movements.

4. Public Exhibition

Public exhibition of the original Development Application included notice to 101 adjoining and nearby landowners and notice on Council’s website. A total of 15 submissions including one petition signed by 89 signatories were received during public exhibition period.

A Planning Forum was also held during the original assessment to provide opportunity for submission authors and the Applicant to address Council prior to the determination of the Development Application.

The review request was notified to the same 101 adjoining and nearby landowners, as well as anyone who had made a submission during the original assessment. There were two submissions received in relation to the review request (refer Attachment D).

5. Referrals

The original Development Application was referred to the Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) who provided no objection subject to certain inclusions in any approval. There are no matters raised in the review request that required it to be referred back to the LALC.

There were no other referrals required relating to then review request.

6. Assessment

A review of the original assessment and determination has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the planning legislation and against the requirements of s4.15 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The review has been undertaken by another officer to the original assessment as required for reviews of determination.

The following is an assessment and response to the matters that are subject of the review request including with consideration of issues raised in the submissions.

6.1 Amend Description of Approved Development

The Development Consent incorrectly refers to approval to a “fifty seven (57) lot subdivision (including an open space lot and a future development lot)”, whereas the approved plan of subdivision is for 58 lots including the open space lot and the future development lot. This is an administrative error only and can be corrected in an amended Development Consent.

6.2 VPA - Duration of Developer Maintenance Responsibility for Open Space

An open space lot with a park that is to be dedicated to Council is part of the subdivision. This is subject to a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) being entered into between the Applicant and Council. Conditions on the Development Consent require the developer to take responsibility for the open space for a period of five years, including maintenance and costs.

The five year period is believed to have been adopted following a similar decision and requirement relating to the open space delivery as part of the “The Fields” Subdivision at Isabel Drive in Murrumbateman (DA200049).

The intention of this five year period in relation to “The Fields” had been to ensure the developer created quality open space and that it is received by Council in an established condition which does not require significant initial maintenance responsibilities, as well as allowing Council’s asset management implications to be addressed.

A review has indicated that the proposed open space associated with the Burrai Place subdivision represents a different situation. The open space here is only a single local park and is not subject to any complex stormwater arrangements. In comparison, the open space in “The Fields” subdivision included an expansive interconnected area with complex stormwater and environmental factors.

A five year maintenance responsibility period would however provide greater incentive for the Developer to ensure the open space is not damaged during subdivision works or future development construction, and removes that potential maintenance risk being borne by Council.

Reducing the Developer’s maintenance responsibility period to 12 months is considered appropriate though in the Burrai Place situation and is more consistent with the usual maintenance and liability period where new assets are being dedicated to Council.

6.3 Heavy Vehicle Movements

Conditions of Development Consent restrict the maximum number of heavy vehicle movements associated with the delivery of material to the site to a maximum of six per day (with a movement being a return trip). The Applicant has requested that this condition be amended to an average 15 heavy vehicle movements per day, taken as the average over the construction phase. The Applicant has requested this amendment on the basis that the amount of material varies during the different construction stages of subdivision works.

The condition was originally developed as a means to limit heavy vehicle movements in rural settings where there had been instances of developers bringing in significant volumes of fill material from Canberra for the construction of building pads and internal access roads. Whilst the condition has been applied to some smaller commercial development and also rural subdivisions for similar reasons, it is understood that the intention had never been to use it as a standard condition for large or complex development where there is substantial civil and construction works required.

A review of the original assessment indicates that there were no specific issues raised in relation to the number of heavy vehicle movement per day, rather the issues were for construction impacts generally including the traffic generation component, noise, dust, hours of operation, etc. The assessment report is unclear on the specific reasons for imposing the condition restricting the number of heavy vehicle movements, but it is assumed the underlying intention was to reduce impacts.

The submissions received in relation to the review both object to this condition being reduced on the basis of impacts on existing residents during the construction phase. The submissions also highlight that the amended condition as proposed by the Applicant is not readily enforceable. Furthermore, the submissions suggest that a full traffic study and impact assessment should be undertaken with community consultation prior to the commencement of any works.

For subdivision development the conditions of Development Consent need to reasonably balance any adverse amenity impacts (including by way of heavy vehicle traffic generation) and opportunity for the developer to reasonably and practically undertake the required subdivision works. A condition limiting the number of heavy vehicle movements to only six per day for this type of development is unusually restrictive and is likely to significantly inhibit the ability of the subdivision work to be practically completed in a timely manner.

The issue of heavy vehicle movements associated with new development on the edge of urban areas is not unique to this location. Recent media reports in Canberra have detailed that residents in relatively new suburbs in Gungahlin area have been experiencing impacts as a result of heavy vehicle movements on Horse Park Drive as a result of construction works in newer suburbs nearby. These construction impacts are experienced in growing areas and shift over time.

A review of other recent subdivision approvals, including at Isabel Drive in Murrumbateman, 17 South Street in Murrumbateman, “Yarrah” in Yass and at 114 Grand Junction Road in Yass, found that none have conditions of Development Consent which limit the number of heavy vehicle movements.

It is agreed with the submissions that the condition put forward by the Applicant is not a suitable condition – i.e. it does not actually address any impact and could never be sufficiently monitored to be enforced. The Applicant has also been unable to explain how they would monitor their movements over that period. It is recommended that Council not adopt the amended condition proposed by the Applicant.

A more appropriate and consistent approach with other subdivision approvals is to delete the condition which sets a number of heavy vehicle movements per day and instead require:

· A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which includes a Traffic Management Plan as already required by the conditions of Development Consent. The condition relating to the CEMP should be further amended to clarify the need to address specific issues relating to heavy vehicle movements, i.e.:

- The measures to be put in place for the management of heavy vehicles associated with this development in order to minimise for the potential for disruption to local traffic including school bus movements.

- Measures to address restrictions on heavy vehicle movements during periods of low visibility e.g., heavy rain periods or fog etc.

- Accessing the subject site not to cause nuisance or hazard to traffic on the public road network.

- Measures to ensure that all loaded vehicles entering or leaving the site are covered.

- Expected driver behaviour and speed limits.

- Points of potential conflict, including driveways on the transport route.

- Details of procedures for receiving and addressing complaints from the community.

- Minimising the use of airbrakes.

- Measures to ensure that the provisions of the Traffic Management Plan are implemented and complied with.

- Movements must occur only within the approved construction hours of the Development Consent.

· The requirement for a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) prepared by a suitably ticketed person for where works are occurring within the road reserve.

The condition relating to hours of construction should also be amended in the following manner:

· The hours of construction are currently conditioned as per the Environmental Planning and Assessment (COVID-19 Development – Construction Work Days) Order 2022 which is due to expire on 31 March. The condition should be amended to reflect Council’s standard construction hours condition (unless it is overridden by another COVID Development Order) which is:

- 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday-Friday

- 8.00am to 1.00pm Saturday

- No work on Sundays or Public Holidays

· Clarifying that the construction hours includes the movement of heavy vehicles associated with the development.

If Council were of the view that heavy vehicle movements would still have an unacceptable impact on neighbour properties and should be further limited, it would be suggested that a maximum of 15 per day is adopted (i.e. a maximum and not taken as an average).

7. Conclusion

From consideration of the review request and previous submissions received, it is concluded that:

· The description of the approved development be amended to correct the administrative error relating to the number of lots

· The maintenance responsibility period for the developer be reduced from five years to 12 months from the date of the issue of a Subdivision Certificate

· The condition setting a limit on the number of heavy vehicle movements be removed. Instead the conditions relating to the traffic management component of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) be amended to clearly set out the matters that need to be addressed. The conditions relating to hours of construction also be amended to clarify that it include heavy vehicle movements and to clarify the hours once the current NSW COVID Development Order ceases

Amended draft conditions are included as Attachment E.

Strategic Direction

Theme 1. – Our Environment

Long Term Goal EN4 – Maintain a balance between growth, development and environmental protection through sensible planning

Strategy EN4.2 – Ensure development application assessment is thorough and efficient

Strategic Action EN4.2.1 – Implement the development process and implement changes aligning with the NSW Government’s best practice guidelines.

ATTACHMENTS: a. Locality Plan (Under Separate Cover)

b. Approved Plan of Subdivision (Under Separate Cover)

c. Applicant Review Request (Under Separate Cover)

d. Submissions (Under Separate Cover)

e. Draft Reviewed Conditions (Under Separate Cover)

Ordinary Council Meeting 24 March 2022

6.5 Development Application No DA210271 - Subdivision, 34 Isabel Drive, Murrumbateman

Summary

To present the assessment of Development Application No. DA210271 for a 27 lot subdivision at 34 Isabel Drive, Murrumbateman. The application attracted two objections and is reported to Council due to the location of a roundabout on McIntosh Circuit which needs to be considered together with adjoining subdivision DA200049. Approval is recommended under deferred commencement.

Recommendation

That:

1. A Deferred Commencement Development Consent be issued for Development Application No DA210271 for a 27 lot subdivision at 34 Isabel Drive, Murrumbateman.

2. The Development Consent be under a deferred commencement until such time as the Applicant has demonstrated that the Biodiversity Offset Scheme has not been triggered.

3. Conditions include a requirement for a roundabout to be constructed at the intersection of Isabel Drive and McIntosh Circuit.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Resources for development assessment are provided for in the current Operational Plan.

POLICY & LEGISLATION

· Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

· Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

· Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

· Local Government Act 1993

· Roads Act 1993

· State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

· Yass Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013

· Yass Valley Settlement Strategy

· Murrumbateman Structure Plan

· South East and Tablelands Regional Plan 2036

· Yass Valley Community Engagement Strategy

· Yass Valley Development Contributions Plan 2018

· Road Standards Policy

· Building Line Policy

· Application Assessment and Decision Making Policy

· Water Supply for Rural Areas and Villages Policy

· Parks & Playgrounds Strategy

REPORT

1. Application Details

Date Received	-	2 November 2021
Land	-	34 Isabel Drive, Murrumbateman
Area	-	25.16ha
Zoning	-	R2 Low Density Residential

2. Site Description and Locality

The site is located in an area characterised by low density and large lot residential development.

The site is approximately 26ha in size, consists of six separate lots, and is bounded by McIntosh Circuit and Isabel Drive. The site is currently dominated by the Shaw Winery and Cellar Door and has an existing dwelling house. The land is slightly undulating with the high point around the existing buildings. There are scattered trees across the site as well as wind breaks planted to the boundaries.

The land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and has a minimum lot size of 6,500m² under the Yass Valley Local Environmental Plan (YV LEP) 2013.

The site immediately adjoins land which is subject to current works for a recently approved 101 lot subdivision.

A Locality Plan is included in Attachment A.

3. Proposal

The submitted application involves:

· A 27 lot Torrens title subdivision, including 26 development lots and a residue lot which accommodates the existing cellar door etc.

· Construction of a new road

· Construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Isabel Drive and McIntosh Circuit

· Site preparation and earthworks

· Dedication of land to Council as road reserve where the existing shared path of McIntosh Circuit has been found to be located within the subject land.

Details of the proposal are included in Attachment B.

4. Public Exhibition

Public exhibition included notice to 15 adjoining and nearby landowners, notice to the Murrumbateman Progress Association, and an email notification to approximately 65 people who had previously made a submission on the adjoining subdivision DA200049 over the last two years.

Three submissions have been received (refer Attachment C). The Applicant’s response to submissions is included in Attachment D.

5. Referrals

The proposal was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) as the land is identified as bushfire prone. The RFS have provided their concurrence and conditions can be included in any approval that may be issued.

6. Assessment

The proposed development has been assessed against the requirements of s4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It is considered that the proposed development can be supported subject to a deferred commencement for the reasons outlined in the Assessment Report (refer Attachment E).

The following planning issues have been identified including the response to the issues raised in submissions.

6.1 Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Biodiversity Offset Scheme

The provisions of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and the Biodiversity Offset Scheme (BOS) apply to the proposed development. The Applicant has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed development has not triggered the BOS. The supporting documentation makes assumption that the vegetation is similar to that assessed in adjoining subdivision (DA200049) based on the historic land use practices – i.e. dominated by exotic pasture. Whilst this is likely to be the case, the Applicant needs to clearly demonstrate that the proposal does not involve the clearing of 0.25ha or more of native vegetation (including native grasses) and does not have an impact on threatened species or communities which exceeds a ‘test of significance’.

It is suggested that the Development Consent be issued under a deferred commencement which requires the Applicant to demonstrate with suitable evidence that the BOS has not been triggered as claimed in their supporting documentation. In the event that the BOS is triggered, the Applicant would need to modify the Development Consent and submit a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) and offset credits where necessary may be payable.

It is noted that building envelopes have been located to avoid all existing paddock trees.

6.2 Access and Road Network

6.2.1 Adequacy of Existing Road Network

Concerns are raised in the submissions about the adequacy of the existing road network, specifically McIntosh Circuit. This was also an issue that was raised consistently within submissions received for adjoining subdivision DA200049.

The traffic distribution from the site is likely to be primarily via McIntosh Circuit to the Barton Highway, except for when travelling to the Murrumbateman village which would be via McIntosh Circuit and South Street.

The previous traffic assessment concluded that there remains capacity within McIntosh Circuit for the traffic generation by additional lots.

The condition of McIntosh Circuit has also been noted and it is acknowledged that the potholes have been an ongoing problem. Council is aware of this issue and in the preliminary stages looking at rehabilitation works and seeking grant funding, regardless of whether this application is approved or not. Ensuring the ongoing condition and adequacy of McIntosh Circuit otherwise remains an issue and responsibility for Council as the roads authority, and to undertake any upgrades when required.

6.2.2 Location of the Roundabout

Conditions of the Development Consent DA20049 for the adjoining subdivision require the construction of a roundabout on McIntosh Circuit at the intersection of a new subdivision road and McIntosh Circuit. The Applicant is now proposing to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Isabel Drive and McIntosh Circuit instead.

The roundabout location has been considered holistically alongside a modification application to DA200049 and it has been determined that the intersection of Isabel Drive and McIntosh Circuit would be the most appropriate and beneficial location. This intersection will have the greater traffic volume as it also is subject to the traffic of Isabel Drive coming from Merryville Estate, Shaws cellar door, and the Murrumbateman Transfer Station etc.

The modification application DA200049 is also presented to Council in this agenda and it is intended that conditions of Development Consent be modified to ensure that they match appropriately, should approval to this subdivision be granted.

6.2.3 Barton Highway Intersection

Within the submissions there is concern raised relating to the adequacy of the Barton Highway and McIntosh Circuit intersection. This was looked at during the assessment of adjoining subdivision DA200049 where submissions had raised similar concern, including a suggestion that traffic lights should be installed. That Application had been referred to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) at the time and it was identified that the intersection still had sufficient capacity and that upgrade to traffic lights was not necessary, noting that it had been upgraded to the current treatment within the last seven years and duplication of the Barton Highway is planned.

6.2.4 Speed Limit

The speed limit on McIntosh Circuit has been identified as a concern within submissions, particularly in relation to accesses for properties on McIntosh Circuit and safety around the school bus.

The speed limit on McIntosh Circuit was raised during the assessment of adjoining DA200049 in 2020. At that time TfNSW (as the appropriate authority for designation of speed limits) had recently conducted a review on the speed limit and had decided not to reduce it. TfNSW have also indicated that a reduction of the speed limit is unlikely to be supported until construction and occupation of dwellings begins. In this regard, a review of the speed limit will be requested again in due course.

6.2.5 Speed Bumps on South Street

One of the submissions expresses their view that the speed bumps located on South Street are poorly designed and deter motorists from using this as an alternative access to the Barton Highway. This is an issue relating to existing traffic arrangements and does not relate directly with an impact associated with the proposed development.

6.2.6 Damage from Construction Vehicles

One of the submissions received requests that the developer be responsible for fixing McIntosh Circuit as a result of damage caused by their construction vehicles. A section 7.12 development contribution is payable in relation to the proposed development – i.e. a contribution paid in relation to the demand on infrastructure and services that are generated by a development. Conditions require the Applicant make good any other public infrastructure that has been directly attributed to damage caused by the subdivision construction work.

6.3 Green and Open Spaces

A submission suggests that subdivisions don’t seem to be required to provide green space, with extensive use of hard surfaces on small blocks providing little respite or resources for birds and animals.

The proposal does not include the provision of any open space. The provision of open space was consistently raised in submissions during the assessment of adjoining subdivision DA200049, with Council and the Developer (same developer as this application) reaching a voluntary planning agreement for an extensive open space to be dedicated for public use around the area of McClung’s Creek. This area had been acknowledged as important for open space and for its environmental values. This open space is intended to be primarily passive use but does include a small playground.

A need for open space within the subdivision at 34 Isabel Drive has not been identified as required within any open space strategy or master plans. There is an ongoing maintenance responsibility with open space and it is important that this is accepted in a strategic manner – i.e. balancing quantity vs. quality.

There are no significant environmental values identified within this site as there were with the adjoining subdivision where the extensive open space was provided. Any large trees can be retained within development lots.

The nature of large lot residential lots also means that residents enjoy private open space within their own land in contrast to more dense urban areas where public open space becomes increasingly important.

6.4 Paths and Cycleways

Submissions received for subdivisions in Murrumbateman have continuously highlighted the importance of pedestrian, horse and bike connections for recreational and alternative transport measures.

There is an existing shared path on the southern side of Isabel Drive (which terminates at Merryville Drive) and the shared path winery trail on McIntosh Circuit. Following discussions with the Applicant they have indicated that the following works will be undertaken:

· Constructing a connection for the existing shared path on Isabel Drive to the horse trail that is currently under construction with adjoining subdivision DA200049. This will provide the missing link from where the path of Isabel Drive currently terminates at Merryville Drive.

· A connection from the new subdivision road back into the Isabel Drive and McIntosh Circuit shared paths network.

The Applicant had also indicated a willingness to construct a 1.5m wide footpath on the new subdivision road (cul-de-sac) if that was desired.

It is noted that Council does not currently have a policy position or development control in relation to shared paths in large lot subdivisions. The proposed connections are suitable and provide good access into the existing network and open space.

A 1.5m wide footpath on the new subdivision road is not considered to be necessary, as it is a cul-de-sac with low traffic volume. In an urban setting this may be appropriate but in larger lot settings such as this it is considered unnecessary. Similar subdivision nearby (such as Carrington Park Estate) do not have footpaths on the low traffic cul-de-sacs.

6.5 Murrumbateman Services, Facilities and Infrastructure

Two of the submissions received suggest that there is no infrastructure being built in the Murrumbateman Village to sustain more households associated with this development and other subdivisions. This was also a consistent issue raised in the assessment of adjoining subdivision DA200049 where some had suggested that that no further development should be allowed until further services, facilities and infrastructure are all in place.

The submissions do not specifically detail what services, facilities and infrastructure should be built. From previous submissions this may range from public toilets, supermarkets, hospitals, to improved internet connection. Many of these services are outside of the direct control or jurisdiction of Council. There are a number of additional services and facilities for Murrumbateman that are in the planning though and in part, may be partially funded by Development Contributions.

Growth of Murrumbateman from development does also present and opportunity for the provision of further services and facilities in the fullness of time (i.e. those which are underpinned by market demand factors).

The provision of these services is outside of the control of the Applicant. The subject land is zoned for low density residential use and the proposal is consistent with the type and intensity of development which is permitted.

6.6 Bushfire – Egress

A submission notes that they are unconvinced that McIntosh Circuit could cope with a full evacuation if a fire like the 2003 Canberra fires were to occur. The NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) have considered the proposal and provided their concurrence.

7. Conclusion

From the assessment of the proposal and consideration of issues raised in submissions, it is recommended that a Deferred Commencement Development Consent be issued. It is recommended that the Development Consent be under a deferred commencement until such time as the Applicant has demonstrated that the Biodiversity Offset Scheme has not been triggered.

Draft conditions are included in Attachment F.

Strategic Direction

Theme 1. – Our Environment

Long Term Goal EN4 – Maintain a balance between growth, development and environmental protection through sensible planning

Strategy EN4.2 – Ensure development application assessment is thorough and efficient

Strategic Action EN4.2.1 – Implement the development process and implement changes aligning with the NSW Government’s best practice guidelines.

ATTACHMENTS: a. Locality Plan (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

b. Proposed Plan of Subidivison (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

c. Submissions (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

d. Applicant Response to Submissions (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

e. s4.15 Assessment (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

f. Draft Conditions (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

Ordinary Council Meeting 24 March 2022

6.6 Development Applications No. DA210228 & DA210232 - Dwelling House (Dual Occupancy) and Subdivision, 838 Murrumbateman Road, Nanima

Summary

To present the assessment of Development Applications No. DA210228 for a two-lot subdivision and DA210232 for a dual occupancy/dwelling house at 838 Murrumbateman Road, Murrumbateman. The application attracted eight submissions for the subdivision and seven submissions for the dual occupancy/dwelling house. Approval of both applications is recommended.

Recommendation

That:

1. Conditional Development Consent be issued for Development Application No. DA210228 for two lot subdivision at 838 Murrumbateman Road, Murrumbateman

2. Conditional Development Consent be issued for Development Application No. DA210232 a dual occupancy/dwelling house at 838 Murrumbateman Road, Murrumbateman

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Resources for development assessment are provided for in the current Operational Plan.

POLICY & LEGISLATION

· Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

· Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2004

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

· Yass Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013

· Building Line – Rural and Rural Residential Land Policy

· Road Standards Policy

· Application Assessment and Decision-Making Policy

· Water Supply for Rural Areas and Villages Policy

· Yass Valley Development Contributions Plan 2018

· Local Government Act 1993

· Roads Act 1993

· Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

REPORT

1. Application Details

Date Received	-	8 September 2021
Land	-	838 Murrumbateman Road, Murrumbateman
Area	-	80ha
Zoning	-	RU1 Primary Production

2. Site Description and Locality

The site is located in an area characterised by rural and rural lifestyle development, including properties with dwelling houses. The immediate property to the west has an established vineyard.

The site is 80ha in size and is generally undulating. There is an existing dwelling house located on the land which has been constructed over the last few years.

A Locality Plan is included in Attachment A.

3. Proposal

Development Application DA210228 involves a two-lot subdivision, proposing to create two lots of 40.8ha and 39.6ha, utilising the provisions for average lot sizes within the LEP. Access for both lots is proposed via a Crown Road off Murrumbateman Road.

Development Application DA210232 involves the erection of a dwelling house, installation of an onsite sewage management facility, and the construction of an internal access road. The dwelling would create a dual occupancy unless the subdivision occurs, with the subdivision to split the two dwellings onto separate lots.

Details of the proposals are included in Attachments B and C.

Originally there had been four separate Development Applications for this site lodged between August and September 2021. Two of the applications have since been withdrawn:

· DA200030B – A modification application to a large shed which had previously been approved. The modification proposed to move the location and importation of fill material for earthworks.

· DA210209 – The construction of a dam including the importation of fill material for earthworks.

4. Public Exhibition

Public exhibition included notice to 11 nearby and adjoining and nearby landowners and those who had previously made submissions in relation to the withdrawn applications. During the public exhibition period there were eight submissions received in relation to the subdivision and seven in relation to the dual occupancy/dwelling house (refer Attachment D and E). The subdivision application was re-notified to those who made submissions due to the Applicant changing the proposed access arrangements during the course of the assessment.

A planning forum was held on 2 March 2022 as an opportunity for persons who had made submissions and the Applicant to make representations to Councillors. Two neighbouring property owners made representations along with the Applicant.

The Applicant’s response to submissions in included in Attachment F.

5. Referrals

The subdivision application was referred to Water NSW and NSW Crown Lands. There were no referrals required for the dual occupancy/dwelling house application.

The Water NSW referral had been in relation to the proposed dam and how this may affect the maximum harvestable rights requirements under the Water Management Act 2000 following a subdivision. As the dam application has since been withdrawn there are no further issues relating to the Water NSW referral.

The Crown Lands referral was in relation to the proposed access arrangements utilising the Crown Road. Submissions received from neighbouring landowners had suggested that part of this Crown Road may be subject to both an enclosure permit and a road closure application. Crown Lands advised (refer Attachment G):

· The owners of 840 Murrumbateman Road hold an enclosure permit for the section of the Crown Road adjacent to their property for grazing stock, but this does not give them ownership or the road or allow them to restrict public access.

· The construction, upgrade or maintenance of the Crown road is not permitted without authorisation of Crown Lands.

· That should Council determine that the Crown road requires upgrade, their administrative policy is that this road will be transferred to Council.

The first two points above are noted and relevant conditions can be included in any Development Consent that may be issued. However, Council has previously reminded Crown Lands on several occasions (including in 2014 and 2017) that they (i.e. the Minister) are a Roads Authority under the Roads Act 1993 and Council does not accept their administrative policy position of transferring Crown Roads to Council without appropriate financial resources for ongoing maintenance. Council’s own policy position is that the transfer of Crown roads will only be considered where traffic volumes exceed 50 vehicles per day.

6. Assessment

The proposed development has been assessed against the requirements of s4.15 Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. It is considered that the proposed development can be supported for the reasons outlined in the Assessment Report (refer Attachment H).

The following planning issues have been identified including the response to the issues raised in submissions.

6.1 Access Arrangements

The key issue with the proposed development relates to access arrangements, including the Crown road and internal access road, along with the intersection of the Crown road with Murrumbateman Road.

Access for both lots is proposed via a Crown Road. The access for proposed Lot 1 is via the existing access point servicing the existing dwelling house, approximately 75m down the Crown road from the intersection with Murrumbateman Road. The access for Proposed Lot 2 is via the same Crown road, past the neighbouring dwelling located at 840 Murrumbateman Road. This Crown road currently provides access to one other property being 842 Murrumbateman Road.

It should be noted that an earlier Development Consent for a previous owner was approved for the construction of a shed in the same location as the proposed dwelling, with access under that approval also being via the Crown road.

6.1.1 Crown Road

The plan of subdivision initially submitted with the Development Application had proposed a shared access for Proposed Lots 1 and 2 from the existing access point servicing the existing dwelling. This would have required the construction of a right of way (RoW) which ran generally parallel to the Crown road, until re-joining it near the proposed common boundary of the two proposed lots.

The submissions received raised concern about the importation of fill material associated with the construction of internal access roads and the RoW. The Applicant has indicated that their intention with the change in proposed access arrangements has been in an attempt to minimise the need for importation of material.

The Crown Road passes in close proximity to the dwelling at 840 Murrumbateman Road. The owners of 840 Murrumbateman Road have the benefit of an enclosure permit which allows it to be enclosed into their property (without being fenced out) and subsequently there are two gates on the road. Crown Lands have however noted that this does not constitute ownership nor does it allow access to be restricted – i.e. it remains a public road.

The impact of the additional traffic generation using the Crown Road as a result of the development does however need to be considered. The submission received from the owners of 840 Murrumbateman Road suggests that the additional traffic generation will increase noise and also inhibits their ability to use a horse arena which is located adjacent to the Crown road. It is acknowledged that the additional traffic generation does have an adverse impact to 840 Murrumbateman Road and would essentially double traffic utilising it (i.e. one property to two properties). This issue is acknowledged, however at the same time is difficult to manage or avoid given the fact their dwelling was constructed immediately adjoining the Crown Road. The horse arena is already screened with vegetation.

Council’s Road Standards Policy stipulates that Crown Roads are to be upgraded to a minimum standard of 3.5m wide with a gravel seal. However, due to the close proximity to 840 Murrumbateman Road it would be recommended that it be upgraded to bitumen seal to minimise dust impacts by the additional traffic generation and with an increased 4.5m width. There is precedent of this approach for a similar subdivision using a Crown Road in Wallaroo which ran in proximity to neighbour dwellings. The upgrade of the Crown Road would need to work around any significant remnant trees and localised narrowing can be considered where necessary to prevent tree removal. Engineering design drawings and confirmation by survey to ensure the road is within the road reserve can be required prior to the issue of any Subdivision Works Certificate. The upgrade of the Crown Road does not require any substantial importation of fill material.

The submission received from 840 Murrumbateman Road requests that the Crown Road be fenced out to a stock proof standard should approval for the subdivision be granted with access via the Crown Road. The Applicant’s responsibility would only be for fencing on their boundary of the Crown Road and not to the side of 840 Murrumbateman Road, which would remain that owner’s responsibility. Furthermore, the enclosure permit held by the owners of 840 Murrumbateman Road would mean that a fencing condition imposed on the Applicant for both sides of the Crown Road in this location would be invalid – i.e. as it is not a condition which the Applicant could legally satisfy. Fencing of the Crown Road is however something that could be negotiated directly between the Applicant and the owner of 840 Murrumbateman Road, noting that the Applicant would already need to undertake fencing work as part of the subdivision. If the Crown Road was fenced out then the owners of 840 Murrumbateman Road would need to surrender their Enclosure Permit issued by Crown Lands.

If Council are of the view that the proposed access arrangement utilising the existing Crown Road has a significant adverse and unacceptable impact on the owners of 840 Murrumbateman Road, despite it already being a legal access arrangement, then the following options would need to be re-explored as the alternatives:

· The construction of a right of way through proposed Lot 1 to proposed Lot 2. There may be opportunity for this RoW to also benefit 842 Murrumbateman Road so that access via the Crown Road immediately adjacent to 840 Murrumbateman Road becomes redundant.

· The opportunity to realign the Crown Road through the creation of a new public road link traversing through the subject land. This will be problematic with the minimum lot size requirements for the subdivision (i.e. as the area of the new road is deducted from the proposed lot sizes) and would likely require considering the use of a variation to the minimum lot size development standard in the LEP.

The amount of fill material required for construction in those alternatives would need to be carefully considered.

The access arrangement currently proposed via the Crown Road does meet all Council’s policy requirements for subdivision and legal and physical access.

6.1.2 Intersection with Murrumbateman Road

Concern has been raised in submissions in relation to safety of the Crown Road intersection with Murrumbateman Road. Council’s Engineering staff have determined that an upgrade of the intersection to a Basic Right-turn (BAR)/Basic Left-turn (BAL) intersection treatment would be necessary if Development Consent is granted. The BAR/BAL intersection treatment has a widened shoulder and allows through vehicles, having slowed, to pass turning vehicles.

It has been identified that some vegetation removal within the road reserve will be required to accommodate the BAR/BAL intersection treatment. The Applicant would need to prepare an engineering design for this upgrade as part of the engineering construction approval. This would need to be accompanied by a ‘test of significance’ to demonstrate that any tree removal does not have a significant impact on threatened species or community. It is important to note that this vegetation removal is on Murrumbateman Road only and does not include the large tree on the Crown Road referred to in the submissions.

6.1.3 Internal Access Road – Importation of Fill

Concern has been raised in the submissions in relation to the importation of fill material for the construction of internal access road from the Crown Road to the dual occupancy/dwelling house site. The Applicant’s response to submissions unequivocally states that there will be no material imported to the site and the internal access road will be constructed utilising material on site.

Conditions of Development Consent can prohibit the importation of any fill material that is not otherwise ‘exempt development’. It is noted the exempt development provisions would limit importation of fill associated with internal access road construction to 100m³ only.

6.2 Objectives of the Zone

Concern has been raised within the submissions that the proposals are not consistent with the objectives of the RU1 Primary Production zone. Clause 2.3 of the LEP requires zone objectives to be considered in the determination of a Development Application, however the proposal does not need to be consistent with all zone objectives.

The proposed development is for a two-lot subdivision and a dual occupancy/dwelling house. Both the subdivision and dual occupancy/dwelling house are permitted with Development Consent under development standards and the land use table in the LEP. The subdivision and dual occupancy are also not inconsistent with other similar approvals that have been granted.

6.3 Dual Occupancy Characterisation and Use of Existing Dwelling

Within the submissions and at the Planning Forum concern was raised that the proposal and existing use of the land may not be residential. In turn, concern was then raised whether the proposal could be characterised as a dual occupancy and if it actually represents a commercial use as a tourist and visitor enterprise.

The existing dwelling house is approved for a residential use. It is however understood that the dwelling is offered as short-term rental accommodation through sites such as AirBnB. It is important to note that the State Government has implemented a new State-wide regulatory framework for short-term rental accommodation which permits the use of dwelling houses for this type of accommodation. There are certain registration and minimum fire safety requirements that the owner should be meeting, however otherwise the use of the dwelling as short-term rental accommodation on AirBnB would be lawful under this State framework. The same provisions would apply in relation to the second dwelling house.

The relevant land used definitions contained in the Yass Valley LEP 2013 for a dual occupancy and dwelling are as follows:

dual occupancy (detached) means 2 detached dwellings on one lot of land but does not include a secondary dwelling.

Dwelling means a room or suite of rooms occupied or used or so constructed or adapted as to be capable of being occupied or used as a separate domicile.

The proposal has been put forward as a dual occupancy and the building also meets the definition of a dwelling. Use of the existing dwelling for short-term rental accommodation does not preclude the Applicant seeking approval for a second dwelling to create a dual occupancy.

The proposed dwelling can certainly be described as large but architecturally it is nothing unusual and the floor plan presents as a single dwelling house. There are no development controls which dictate a maximum size for dwellings in rural zones and there are similarly large examples elsewhere in the Yass Valley.

The proposal is currently permitted with Development Consent as a dual occupancy. If the subdivision was approved, each lot would separately enjoy the opportunity for a dual occupancy under the LEP.

6.4 Location of Dwelling – Elevated Land

Concern has been raised that the location of the dwelling is in a prominent position on elevated land and does not fit within the surrounding area.

Council has no development controls which prohibit development on elevated land having repealed a previous policy. Furthermore, Council has supported other examples of dwellings on elevated land.

The proposed dwelling is not considered to have any significant or detrimental impact on the landscape as a result of the elevated location.

The Applicant has indicated that the dwelling construction will be cut and fill neutral and does not require the importation of additional fill material.

6.5 Concept Plan for Future Development and Use of Site

Submissions received suggest that the Applicant may have longer term development intentions for the site with other commercial uses and therefore Council should require a full development plan to be properly prepared and considered.

The Development Applications need to be assessed as proposed and any future plans the Applicant may be considering are speculative only at this point and are not a consideration in the determination of the two applications presented. Any future plans would be subject to separate Development Applications where necessary.

6.6 Stock-proof Fencing

The need for stock-proof fencing to boundaries has been raised in the submissions received. This has been touched on above in relation to the Crown Road above. Standard conditions of any rural subdivision approval require stock-proof fencing to be provided to boundaries prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate (i.e. to create the new titles). A compliance inspection is required to ensure the suitable fencing has been completed.

6.7 Weeds

Submissions received raise concern that the subject land may be currently infested with weeds. Consent conditions for any rural subdivision require a weeds clearance prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate. This has also been raised with Council’s Biosecurity Weeds Officers for follow up separate to the Developments Applications.

6.8 Onsite Sewage Management System

The submissions have identified that the submitted onsite effluent disposal report has been based on a four-bedroom dwelling whilst the proposed dwelling is six bedrooms. It is considered that there will be opportunity for onsite effluent disposal for a six-bedroom dwelling, however a revised effluent disposal report will need to be submitted for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for the dual occupancy/dwelling house.

6.9 Off-Grid Electricity

Concerns are raised in a submission about the proposed dwelling house not being connected to grid electricity given its size. Council has generally been supportive of rural dwellings being off-grid and standard conditions of approval require a system generation/consumption assessment and details of the system to be submitted for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. If the system is outside of that which is ‘exempt development’ under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 then further or modified Development Consent may be required.

6.10 Sale of the Property

At the Planning Forum in March 2008 it was noted that the subject property is currently for sale and will be going to auction on 17 March 2022. The representations requested that Council not determine the applications until such time as the auction had occurred so that any future landowner could further consider their intentions for the property.

There are no reasons under planning legislation to hold off on a determination – i.e. the sale of the property is not a valid planning consideration. Any Development Consents issued are held with the land rather than the owner, but a future owner would have opportunity to seek modification to any existing approvals or surrender approvals and seek different development opportunities if desired.

6.11 Historical Site and Compliance Issues

Submissions received note issues relating to the manner in which development has been previously undertaken on this site, including the construction of an internal access to the existing dwelling that failed and resulted in a pollution event, as well as issues with the importation of fill material. These issues have been subject to investigations and compliance and enforcement action where necessary and are not relevant considerations in determining the new Development applications.

7. Conclusion

From the assessment of the proposal and consideration of issues raised in submissions, it is recommended that a Development Consent be issued. Draft conditions are included in Attachment I.

Strategic Direction

Theme 1. – Our Environment

Long Term Goal EN4 – Maintain a balance between growth, development and environmental protection through sensible planning

Strategy EN4.2 – Ensure development application assessment is thorough and efficient

Strategic Action EN4.2.1 – Implement the development process and implement changes aligning with the NSW Government’s best practice guidelines.

ATTACHMENTS: a. Locality Plan (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

b. Plans of Subdivision (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

c. Plans of Dwelling (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

d. Submissions for DA210228 - Subdivision (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

e. Submissions for DA210232 - Dual Occupancy/Dwelling House (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

f. Applicant Response to Submission (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

g. Crown Lands Response (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

h. Assessment Report (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

i. Draft Conditions (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

Ordinary Council Meeting 24 March 2022

6.9 Review of Council Sporting Facilities Service Levels and Usage Charges

SUMMARY

In October 2021 Council determined an audit of the service levels and user fees for all Council managed sporting facilities. The audit has been completed and is presented for consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. Further consultation be undertaken with annualised sports ground users to understand their current site usage and service level requirements in determining annual fees and charges and that a further report be presented to Council to accurately apply fees and charges prior to setting the 2023/24 budget

2. The prescriptive sports field lights user fee charge of $10 per field per hour be applied to both annualised and casual hirers of sporting facilities for the 2022/23 operational plan onwards

Financial IMPLICATIONS

A decision on user fees will be incorporated into the 2022/23 fees and charges.

POlicy & Legislation

· Local Government Act 1993

REPORT

1. Audit of Current Service Levels and usage charges

For the purpose of this report the focus will be regarding annualised user charges and service levels for the following sporting facilities. These include:

· Walker Park Yass

· O’Connor Park Yass

· Victoria Park Yass

· Murrumbateman Recreation grounds

· Binalong Recreation Grounds

· Bookham Recreation Grounds

· Bowning Oval

· Sutton Oval

Annualised users and current annual usage charge for the 21/22 are as follows:

User Group	Facility	Annual usage charge
Yass United Rugby League	Walker Park Yass	$1,845
Yass Australian Rules	O’Connor Park Yass	$2,300
Murrumbateman Australian Rules	Murrumbateman Recreation Grounds	$820
Yass Rams Rugby Union	Victoria Park Yass	$2,670
Senior Cricket	Multiple grounds	$2,500
Touch Football	Walker Park Yass	$3,850
Senior Netball	O’Connor Park Yass	$1,255
Yass Junior Rugby League	Walker Park Yass	$2,170
Binalong RLFC	Binalong Recreation Grounds	$565
Yass Little Athletics	Inactive	$340
Murrumbateman Little Athletics	Murrumbateman Recreation Grounds	$330
Yass Soccer	Walker Park	$3,730
Casual user fee	Individual hire of any Council managed sports ground	$150 per day
Training/games lights per field per hour	All grounds	$10
Note: Some sites such as the Murrumbateman Equestrian Arenas have separate fees not considered here.

Council managed sporting facilities are traditionally operated on a 30 percent usage for sporting activities and 70 percent availability for public usage as active/passive recreational open space; however, most Council operation and maintenance costs are as a result of making the fields available to sporting clubs.

The annual cost of operation for each field for the last 12 months is outlined in the table below.

Site	Service level	Annual cost to operate facility
Walker Park, Yass (4 fields)	· Weekly mowing · Irrigation of fields · Training lighting · Weekly change room and amenity cleaning · Daily bin collection	$116,709.49
O’Connor Park, Yass (1 field + 7 netball Courts)	· Weekly mowing · Irrigation of fields · Training lighting · Weekly change room and amenity cleaning · Daily bin collection	$32,992.98
Murrumbateman Recreation Grounds (1 field + 4 sand horse arenas)	· Fortnightly oval mowing · Training lighting · Daily bin collection	$48,147.74
Victoria Park, Yass (2 fields)	· Weekly mowing · Irrigation of fields · Training lighting · Weekly change room and amenity cleaning · Daily bin collection	$69,384.16
Binalong Recreation Grounds (1 field and 1 multipurpose court)	· Quarterly mowing · Training lighting · Weekly amenity cleaning · Twice-weekly bin collection	$14,345
Bowning Recreation Grounds (1 field)	· Monthly mowing · Training lights · Twice-weekly bin collection · Weekly amenity cleaning	$13,500
Bookham Recreation Grounds (1 field)	· No field maintenance by Council · Monthly bin collection	$10,580
Sutton (1 field)	· Quarterly mowing · Weekly amenity cleaning	$9767

2. Review of fees

Staff have has analysed all sporting facilities that are utilised by annualised users and investigated how other organisations charge for sporting facilities.

Nominal fee charge

This method is based on participant numbers and the number of fields utilised. Nominal charging is a model for usage in that sporting groups utilising Council or government operated facility become annualised users paying between 10% to 30% of full site annual operational costs. The ACT Government use a model which identifies that 15% recovery of full costs should be paid by user groups. Some Councils surrounding the ACT use a levy system which identifies $4.00 per junior participants and $30.00 per adult in addition to a nominal base annualised charge.

Council charges a nominal fee for users which captures less than 10% of full cost recovery with no individual levy applied. It has been previously based on participant numbers as well as number of fields used. Council recovers between $20-$30k annually from annualised and casual sportsground usage charges. If Council decided to use a 15% cost recovery model annualised user fees would increase by 50% generating $10-15k additional income.

Leased facilities

Councils that lease a facility allow the lessee exclusive usage of the facility at a nominal charge as well as the lessee being responsible for 100% of all operational costs. Some surrounding Councils lease their facilities for lessee exclusive site use which is usually not available for other individuals/groups usages.

Council does not lease any of its facilities to sporting groups. All Council grounds are available to be hired by any individual or groups for special events outside of their respective annualised sport usage (including 30% by annualised users) at a daily charge of $150 per use. These facilities are also available for public recreation purposes outside designated sport (70% of the time).

Operational and maintenance costs

In addition to base maintenance such as mowing, amenity cleaning, waste collection, field irrigation Council provides sports field lights which are only used for sporting user groups. The lights are for the benefit of training and competition for the respective sporting groups or at the request of any individual group at the cost of $10 per hour per field. Currently Council does not charge for the use of the lights by annualised user groups and applies a $10 per hour per field fee for casual users. The cost of electricity is a high base cost. As this cost is wholly attributed to sporting groups usage Council could charge this cost for both annualised and casual users. This would allow Council to recoup approximately $10k in electricity costs annually.

3. Recommendation

As the cost recovery for sporting grounds is at the minimum level (10%) compared to surrounding Councils and government organisations it would be advisable to revisit user numbers and ground usage per individual user group to determine a refined annual user cost. It might be that Council consider a base cost for each ground with an individual levy per participant. This will need to be undertaken prior to setting the annual fee and charges for the 2023/24 operational plan with current user groups. In addition, Council may determine to charge each current sporting group a sports field lights usage charge of $10 per hour per field for the upcoming 2022/23 operational budget for both annualised and casual users.

Strategic Direction

Key Pillar 4. Our Infrastructure

CSP Strategy IN4 - Maintain and update existing community facilities, and support the development of new community infrastructure as needed

Delivery Program Action IN4.1 - Develop and maintain new and existing recreational and community assets to address our communities needs in a sustainable manner

Operational Plan Activity IN4.1.1 - Maintenance of sporting fields and playgrounds in accordance with user group needs

ATTACHMENTS: Nil

Opening Balance 1 November 2021		$25,700,000
Less Investments redeemed:		$2,000,000
CBA	$2,000,000
Plus Investments placed:		$3,000,000
CBA	$1,000,000
CBA	$2,000,000
Closing Balance 30 November 2021		$26,700,000

Separable Portion	Organisation	Address
Nanima Road Safety Upgrades	Hewatt Civil Pty Ltd	881 Nanima Road, Springrange NSW 2618
Nanima Road Safety Upgrades	Lentro Earthworks Pty Ltd	342 Wallaroo Road, NSW 2618
Mulligans Flat Road Safety Upgrades	Lentro Earthworks Pty Ltd	342 Wallaroo Road, NSW 2618

Organisation	Address
Arbor Management Australia	5 Decker Place, Fadden ACT 2904
CJ & MM Beck Tree Removal Specialists	83 Shaw Street, Yass NSW 2582
Muru Mittigar Limited	111 Henry Street, Penrith NSW 2750
O’Briens Tree Services	145 Rossi Street, Yass NSW 2582
Hilltops Vegetation Services	3350 Moppity Road, Young NSW 2594

Organisation	Address
Complete Civil Pty Ltd	PO Box 161, Yass NSW 2582
Denrith Pty Ltd	282 Carrick Rd, Goulburn NSW 2582
Hewatt Civil Pty Ltd	PO Box 94, Hall. ACT 2618
Lentro Earthworks	342 Wallaroo Rd, Wallaroo NSW 2618
UniCivil	12 – 16 Princes highway, Fairy Meadow NSW 2518
Yass Earthmovers Pty Ltd	PO Box 556 Yass NSW 2582

Organisation	Address
Bucher Municipal PTY LTD	19 Astoria St, Marsden Park NSW 2765
Hino Motor Sales Australia PTY LTD	12 Wycombe St, Queanbeyan East NSW 2620
Mike Trace Engineering Sales and Service PTY LTD	35 Bellwood Street, Darra QLD 4076
Rosmech Sales and Service PTY LTD	30 Stanbel Road, Salisbury Plain SA 5109

Date Received	-	8 March 2022
Land	-	Lot 1 DP 1257138, Isabel Drive, Murrumbateman
Area	-	99.55ha
Zoning	-	R2 Low Density Residential and R5 Large Lot Residential

Date Received	-	16 October 2020
Land	-	Lot 1 & 2 DP 1262963 and Lot 2 DP 1261924, 1023 Tallagandra Lane, Gundaroo
Area	-	72ha
Zoning	-	RU1 Primary Production