Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting - Tuesday, 27 August 2024

Ordinary Council Meeting Business Agenda

27 August 2024

14 Reports to Council

14.1 One (1) into Eight (8) Lot Subdivision - Lot 2 DP577140 - 828 Bundarra Road - Saumarez Ponds

Department:	Infrastructure & Development
Prepared By:	Acting Manager Planning Development
Authorised By:	Director Infrastructure & Development
Reference:	UINT/24/12994
Attachments:	1. Applicant Response to Request for Further Information and Submissions ⇩ 2. Submissions (Redacted) ⇩ 3. Plan of Development ⇩ 4. Draft Notice of Determination ⇩ 5. Typical Rural Property Access - TfNSW Advice ⇩
LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK
Goal:	3. We are good custodians of our environment
Strategy:	3.2. Maintain a healthy balance between development and the environment

Note to Councillors

Caretaker Restrictions:

Under the document “Pre-election guide for Council’s April 2024” issued by the Office of Local Government, the decision determination will fall during the ‘caretaker period’ 16 August 2024 – 14 September 2024. During this period, Council must not:

‘determine a “controversial development application”, except where a failure to make such a determination would give rise to a deemed refusal, or such a deemed refusal arose before the commencement of the caretaker period’

“Controversial development application” means a development application for designated development under section 4.10 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 or which at least 25 persons have made submissions during community consultation.

The application does not constitute a controversial development application (Two [2] submissions received) and may therefore be determined by Council within the caretaker period.

Summary

Council has received a Development Application for a One (1) into Eight (8) Lot Subdivision located at Lot 2 DP577140, also described as 828 Bundarra Road, Saumarez Ponds.

The land is zoned R5 (Large Lot Residential) under the Uralla LEP 2012 and has a combined area of approximately 38 Ha. Seven (7) lots have an area of between 2.32 – 4 Ha, with a balance 22.9 Ha lot.

The application has been referred to the Council for determination given two (2) submissions were received following notification of the proposal.

An assessment of the proposal under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) demonstrates that within the limits of the matters for consideration, the proposed development (as conditioned) achieves compliance with relevant provisions of the Uralla Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Uralla Development Control Plan 2012.

General:

In accordance with the provisions of S375A of the Local Government Act 1993, a Division is to be called whenever a motion for a planning decision is put to the meeting, for the purpose of recording voting on planning matters.

Development applications require a decision of Council which MUST be either:

· Approval with conditions (to be prepared by the Manager Development and Planning)* OR

· Refusal with reasons.

*Refer Conclusion in this report for further discussion on an Alternative resolution

Recommendation*

1. That Council approves the Development Application (ref: DA-11-2024) for a Subdivision (1 Lot into 8 Lots) at Lot 2 DP577140, land known as 828 Bundarra Road, SAUMAREZ PONDS, subject to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Determination; and

2. That Council notes the submissions received in relation to the Development Application.

Report

Description of Site and Surrounding Area

Subject Site

The subject is legally described as Lot 2 DP577140, and also described as 828 Bundarra Road, Saumarez Ponds. A summary of site characteristics is as follows:

· All land is located within the R5 Large Lot Residential Zone under the Uralla LEP 2012 (the LEP).

· The land has an area of approximately 38 Ha.

· The land is open grazing country, with scattered stands of vegetation (both younger and remnant species). The land appears to be currently sown with an annual crop (Oats or similar).

· Two (2) dwellings are located on the land, within the north-western and south-eastern corners (within proposed Lots 1 and 7 respectively).

· The land is gently sloping, with a slight depression towards the south of the land in the middle of the Bundarra Road frontage.

· The land has western frontage to an unformed (although works have occurred) road reserve (Council owned, approximately 580m span) and Bundarra Road (approximately 650m span).

· Bundarra Road is a Classified (Regional) Road, with a regular 100km/hr limit. Council is the Roads Authority for this road in accordance with Section 7 of the Roads Act 1993.

· The land is not affected by any mapped waterways, or other known constraints.

Surrounding Area

Surrounding lands to the east, west and north are also under the R5 Large Lot Residential zone under the LEP, and are also subject to the same 2Ha minimum lot size provision. Various lot sizes are exhibited, with a mix of around 2 – 8 Ha. No lots appear vacant. Access to these areas is by Marble Hill and Dumaresq Roads.

Land to the north has recently been approved for a 1 Lot into 19 Lot Subdivision (Council ref: DA-57-2023). This consent has not been enacted upon.

Land to the south (opposite side of Bundarra Road) is within the RU1 Zone under the LEP.

In the context of the proposal, no other matters require noting.

Figure 1: Site Location with LEP Zoning Overlay

Figure 2: Image showing site in wider context

Figure 3: Image showing frontage from Eastern approach

Figure 4: Image showing frontage from Western approach

Figure 5: Image showing grade of land adjacent to bitumen edge.

Figure 6: Image showing constructed access over Council’s road reserve and temporary fencing/gates.

Relevant Planning History

Subject Site:

DA-24-2022 – New Dwelling (manufactured) – Approved 3 June 2022

DA-24-2022 – Modification to the above consent, to relocate dwelling – approved 28 September 2022

· The consent has been enacted on, with the dwelling sitting within proposed Lot 7.

· It is noted that access was approved to be taken by the existing access at the eastern part of Bundarra Road. The road reserve has been constructed without consent.

Neighbouring sites:

Lot 4 DP590685 – Mundays Lane -DA-57-2023 – 1 Lot into 19 Lot Subdivision – approved 4 April 2024.

There is no planning history on other adjoining sites which is of relevance.

Description of the Development

The application seeks approval for the following works:

· 1 Lot into 8 Lot Subdivision; and

· Ancillary works in the form of access upgrades.

The layout would create Seven (7) lots have an area of between 2.32 – 4 Ha (R5 sized), with a balance 22.9 Ha lot remaining.

The proposal would form the following layout (as conditioned):

Proposed Layout
Lot	Size (Ha)	Key/Relevant Features	Access
1	4.0	Contains existing dwelling (SE Corner of land)	Bundarra Road (existing crossover)
2	2.47	Vacant	Bundarra Road via shared crossover
3	2.68		Bundarra Road via shared crossover
4	2.51		Western Road Reserve
5	2.52
6	2.32
7	3.05	Contains existing dwelling (NW Corner of land)
8	22.9	Vacant	Bundarra Road and Western Road Reserve

A summary of key parts of the proposal are included below:

- Access

Access would be taken by both Bundarra Road and a road reserve to the west of the land. There would be one point of access created at Bundarra Road:

· Shared access to Lot 2, 3 and 8.

The currently unformed road reserve would service Lots 4 – 7.

- Ancillary Works

If approved, secondary permits would be required:

- Subdivision Works Certificate

- Subdivision Certificate

- Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 approval (work within Council’s land)

Figure 7: Extract from Plan of Development

Notification

In line with Council’s Community Participation Plan and Development Control Plan, the application was notified to adjoining occupiers, starting 17 April 2024, with a closing date of 9 May 2024. Two (2) submissions (both properly made) were received following notification of the proposal at the time of preparation of this report.

Referrals

Internal

Development Engineer – No objection, subject to:

· Consideration of future access arrangements for Lot 8 (balance lot);

· Upgrade of road reserve intersection with Classified Road;

· Upgrade of road reserve to a suitable vehicular standard; and

· Road pavement widening to ensure safety for undertaking of refuse collection and school buses.

It is noted that the applicant has agreed to dedication of land for road widening, however construction of a wider pavement for layby or providing access to Lot 4 from the Western road reserve did not form part of this discussion. However, it is not a requirement that recommended conditions are agreed by an applicant before decision.

Manager Environment & Waste – no objection, subject to minimum 4m layby areas for refuse trucks.

External

The following agencies were consulted regarding the application:

Agency	Referral Clause
Essentially Energy	SEPP (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, s2.48
Comments
Strictly based on the documents submitted, Essential Energy has no comments to make as to potential safety risks arising from the proposed development. Essential Energy makes the following general comments: If the proposed development changes, there may be potential safety risks and it is recommended that Essential Energy is consulted for further comment; · Any existing encumbrances in favour of Essential Energy (or its predecessors) noted on the title of the above property should be complied with; · Any activities in proximity to electrical infrastructure must be undertaken in accordance with the latest industry guideline currently known as ISSC 20 Guideline for the Management of Activities within Electricity Easements and Close to Infrastructure; · Prior to carrying out any works, a “Dial Before You Dig” enquiry should be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Part 5E (Protection of Underground Electricity Power Lines) of the Electricity Supply Act 1995 (NSW); and · It is the responsibility of the person/s completing any works around powerlines to understand their safety responsibilities. SafeWork NSW (www.safework.nsw.gov.au) has publications that provide guidance when working close to electricity infrastructure. These include the Code of Practice – Work near Overhead Power Lines and Code of Practice – Work near Underground Assets.

Agency	Referral Clause
Transport for NSW	Roads Act 1993 – s138 (Non-integrated)
Comments
Bundara Road is a classified (Regional) road. Council is the Roads Authority for this road in accordance with Section 7 of the Roads Act 1993. As the Roads Authority, Council sets standards, determines priorities, and carries out works. It is appropriate for Council to consider and determine if the proposed arrangements for the proposed subdivision are acceptable from a safety and efficiency perspective. Given the above, TfNSW entrusts Council to assess and manage the traffic implications of this development application. TfNSW recognises that any proposed or conditioned access on Bundara Road would require Section 138 consent from Council and concurrence from TfNSW under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993. Provided Council is satisfied the design for the access is acceptable and designed in accordance with the attached Rural Property Access Standard, TfNSW would issue its concurrence under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993. Note: the Standard Drawing referenced is attached.

Where relevant, the above comments are recommended to form Advisory Notes to the consent.

Key Assessment Steps

· 10 May 2024 – Request for Further Information (RFI) made. The request and recommendations were as follows:

Requests:

Biodiversity Offsets Scheme Threshold

· Pursuant to Part 7, Clause 7.4 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the land does not appear to be located on located category 1-exempt land (within the meaning of Part 5A of the Local Land Services Act 2013).

Land excluded from the Local Land Services Act 2013 appears to be required to be considered under Clause 7.4. Please provide updated Koala and Biodiversity Impact Assessments.

Development with frontage to classified road

· Pursuant to Chapter 2, Part 2.3, Division 17, Subdivision 2, Section 2.119 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, the proposal does not demonstrate sufficient grounds for the granting of consent for 3 – 4 vacant lots fronting Bundarra Road.

Council considers that practicable, safe vehicular access to the land can be provided from the adjoining road reserve which would not compromise the safety, efficiency, and ongoing operation of the classified road.

Please provide an amended plan of development and updated SoEE addresses the above SEPP.

· Notwithstanding the above point, please provide an amended plan of development which shows road widening at Bundarra Road equivalent to the adjoining lot to the east.

Recommendations:

· Provide a conceptual plan of development for future stages of the development.

· The development is a missed opportunity in terms of its connection with the approved development to the north (ref: DA-57-2023). It is considered that a more permeable, masterplanned form of development could be undertaken, which provided walkable routes without needing to utilise Bundarra Road. This is worth noting given both the current application at hand and approved application referenced above appear to be under the same ownership.

· Given between the two sites there is potentially around 40+ lots, consideration should be given to provision of infrastructure such as dedication of parkland or embellishment of existing facilities/land. While this was not captured under DA-57-2023, the additional intensification of the area through this application warrants consideration.

The above recommendations would support higher level objectives of the EP&A Act (good design and amenity of the built environment) and Objectives 18 and 21 of the New England North West Regional Plan 2041.

· 21 May 2024 – Submissions provided to applicant (refer to attachment).

· 11 June 2024 – Response to RFI and grounds of submission received (refer to attachment).

· 1 July 2024 – Amended Biodiversity Report requested (directly to consultant).

· 2 August 2024 – Request for determination without delay received.

· 6 August 2024 to Current – negotiations occurred to secure land dedication for road widening, together with acceptance of Biodiversity Report.

Key Supporting Documents

Document

Comments

Biodiversity Assessment, dated 1 March 2024, prepared by Stephen Cotter

The report demonstrates that the proposal would have a satisfactory impact in terms of considerations under Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The report provides the following recommendations:

· Restrict clearing of any isolated canopy trees for future dwellings.

· Boundary fencing to all lots should consist of plain wire strands or other methods but exclude use of barbed wire to limit harm to fauna.

· Encourage replanting of native tree and shrub species in the landscaping for future dwellings to improve available habitat for native species.

· Restrict livestock grazing of the property to allow native grasses to regenerate.

Some error is identified in the report, with the land not excluded land under the LLS Act, however ultimately this is not significant in the context of the comprehensiveness of the report.

Koala Assessment dated 1 March 2024, prepared by Stephen Cotter

Discussed under relevant SEPP.

Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (the BC Act)

Part 7 of the BC Act outlines the requirements to be taken into consideration through the assessment of a development application. This act has been referred to separately given it is not expressly listed as a prescribed matter under Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act.

Part 7 Biodiversity assessment and approvals under Planning Act
Relevant Provisions
Provisions	Comment
7.2 Development or activity “likely to significantly affect threatened species” (1) For the purposes of this Part, development or an activity is likely to significantly affect threatened species if— (a) it is likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats, according to the test in section 7.3, or (b) the development exceeds the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold if the biodiversity offsets scheme applies to the impacts of the development on biodiversity values, or (c) it is carried out in a declared area of outstanding biodiversity value.	The submitted document determines that the proposal is satisfactory with regards to matters a – c.
7.3 Test for determining whether proposed development or activity likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats	The submitted document includes a comprehensive 5 part test of significance, which determines that the proposal is acceptable.
7.5 Relationship with Planning Act (1) This Part prevails to the extent of any inconsistency between this Part and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (or any instrument under that Act).	Noted.
7.7 Biodiversity assessment for Part 4 development (other than State significant development or complying development) (1) This section applies to an application for development consent under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, except— (a) an application for development consent for State significant development, or (b) an application for a complying development certificate. (2) If the proposed development is likely to significantly affect threatened species, the application for development consent is to be accompanied by a biodiversity development assessment report.	The submitted document includes a comprehensive consideration of threatened species and determines that the proposal is acceptable.

ASSESSMENT

Pursuant to Clause 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development, the subject of the development application. These are included below in full, and discussed in more detail individually through the assessment.

(1) Matters for consideration—general In determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application—

(a) the provisions of—

(i) any environmental planning instrument, and

(ii) any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Planning Secretary has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved), and

(iii) any development control plan, and

(iiia) any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4, and

(iv) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph),

(v) (Repealed)

that apply to the land to which the development application relates,

(b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,

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

(e) the public interest.

Section 4.15 – Evaluation

4.15(1)(a) the provisions of—

(i) any environmental planning instrument

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazard) 2021

Chapter 4 Remediation of Land

Chapter 4 requires Council to consider whether the subject land of any development application is contaminated. If the land requires remediation to ensure that it is made suitable for a proposed use or zoning, Council must be satisfied that the land can and will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

An assessment of the relevant provisions of Chapter 4 of the SEPP (Reliance and Hazard) 2021 is provided in the table below.

Chapter 4 Remediation of Land
Relevant Provisions
Provisions	Comment
4.6 Contamination and remediation to be considered in determining development application
(1) A consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless— (a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and (b) if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and (c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.	Council’s officer is satisfied that the land is not likely to have been subject to a previous contaminating use, including any purpose under Table 1 to the contaminated land planning guideline. Based on desktop searches and site inspection, there is no indication of historic sheep dips or similar visible on the land. There would also be sufficient area for ground truthing and alternative dwelling sites to be considered within each proposed lot. Noting this characteristic, a Preliminary Site Investigation has not been requested for the proposed development. Not other parts of the clause are considered relevant

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021

Chapter 4 – Koala habitat protection 2021

Chapter 4 aims to encourage the conservation of areas of natural vegetation that provides habitat for koalas to support a permanent free-living population over their present range and reserve the current trend of Koala Population decline.

Chapter 4 Koala Habitat Protection 2020
Relevant Provisions
Provisions	Comment
Part 4.2 Development control of koala habitats
4.9 Development assessment process—no approved koala plan of management for land (1) This section applies to land to which this Chapter applies if the land— (a) has an area of at least 1 hectare (including adjoining land within the same ownership), and (b) does not have an approved koala plan of management applying to the land. (2) Before a council may grant consent to a development application for consent to carry out development on the land, the council must assess whether the development is likely to have any impact on koalas or koala habitat. (3) If the council is satisfied that the development is likely to have low or no impact on koalas or koala habitat, the council may grant consent to the development application. (4) If the council is satisfied that the development is likely to have a higher level of impact on koalas or koala habitat, the council must, in deciding whether to grant consent to the development application, take into account a koala assessment report for the development. (5) However, despite subsections (3) and (4), the council may grant development consent if the applicant provides to the council— (a) information, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person, the council is satisfied demonstrates that the land subject of the development application— (i) does not include any trees belonging to the koala use tree species listed in Schedule 3 for the relevant koala management area, or (ii) is not core koala habitat, or (b) information the council is satisfied demonstrates that the land subject of the development application— (i) does not include any trees with a diameter at breast height over bark of more than 10 centimetres, or (ii) includes only horticultural or agricultural plantations. (6) In this section— koala assessment report, for development, means a report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person about the likely and potential impacts of the development on koalas or koala habitat and the proposed management of those impacts.	Clause (5) outlines the standard requirements for a Koala Assessment Report (KAR), which is necessary in order for Council to support the application under Clause (2). The submitted KAR meets the required standards and establishes that the proposal would have acceptable Koala impacts. The KAR also provides the following recommendations: · Boundary fencing for each lot should consist of plain wire and/or netting to avoid harm caused by barbed wire fencing and facilitate movement into adjoining areas of native vegetation. · Companion animals should be restrained within the fenced area at night to avoid dog attacks. · The proposed dwellings shall be located in the central part of each lot and avoid clearing of any existing canopy trees. · Vehicle movements are restricted to the formed access roads with a speed limit of 40km/Hr. · Future landowners are encouraged to plant of native tree and shrub species to increase potential habitat. Where relevant, these are recommended to be included as conditions of consent. Council’s Development Control Plan does not expressly contain a chapter relating to tree clearing limitations on private land (and vegetation on R5 land is largely Council’s jurisdiction). It is therefore recommended that restrictions to clearing are imposed as a restriction on title. This would override provisions for exempt clearing under Part 2.5 (Clearing of native vegetation on primary production land in Zones R5, C2, C3 and C4 that does not require permit or approval), Divisions 2 and 3 of Chapter 2 (Vegetation in non-rural areas) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021. This is reasonable also given the land would be no longer used for primary production.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Primary Production) 2021

Part 2.2 State significant agricultural land
Relevant Provisions
Provisions	Comment
Clause 2.7
2.7 Objects of Part The objects of this Part are as follows— (a) to identify State significant agricultural land and to provide for the carrying out of development on that land, (b) to provide for the protection of agricultural land— (i) that is of State or regional agricultural significance, and (ii) that may be subject to demand for uses that are not compatible with agriculture, and (iii) if the protection will result in a public benefit. 2.8 State significant agricultural land (1) Land is State significant agricultural land if it is listed in Schedule 1. (2) The provisions in Schedule 1 relating to the carrying out of development on State significant agricultural land have effect.	This SEPP has been included for completeness, however is the officers view that this SEPP is of no influence to the application.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021

Chapter 2, Part 2.3, Division 5, Subdivision 2 Development likely to affect an electricity transmission or distribution network
Relevant Provisions
Provisions	Comment
Clause 2.48
Satisfactory – See earlier referral comments

Chapter 2, Part 2.3, Division 17, Subdivision 2, Section 2.120 Impact of road noise or vibration on non-road development
Relevant Provisions
Provisions	Comment
Clause 2.120
(1) This section applies to development for any of the following purposes that is on land in or adjacent to the road corridor for a freeway, a tollway or a transitway or any other road with an annual average daily traffic volume of more than 20,000 vehicles (based on the traffic volume data published on the website of TfNSW) and that the consent authority considers is likely to be adversely affected by road noise or vibration— (a) residential accommodation, (b) a place of public worship, (c) a hospital, (d) an educational establishment or centre-based child care facility. (2) Before determining a development application for development to which this section applies, the consent authority must take into consideration any guidelines that are issued by the Planning Secretary for the purposes of this section and published in the Gazette. (3) If the development is for the purposes of residential accommodation, the consent authority must not grant consent to the development unless it is satisfied that appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that the following LAeq levels are not exceeded— (a) in any bedroom in the residential accommodation—35 dB(A) at any time between 10 pm and 7 am, (b) anywhere else in the residential accommodation (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway)—40 dB(A) at any time.	Bundarra Road has a capacity of less than 20,000 vehicles per day. It is therefore not reasonable to require certain noise-attenuation conditions for new dwellings.

Chapter 2, Part 2.3, Division 17, Subdivision 2, Section 2.119 Development with frontage to classified road
Relevant Provisions
Provisions	Comment
Clause 2.119
(1) The objectives of this section are— (a) to ensure that new development does not compromise the effective and ongoing operation and function of classified roads, and (b) to prevent or reduce the potential impact of traffic noise and vehicle emission on development adjacent to classified roads. (2) The consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that— (a) where practicable and safe, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road, and (b) the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of— (i) the design of the vehicular access to the land, or (ii) the emission of smoke or dust from the development, or (iii) the nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road to gain access to the land, and (c) the development is of a type that is not sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions, or is appropriately located and designed, or includes measures, to ameliorate potential traffic noise or vehicle emissions within the site of the development arising from the adjacent classified road.	Requires discussion – see below.

Further comments:

The application was referred to TfNSW in an advisory capacity. It is noted that the proposal itself does not require the concurrence of TfNSW (however vehicular crossovers would require concurrence).

Council raised concerns with the application as part of the RFI, with the proposal failing to achieve or demonstrate the bolded aspects of the Clause, largely given the land has a practicable and safe alternative access option from the currently unformed road reserve at the western boundary. An amended plan of development was also requested. The applicant’s response is as follows:

“Of the eight lots proposed, only Lot 4 requires a new direct access to a classified road. To this end, the proposed development is consistent with Clause 2.119 of the SEPP as:

- where practicable and safe, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road;

- the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of:

- the design of the vehicular access to the land, or

- the emission of smoke or dust from the development, or

- the nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road to gain access to the land.

The proposed development is very much consistent with surrounding residential subdivision, and the creation of 6 new tenancies could not be reasonably be described as having a significant effect on overall traffic volumes. Consultation with various State agencies was undertaken prior to the R5 zoning, and no objections were raised.

With regard to the road widening, Council can only require this land dedication under a plan made under the EP&A Act, Roads Act, or compulsory acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991. No such mechanism is in place, therefore this requirement is not currently enforceable.”

It is noted that:

- Negotiations later occurred to secure agreement for dedication of land to road reserve at Bundarra Road; and

- Council’s officer had no objections in relation to the suitability of the proposal in terms of emissions from the road in relation to establishing sensitive receptors (dwellings).

The view that “Consultation with various State agencies was undertaken prior to the R5 zoning, and no objections were raised” is considered immaterial, and does not exempt consideration of the SEPP. Further, it is likely that these consultations occurred around 12 years ago.

In terms of considering “where practicable and safe, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road” given the land is a greenfield site it is considered that complete access from (and associated upgrade of) the unformed road reserve is practicable (capable of being done) and is inherently safe. To achieve this, it would likely require construction of an internal access road, from the western road reserve across the northern boundary of lots fronting Bundarra Road. This would eliminate any new points of conflict at Bundarra Road.

At the same time, the applicant has clarified that only Lot 4 would have an individual direct access. This does not take into account the shared access which would be required for Lots 2, 3 (and also shared by 8). It is also the officers recommendation that Lot 4 should have access via a battle-axe handle from the Western road reserve, based on the SEPP. It is difficulty to justify this lot accessing Bundarra Road, where an alternative is very feasible.

It is considered that following negotiations and amendment to access point for Lot 4, the dedication of land allowing for future road widening or similar (together with pavement extension works to allow for safe bus stopping and rubbish movements) would on balance be an acceptable outcome acceptable. Ultimately, Council’s officer considers the dispensation against Clause 2.119(2)(a) is supportable and would have an impact on the ongoing operation and function of the classified road within acceptable limits (as conditioned).

No other State Environmental Planning Policies require consideration.

URALLA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012

The proposal is consistent with the LEP having regard to the following:

Relevant Provisions
Provisions	Comment
Part 2 Permitted or prohibited development
2.6 Subdivision—consent requirements (1) Land to which this Plan applies may be subdivided, but only with development consent.	Noted, the application seeks development consent for the works.
Part 4 Principal development standards
4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size (1) The objectives of this clause are as follows— (a) to ensure that lot sizes are compatible with local environmental values, constraints and permissible uses, (b) to facilitate the efficient use of land and its resources for residential and other human purposes, (c) to minimise potential land use conflicts, (d) to ensure rural lands are not fragmented in a manner that threatens their future use for agricultural production. (2) This clause applies to a subdivision of any land shown on the Lot Size Map that requires development consent and that is carried out after the commencement of this Plan. (3) The size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.	The proposal complies with the minimum 2ha minimum lot size for the land. While it is noted that the proposal would cause some conflict with the objectives, it is considered essentially that the rural land use has been lost by virtue of the R5 zoning.
Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions
5.21 Flood planning	The subject site is not mapped as being flood affected.
Part 6 Additional local provisions
6.1 Earthworks (1) The objectives of this clause are as follows— (a) to ensure that earthworks for which development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land, (b) to allow earthworks of a minor nature without requiring separate development consent. (2) Development consent is required for earthworks unless— (a) the earthworks are exempt development under this Plan or another applicable environmental planning instrument, or (b) the earthworks are ancillary to other development for which development consent has been given. (3) Before granting development consent for earthworks, the consent authority must consider the following matters— (a) the likely disruption of, or any detrimental effect on, existing drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality, (b) the effect of the proposed development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land, (c) the quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both, (d) the effect of the proposed development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining properties, (e) the source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material, (f) the likelihood of disturbing relics, (g) the proximity to and potential for adverse impacts on any watercourse, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area, (h) any appropriate measures proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the impacts of the development.	Earthworks will be required to facilitate the subdivision. It is considered that earthworks would be acceptable. Notwithstanding, Council’s officer is satisfied that as conditioned earthworks would comply with Clause 6.1(3).
6.4 Essential services Development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the proposed development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required— (a) the supply of water, (b) the supply of electricity, (c) the disposal and management of sewage, (d) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation, (e) suitable road access.	Council’s officer is satisfied that the proposed subdivision is capable of being supplied with relevant essential services. In summary: · Water would be able to be captured on-site, which is acceptable for the zone; · It is expected that electricity would be able to be provided; · Sewerage disposal would be considered in conjunction with construction of a dwelling on each lot, however initially there does not appear to be significant constraints in achieving a solution; · Given no new roads are created, stormwater impacts would largely be considered through applications for dwellings. Notwithstanding, some work would occur to ensure that road reserves become a lawful point of discharge for the development; and · As conditioned, the proposal would have suitable road access.

No other aspects of the LEP require discussion.

4.15(1)(a) the provisions of—

There are no proposed planning instruments which are relevant to the assessment of the proposal.

4.15(1)(a) the provisions of—

(iii) any development control plan

URALLA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2012

Chapter 2 Subdivision

Relevant Provisions

Provisions

Comment

2.7 Subdivision in Large Lot Residential Areas

Aims and Objectives

· To ensure that subdivision in Rural Residential Areas is appropriate within the landscape;

· To ensure that subdivision will not result in increased risk from bushfire or other environmental hazards;

· To ensure that the intensification of land use does not result in undesirable environmental consequences; and

· To implement the ‘user pays’ principle for the provision of services to the subdivision.

Relevant Performance Outcomes

· Minimum subdivision size is implemented as the Uralla LEP noting that strata subdivision below the LEP minimum lot size is not permitted;

· Subdivision design and construction meets Council’s relevant engineering guidelines.

· Access handles for battle-axe blocks are to be excluded from the lot area for the purposes of minimum lot size calculations if the average width is below 25 metres.

The proposal would reasonably achieve the relevant aims and objectives, given the land is not affected by known environmental hazards, and (within the limits of the zoning and current planning instruments) the proposal would not result in unreasonable environmental consequences.

As conditioned, the proposal acceptably meets the performance outcomes, and include provision of relevant services to appropriate standards and at the developers cost.

Acceptable Solutions

In addition to meeting the lot size requirements of the Uralla LEP, any new lots created in a subdivision must provide at least one building envelope with the following attributes:

· Should minimize the clearing of existing vegetation,

· An existing all weather access or a feasible route for one to be constructed,

· Not within a known or potential flood planning area

· Not contaminated land,

· Must not be on a ridgeline visible from adjacent roads, and

· Should have suitable locations for the disposal of septic tank overflow (or an alternative aerobic disposal system) (see Council’s On-Site Waste Water Management Strategy);

The proposal meets the acceptable solutions. It is noted that as conditioned, restrictions would be placed on title which prevented removal of established vegetation.

New roads created by the subdivision shall be constructed and sealed according to Council’s technical specifications;

Council may require that existing roads be upgraded to a suitable standard to cater for any expected increase in traffic;

The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution; however dispensation is recommended.

The western road reserve would require forming to a suitable standard for a public road however it is not considered reasonable for it to be fully sealed in the context of currently servicing four lots.

Council may require that a traffic study to be undertaken where there is a likelihood of a significant increase in traffic volumes resulting from the subdivision;

A traffic study is not warranted for the proposal.

All prominent hilltops and ridges are to be preserved. Subdivisions should be designed so as to:

· Exclude roads, powerlines and other services and amenities from hilltops,

· Exclude dams and other earthworks from hilltops,

· Any tanks and similar structures which are dependent upon gravity for their operation should be designed and located so as to blend in with the natural environment, and

· Any clearing of vegetation for fence lines, building site, access tracks and asset protection zones shall be undertaken to comply with the provisions of the Local Land Services Act 2013 and the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016;

The proposed layout is not affected by ridgeline considerations.

It is considered that as conditioned, the proposal would have an acceptable impact in terms of clearing.

It is noted that details regarding tanks may be considered under future dwelling applications.

Chapter 13 Notification Procedures
Relevant Provisions
Provisions	Comment
13. 4 Notifying of Applications
Adjoining landowners will be given notice of an application if, in the opinion of Council, the enjoyment of land adjoining the development may be detrimentally affected by the proposed development…	The application has been notified to adjoining occupiers, in line with the Chapter.
13.8 Amendments prior to Determination.
An applicant may make amendments to an application at any time before its determination, subject to Council’s acceptance of those amendments. In these circumstances, Council will re-notify: • Those persons who made submissions on the original application; and • Any persons who own adjoining or neighbouring land (including those persons who were previously notified of the application) who may in Council’s opinion potentially be detrimentally affected by the proposal as amended.	The negotiations have not warranted further notification of the proposal to adjoining occupiers or submitters.
13.9 Notification Period
A person may inspect a plan and make a submission within the notification period which will be a minimum of 14 days.	The period has complied with the requirement.
13.10 Consideration of Submissions
Council will consider all submissions received within the specified time period before determining a Development Application. In making a determination the content of a submission must be balanced with the Council’s statutory obligations. Submissions form a part of the assessment of an application and each application will be assessed on its merits. When determining a development application, Council will take into consideration any submissions it has received during the notification period. Delegated authority will not be used to determine a development application that has received a written objection to the proposal. Development applications that have had a written objection submitted will be referred to the relevant standing Council Committee for comment prior to being referred to Council for determination discussion. Applicant to be advised of Objections Written submissions cannot remain confidential as they may be used to assist in negotiations with the owner/applicant of the proposal or be included in Council business papers. The applicant, on request, will be advised of the terms of any objection and is entitled to read all submissions received. Where applications are amended in response to objections received, comments may be sought from previous objector/s. Notification of Determination Following determination of an application each person who made a submission will be advised in writing of Council’s decision in determining an application as soon as practical.	The assessment of the proposal (and further steps) have and will comply with these provisions.

Chapter 14 Contaminated Land
Relevant Provisions
Provisions	Comment
14.6 Acceptable Solutions
Not discussed due to duplication with earlier comments under State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazard) 2021	See comments under State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazard) 2021 assessment.

4.15(1)(a) the provisions of—

(iiia) any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4

No planning agreement has been offered or entered into relating to the site.

4.15(1)(a) the provisions of—

(iv) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph)

The regulations (clauses 61 – 64) do not impose any particular requirements regarding the development.

4.15(1)(b) -

the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality

Environmental Impacts – Built Environment

The proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on the built environment, as follows:

- While it is noted that the proposal may cause harm by virtue of facilitating an intensification of the land, this is considered to be within reasonable limits, when considered in the context of the applicable minimum lot size and zoning.

- The siting of dwellings on any resulting lots would be considered under separate planning processes, however a dwelling (the expected housing type) would fit comfortably within each lot.

- Impacts relating to cumulative development are noted (e.g. potential loss of amenity from an uplift in density), however these are considered reasonable giving bearing to the minimum lot size and zoning.

Environmental Impacts – Natural Environment

The proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on the natural environment, as follows:

- As conditioned, the proposal would be required to comply with best-practice erosion and sediment control, dust suppression, noise, finding of any artefacts and similar ‘during construction’ type conditions.

- The layout itself gives bearing to existing vegetation, and would not cause any extensive vegetation removal. In addition, the proposal has demonstrated through supporting material to have an acceptable impact in terms of matters for consideration under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and relevant SEPP’s.

- The principle of development is largely established by the R5 zoning which the land benefits from. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the proposal is of a lower density type, which can successfully manage on-site wastewater requirements and general stormwater impacts. In this regard, the land is also able to be provided with a lawful point of discharge for the layout.

- While the requirement for ‘best practice’ restrictions on land for sustainability are noted within a submission, in the absence of strong planning policy to require these there is not a ground for these inclusions. The developer may choose to include such restrictions.

- The ‘wetness’ of the land is noted (particularly at Bundarra Road). This itself is not considered to be a reason for refusal, and will need to be explored and designed through follow up permits and the like. Ultimately, the land is not flood affected, therefore limiting this as a ground for negotiation.

Social and Economic Impacts

In the officers view it is the social impacts of the development which are of particular consideration (noting that the development is considered acceptable in principle in terms of environmental matters). The proposal is considered acceptable on balance, as follows:

- The loss of farmland forms an important part of the principle of development, however in light of the R5 zoning of the land, the proposal is acceptable in this regard.

- Negotiations have occurred throughout the assessment process with regards to road safety: While the provision of any new access point at Bundarra Road is undesirable when considered against the relevant SEPP, it is considered that as conditioned, the proposal will have an acceptable impact on the safety and function of the Classified Road (despite access not being taken from a viable road reserve). These will include:

· Dedication of land across Bundarra Road frontage (approximate 15m width);

· Construction of driveway crossovers in accordance with relevant standards (also in accordance with TfNSW standards);

· Widening of road pavement in in vicinity of crossover, in order to create safe locations for bus and waste vehicles to safely pull off Bundarra Road;

· Forming of an appropriate intersection; and

· Applying restrictions preventing direct access to Bundarra Road, and an altered point of access for Lot 4.

- Other recommendations within submissions are commended (e.g. reduction in speed limit, walking/cycling track across frontage) but are not considered reasonable to condition as part of the proposal. Council’s officer (with support from Development Engineer) consider that the proposal will be acceptable in terms of safety, as conditioned.

- It is agreed that the current lack of points of conflict together with the conducive visibility form to make the frontage an overtaking point, however again, as conditioned the proposal is considered to be acceptable. It is noted that should the balance lot be developed, further investigations would occur with regards to road safety and proportionate development standards.

- The submitters again should be commended with regards to their comments regarding cumulative impact, and considerations for built and social infrastructure (such as wider forming of road reserves for walking tracks and obtaining funding for Barry Munday Reserve). Ultimately these goals are outside of the limits of reasonableness to require as part of the application.

- Future dwellings would be liable to contribute towards Council’s Section 7.12 Contribution fund, however it is agreed/noted that this does not necessarily result in local benefits.

4.15(1)(c) -

the suitability of the site for the development

Council has previously determined that the site is suitable for the proposed development in re-zoning for the ULEP 2012. There are no aspects of the site to indicate that it would be unsuitable to accommodate the proposed development, as conditioned.

4.15(1)(d) -

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

At the time of preparing this report, two (2) properly made submissions were received following notification of the application.

Theme	Further Details	Officer Response
Cumulative Impact	Potential for ultimate yield of the land should be considered as part of application. Together with land to the north, proposal would essentially create its own “village” (and should be assessed under Village subdivision provisions. “Council will only have this one opportunity to consider social and lifestyle implications for this 35 lot combined subdivisions and their integration and interaction into the Saumarez Ponds Village.” Piecemeal approach to developing the local area. While DA-57-2023 is approved, developer should be encouraged to link developments (e.g. by walking/cycling trail between the two areas). Ecological/spatial interconnectedness between the site and DA-57-2023 not considered. Masterplan needed for subdivision development in Uralla Shire. Council would be better placed if holistic view of land use was given priority.	The submission theme is noted. In terms of the site itself, Council’s officer has acknowledged that Lot 8 has potential to be further development. Irrespective of this not forming part of the application, this likelihood has been taken into consideration in negotiations around access. In the absence of master planning expressed within relevant Planning Instruments, it is not reasonable to require that both sites effectively marry up. A Concept Plan for future stages of the development was requested as a recommendation (not a formal request) but declined. If approved, the applications may proceed independently however changes may occur following consent, should applicants be agreeable to layout amendments.
Principle of Development	Loss of viable farmland	Considering the current R5 zoning of the land, the loss of farmland is considered acceptable.
Safety Note: preventing access to Bundarra Road cited several times	General Safety of Bundarra Road compromised by number of vehicles and sun directions (travelling to and from Armidale). Likely further traffic increases associated with renewable projects and Invergowrie developments. Historical ‘ribbon’ development of Bundarra Road pre-dates current considerations of vehicle numbers etc. Lack of verge, and deep channel at frontage of site to Bundarra Road. Frontage is a known overtaking point due to good visibility (following slowing at Barbados Corner). Conflicts with vehicles entering 100km/h zone. Poor condition of Bundarra Road surface. Seemingly lack of proportionate funding for Bundarra Road. Submitter Recommendations: All lots to be access from the western road reserve (submitter cites better example at Tanglewood Road [Armidale LGA]), with a tree buffer at Bundarra Road frontage). *Note: images provided at end of this assessment.* Land is very wet at Bundarra Road frontage – while not a key safety consideration, access would be more dry from an internal access road which would be at a higher point in the land. Lot 8 should have two points of access from western road reserve only. ************************************ Road reserve should be sealed to boundary of Lot 7. Sealing this road is in keeping with the USDCP principle of user pays. Direct access of Lots 2 to 5 and 8 to the Bundarra Rd should be reconsidered. Access may be safer for these Lots if a laneway at the back (North side) of the Lots links across to the Road Reserve laneway and all traffic accesses the Development at this Road Reserve single point. ********************************** A large pull off area is needed for a school bus to make a safe bus stop. This area needs to be fully sealed as gravel areas rapidly deteriorate and become unsafe as drivers negotiate large pot holes. ********************************* Safe walking/cycling track in front of Lots 1-5 (between proposed development boundaries and the drainage channel next to the Bundarra Rd) so children/people have safe access to the bus stop along Bundarra Rd (currently only a wide verge from Barbados Corner to 288 Bundarra Road). Council should consider extending this walking/cycling pathway along Bundarra Road from at least Dumaresq Rd to Marble Hill Rd as a safe walking/cycling track providing social connectivity within the Saumarez Ponds Village area. ********************************** If Lots 2, 3 4 or 5 access the Bundarra Road directly, driveways should be extra wide so that cars with horse floats and trucks can enter the driveway without having to swing out into oncoming traffic. Consideration also needs to be given to the safe collection of garbage and recycling. ********************************* An 80 km/h speed limit should be considered on the Bundarra Rd in this area Local roads (Dumaresq Rd, Marble Hill Rd, Mundays Lane, Ferris Lane and internally connected roads to these) need to have an 80 km/h speed limit. These are local areas with increasing population density and should be respected as such. This was proposed when DA-57-2023 was submitted but there does not appear to be any action on it as yet. Council should erect signs in the Saumarez Ponds area for cycle and pedestrian awareness. ********************************** Connection of the Road Reserve to Bundarra Rd needs to be a full 2 vehicle road width and formed and sealed from the Bundarra Rd pavement This suggested laneway should be sealed and can easily be incorporated into the subdivision of Lot 8 at a later stage. ************************************ Remaining section of road reserve should connect through to Mundays Lane as walking/cycling track and wildlife corridor, assist access to Barry Munday Reserve.	The comments regarding the existing conditions and historical pattern of development are noted. While it would be desirable for the proposal to be amended to have access only from the western road reserve, the proposal (as conditioned) is considered acceptable when bearing consideration to Chapter 2, Part 2.3, Division 17, Subdivision 2, Section 2.119 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021. The site characteristics of a likely point of future access falling within a ‘wet’ area of the land is noted, however this would ultimately be for the developer to design to suit and would be considered under separate approvals. ****************************** In the context of the proposal servicing four lots from the western road reserve, it is not considered reasonable that the road should be fully sealed. While the DCP requires this, a dispensation is considered reasonable to limit sealing to 10m past the boundary of Lot 6. Should the balance lot be developed towards its ultimate density, further sealing would be required under separate planning permission. ****************************** This ground is considered reasonable and is captured under recommended conditions of consent. ****************************** It is noted that under the subject application, there would not be sufficient grounds to warrant construction of a pathway in front of, or beyond the site. ****************************** This ground is considered reasonable and is captured under recommended conditions of consent through standard drawings. ****************************** The application is considered acceptable for the 100km/h frontage. It is noted that conditions would be applied for new accesses to align with TfNSW requirements. The proposal for changes to speed limits and signage are not material planning considerations. Again, the proposal is considered acceptable for the characteristics of the frontage. ***************************** This is considered reasonable and is acceptable as conditioned. Comments regarding an alternative laneway are addressed earlier in this assessment. ******************************** This is desirable but is not a reasonable condition within the limits of the proposal.

Stormwater

Significant amounts of water flows in a North East direction across Lot 8 during extended rainfall periods. The dam situated in the North East corner of Lot 8 confirms this, as does the wetlands area around the dam and into the South East corner of the DA-57-2023 subdivision.

Significant water flow and pooling the Bundarra Rd at around Lots 2 & 3.

It is considered that the proposal would be acceptable bearing consideration to stormwater. Should Lot 8 be developed, overland flow coming from this land would be further considered.

The pooling of water/depression along Bundarra Road is not considered a reason for refusal and would be considered in detail under separate applications for work on Council’s road reserve.

Power Supply

No outline of power provision/location of poles. Further extensions may harm rural setting.

This ground is not considered reasonable, and there is no nexus in the scope of the proposal to expressly require that powerlines are provided underground.

Mobile Phone & NBN

Proposal will add to existing constrained services.

This is noted but is not a reasonable condition/consideration within the limits of the proposal.

Environment (vegetation)

Development needs to include enhancements to the environment. Koala habitat and birdlife canopy needs to be included in the

Development.

Consideration for wildlife corridors (other than just plain wire fencing)

Without planned environmental development, the DA will further degrade the environment.

This rectification needs to be included in Council’s requirements.

These grounds are considered desirable, however it is not considered reasonable to require provision of vegetative buffers and the like. Notwithstanding, conditions would be included to prevent clearing of established trees.

Council’s officer considers that as conditioned, the proposal will be acceptable and not cause unreasonable degradation.

Infrastructure

Developer Contributions likely insufficient for the proposals impact on local infrastructure (e.g. even minimal for maintenance, no contribution for social infrastructure / new infrastructure)

Existing infrastructure needs to be better managed.

This ground is noted.

Housing Quality, Sustainability & Water

Council should ensure that housing quality is of a high standard that meets sustainability guidelines. New residents should be encouraged to include rooftop solar panels, passive heating, double glazing, water conservation, drought tolerant gardens, etc.

******************************************

Local subterranean water is limited and over-subscribed. Existing bores in the area can fail in dry times. There should be no further bores sunk in the area and new residents should be encouraged to have sufficient rain water tanks for their needs.

This is considered desirable but is not a reasonable requirement to impose, particularly noting that there are current state-wide energy efficiency standards which are to be achieved when constructing a new dwelling.

************************************’

While it is not Council’s role to comment on groundwater capacity, it is reasonable that a restrictions are applied to prevent any drilling of bores for potable water, noting the proximity to future on-site wastewater systems. Separate approvals would be required for drilling of a bore under section 52 of the Water Management Act 2000.

Errors

Descriptions within application material reference DA-57-2023

Noted, however it is considered that as a whole the application material was satisfactory despite any errors.

Naming

Request aboriginal heritage be considered in any road naming.

Noted

Figure 8: Aerial view of Tanglewood Road / Westview Road subdivision pattern referred to by submitter

Figure 9: Plan view of Tanglewood Road / Westview Road subdivision pattern referred to by submitter

4.15(1)(e)

the public interest.

On balance, the proposal satisfies relevant planning controls and would not be adverse to the public interest. Refer to previous discussions within the assessment with regards to the acceptability of road safety and similar matters.

Within the limits of the zoning and lot size characteristics, the proposal is acceptable from an ESD perspective.

Conclusion

The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. A Section 4.15 assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable in this instance, particularly having bearing to matters raised in response to notification of the proposal, and the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of the Uralla Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Uralla Development Control Plan 2011.

The application is also considered acceptable on balance (as conditioned) with regards to matters raised under relevant SEPP’s (in particular State Environmental Planning Policy [Transport and Infrastructure] 2021).

Alternative

Notwithstanding the officer recommendation contained in this report, Council may wish to support the proposal subject to an alternative layout being provided preventing access from Bundarra Road, based on the relevant requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy [Transport and Infrastructure] 2021.

Given permissibility and the matter outlined below would be able to be resolved, the following alternative recommendation is provided for Council’s consideration:

That Council:

1) Authorises approval of Development Application (ref: DA-11-2024) for a Subdivision (1 Lot into 8 Lots) at Lot 2 DP577140, land known as 828 Bundarra Road, SAUMAREZ PONDS, under delegation to the General Manager, subject to:

· Deferred Commencement – Matter: Provision of an amended plan of development providing vehicular access for all lots except Lot 1 from the existing road reserve (adjacent to western boundary of the site), rather than the Classified Road; and

· Amendments to the conditions contained within the Notice of Determination only where in connection to with the Deferred Commencement matter.

Council Implications

Community Engagement/Communication

The application was notified in accordance with the Uralla Community Engagement Plan related Community Participation Plan.

Policy and Regulation

The proposal is consistent with matters for consideration pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 including Uralla LEP 2011 and relevant State Environmental Planning Policies.

Financial/Long Term Financial Plan

No financial impacts.

Asset Management/Asset Management Strategy

Nil

Workforce/Workforce Management Strategy

Nil

Legal and Risk Management

The submitters and applicant will have appeal rights.

Performance Measures

Assessment has exceeded 42 days, due to reasonably proactive to negotiations with the applicant.

Project Management

Nil

Mayor: Robert Bell
Date of Council Meeting: 27 August 2024
DATE	COMMITTEE/MEETING/EVENT	LOCATION
1 Jul 2024	Mayor & GM Catch Meeting	Uralla
3 Jul 2024	2AD Interview	Telephone
3 Jul 2024	ACEN Meeting	Uralla
3 Jul 2024	Energy Co Meeting	Online - Zoom
4 Jul 2024	Rocky River viewing – Bridge Op Plan with New England Times	Rocky River
8 Jul 2024	NAIDOC Ceremony & Welcome to Country	Uralla
8 Jul 2024	Meeting Minister Ms Jenny Aitchison MP	Uralla
8 Jul 2024	Mayor & GM Catch Meeting	Uralla
9 Jul 2024	CMA Energy Update	Online
9 Jul 2024	RFS Command Centre Tour	Armidale Airport
9 Jul 2024	Councillor Workshop & Debriefing Sessions - Grant Opportunity EV Charger - GP (Uralla Doctor) update - Animal Management Policy review - DA boundary adjustment - Waste Truck update - Fibonacci Installation update - Courthouse future - Recycling Solar Panels	Uralla
10 Jul 2024	Mid North Coast Loads meeting	Uralla
11 Jul 2024	Meeting incoming Local Member – Brendan Moylan MP	Uralla
11 Jul 2024	Meeting Dr Amanda Cohn MLC	Uralla
15 Jul 2024	Mayor & GM Catch Meeting	Uralla
17 Jul 2024	2AD Interview	Online
18 Jul 2024	ACEN Media Launch	Uralla
19 Jul 2024	Meeting TfNSW Renewable Energy Sector	Uralla
22 Jul 2024	Mayor & GM Catch Meeting	Uralla
23 Jul 2024	Hair Cut for Joy - Cancer Council	McMaughs
23 Jul 2024	Council Ordinary Meeting	Uralla
24 Jul 2024	Meeting Ms Abigail Boyd MLC	Uralla
24 Jul 2024	ACE Community Consultation	Uralla
29 Jul 2024	NEWA Meeting	Armidale
29 Jul 2024	Meeting Kingstown Store	Uralla
30 Jul 2024	Opening Centacare - Hon Emm McBride MP	Armidale
31 Jul 2024	2AD Interview	Telephone
Expense Claims for Councillors for the full term of Council 2021-2024:		$0

Standard 1 Consumer dignity and choice	Compliant
Standard 2 Ongoing assessment and planning with consumers	Not Compliant
Standard 3 Personal care and clinical care	Not Compliant
Standard 4 Services and supports for daily living	Compliant
Standard 5 Organisation’s service environment	Compliant
Standard 6 Feedback and complaints	Compliant
Standard 7 Human resources	Compliant
Standard 8 Organisational governance	Not Compliant

Department:	General Manager’s Office
Prepared By:	Executive Assistant
Authorised By:	General Manager
Reference:	UINT/24/10839
Attachments:	1. Minutes 23 July 2024 Ordinary Meeting ⇩

Department:	Corporate & Community
Prepared By:	Manager Finance & IT
Authorised By:	Director Corporate & Community
Reference:	UINT/24/12997
Attachments:	1. Monthly Financial Statements JULY 2024 ⇩
LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK
Goal:	4. We are an independent shire and well-governed community
Strategy:	4.1. Informed and collaborative leadership in our community 4.2. A strategic, accountable and representative Council