Goulburn Mulwaree Council Planning Proposal to Amend Zoning … · Council considered a report on this matter at its meeting held on 18 December, 2018 and resolved: Resolution 2018/606

Council Ref: REZ_0003_1819 NSW DPIE Ref: PP_2019_GOULB_002_00 Doc # 1106835

Goulburn Mulwaree Council

Planning Proposal to Amend Zoning of the

North East Goulburn Enterprise Corridor

(Common Street Sub Precinct)

Goulburn Mulwaree Local Environmental Plan

2009

29 October, 2019

Doc ID. 1193196P Page 2 of 46

Version Comment Date

1 For Gateway 18 February 2019

2 For Gateway 25 March, 2019

3 Post Gateway 29 May, 2019

4 Pre- Exhibition following

State Agency Consultation

29 October, 2019


Introduction

The North Goulburn Enterprise Corridor Industrial precinct was identified in Council’s Employment Lands Strategy (ELS) (Section 11.2.1) for rezoning from B6 Enterprise Corridor to IN1 General Industrial under Goulburn Mulwaree Local Environmental Plan 2009 (GM LEP 2009). The purpose of this rezoning is to achieve the objectives of the ELS to create employment generating lands to the east of Goulburn city and adjacent to the existing Waste Transfer facility. Council considered a report on this matter at its meeting held on 18 December, 2018 and resolved: Resolution 2018/606 1. That the report to amend the zoning of Part of the North East Goulburn Enterprise Corridor Precinct from the Senior Strategic Planner be received. 2. That Council resolve to prepare a Planning Proposal on land identified in Figure 2 of this report to amend Goulburn Mulwaree Local Environmental Plan 2009 which will:

(a) Rezone land in the Common Street Sub-Precinct of the North East Goulburn Enterprise Corridor Precinct within the area bounded by Sinclair Street, Chiswick Street, the land in zone RU6 Transition and zone SP2 Infrastructure (Cemetery) on the eastern side of Long Street and Council’s Waste Management Facility from B6 Enterprise Corridor to IN1 General Industrial under GM LEP 2009, and (b) Retain No Minimum Lot size on the subject lands.

3. That when the Planning Proposal is prepared, a request for a Gateway Determination be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment. 4. That the Department of Planning and Environment be requested to issue delegations so that Council is the Relevant Planning Authority to process the subject Planning Proposal. Council further considered this matter at its meeting of 19 March, 2019 and resolved to include “Rural industries” as a permissible use with consent in the IN1 – General Industrial zone under GM LEP 2009.


Part 1 – Objective

To amend the Goulburn Mulwaree Local Environmental Plan 2009 to facilitate the

redevelopment of the North Goulburn Enterprise Corridor as an industrial precinct and to

permit rural industries with consent in the IN1 General Industrial zone, thereby achieving the

goals of the Employment Lands Strategy (ELS) (Section 11.1) to create employment

generating lands.

Refer to Appendix 1 for Locality Map of the properties to which this proposal corresponds.

Part 2 – Explanation of Provisions

The Goulburn Mulwaree Local Environmental Plan 2009 will be amended by altering the land use zone from B6 Enterprise Corridor to IN1 General Industrial as it applies to the following properties:

Part Lots 22, 23 and 25 in DP 750050 and part Lot 240 DP 1064721 where zoned B6.

Lots 47, 48, 60, 267, 287 in DP 750050.

The following plans detail the zone changes.

Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning

The land use table associated with the IN1 – General Industrial zone will be amended to include rural industries as a use permitted with consent as detailed below:


Zone IN1 General Industrial 1 Objectives of zone • To provide a wide range of industrial and warehouse land uses.

• To encourage employment opportunities.

• To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

• To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

2 Permitted without consent Roads

3 Permitted with consent Depots; Extensive agriculture; Freight transport facilities; Funeral homes; Garden centres; General industries; Hardware and building supplies; Industrial training facilities; Kiosks; Landscaping material supplies; Light industries; Markets; Medical centres; Neighbourhood shops; Oyster aquaculture; Places of public worship; Plant nurseries; Rural industries; Rural supplies; Sawmill or log processing works; Stock and sale yards; Tank-based aquaculture; Timber yards; Vehicle sales or hire premises; Warehouse or distribution centres; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

4 Prohibited Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Airstrips; Animal boarding or training establishments; Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Business premises; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Eco-tourist facilities; Educational establishments; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Function centres; Health services facilities; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Heavy industries; Helipads; Home-based child care; Home businesses; Home occupations; Home occupations (sex services); Jetties; Marinas; Mooring pens; Moorings; Pond-based aquaculture Recreation facilities (major); Residential accommodation; Restricted premises; Retail premises; Rural industries; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Water recreation structures; Wharf or boating facilities

There is no minimum allotment size applicable within the existing B6 Enterprise Corridor zone, nor within the proposed IN1 General Industrial Zone under GM LEP 2009, therefore, there is no change proposed to the lot size map.

The existing floor space (FSR) ratio within Locality J of 0.8:1 as it applies to the area identified will also remain unchanged.


Part 3 – Justification

Section A – Need for Planning Proposal

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

The Planning Proposal is the result of both the recommendations of the Employment Lands Strategy and the report to Council dated 18 December, 2018 which considered the Planning Proposal and the need to expand the area affected beyond that originally identified in the Employment Lands Strategy. The Employment Lands Strategy (Section 11.2) identifies that this precinct contains a range of land uses that are not limited to enterprise or industrial uses and includes pockets of residential development. The Strategy finds that the Enterprise Corridor Zoning affects the value of residential properties within the zone, furthermore, that this precinct has a large vacancy rate. Additionally access in and around the precinct is an issue. The area considered for rezoning in the Strategy is detailed in the figure below.

Figure 1 – Extract of Proposed Rezoning from the Employment Lands Strategy

The Strategy provides the following justification for rezoning as follows:

Common Street South has seen little development over recent times and vacancy rates remain high. Notwithstanding, the owners of 5 Common Street (eastern side) are seeking approval for a concrete manufacturing industry and have lodged a Development Application (DA) with Council [this DA/0065/1617 was subsequently


withdrawn following the adoption of the Strategy]. The owners are also requesting an industrial zoning (site was zoned industrial when site was purchased) as approval of their DA is proving difficult under the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone, given the nature of the industry. An industrial zoning would be more appropriate for this type of employment use.

The Council Waste Management Facility is also located in this area (east of Common Street) and Council is mindful that surrounding land use must be compatible with the operations of the Waste Management Facility. There are regular truck movements and odour and noise can be common events. Therefore a residential zoning is not appropriate around this facility. The eastern side of Common Street is presently zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor however it is considered reasonable to rezone this area back to IN1 General Industrial given the potential for new manufacturing industries and the location and operation of Council’s Waste Management Facility.

The area to the west of Common Street is recommended to remain B6 Enterprise Corridor as it will act as a buffer to the proposed industrial area to the east of Common Street.

The Strategy recommends that:

The area bounded by Sinclair, Chiswick and Common Streets and the Waste Management Facility to the east should be rezoned to IN1 General Industrial as per the map below.

Figure 2 – Extract from the Employment Lands Strategy identifying potential IN1 Zone, Common Street


The Planning Proposal intends to expand the proposed IN1 area to include land on the western side of Common Street which is zoned B6. As stated above, the Strategy had intended for this land to remain B6 to provide a buffer to residential development. The report to Council dated 18 December provides the following justification for broadening the IN1 zone beyond the area specified by the Strategy:

The area proposed by the Employment Lands Strategy (ELS) suited development for industrial uses (being relatively flat in close proximity to suitable access) this is also applicable to the proposed extension area;

The subject area minimises (not eliminates) land use conflict because it has a relatively low density of existing residential development (and is located approximately 7kms from the core urban area);

The agglomeration (clustering) of development permissible in the IN1 General Industrial zone provides the most cost effective use of any infrastructure provided;

The existing zoning of B6 Enterprise Corridor has not developed as anticipated (possibly due to the lack of infrastructure); and

Extending the proposed IN1 General Industrial zone to the western side of Common Street better enables master planning of the precinct and will facilitate the preparation of a consistent set of development controls that can be applied.

The extended area would also contain the site of a proposed Agricultural produce industry (a Rural Industry) specifically a Poultry Rendering Plant on Lot 22 DP 750050 (area shown white in Figure 3). The ELS however was prepared prior to the interest being shown in this site for the processing plant. It is noted that a Planning Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARS SSD 9143) was issued to Woodlands Ridge Poultry on 25 July 2018. Woodlands Ridge Poultry Pty Ltd has since lodged a State Significant Development Application (SSD-9143) with DPIE for the construction and operation of a mixed use development at 52 Sinclair Street, Goulburn comprising:

Cold storage and distribution centre;

Poultry processing plant;

Childcare centre; and

Other associated works including earthworks and infrastructure.

It is recommended that the Precinct identified in the ELS be extended to include part of this

site currently zoned B6, so that the Precinct can be master planned to provide for both

suitable development control provisions and for capacity/location planning of any supporting

infrastructure.

A further report to Council dated 19 March, 2019 included a specific resolution to include

Rural industries as a permissible use (subject to consent) in the IN1 General Industrial zone

under GM LEP 2009. The Goulburn Mulwaree Local Government Area (LGA) is a

predominantly rural LGA. Currently, the only zone which permits rural industries is within the

RU1 Primary Production Zone under GMLEP 2009. Council’s Employment Lands Strategy

2016, identifies rural industries in Section 5.2.6 and Meat Processing in Section 5.2.7 as

being a significant sector to the economy of NSW particularly in relation to wool and

livestock for slaughter. The Strategy states:


“The rural industry in Goulburn Mulwaree LGA requires land for industrial uses

including processing and packaging facilities; storage facilities and distribution

facilities. The biggest rural industries in the LGA are not of a scale to require

significant additional processing facilities but may have some needs that can be met

by working closely with the industry. The most significant rural industry within

Goulburn Mulwaree which requires employment lands is meat processing”.

The current meat processing industry in GM is focused on cattle and sheep (providing 60%

of the NSW supply), however as identified in the State Significant Development (SSD)

application for the proposed poultry processing plant, there is a growing demand outside of

Sydney for poultry processing also. As also stated in the Strategy (p.46) there is an

increasing demand from China for protein. This is positive for the potential for increasing

meat processing in the LGA.

The following is the definition of rural industry from the GM LEP 2009.

rural industry means the handling, treating, production, processing, storage or

packing of animal or plant agricultural products for commercial purposes, and

includes any of the following:

(a) agricultural produce industries,

(b) livestock processing industries,

(c) composting facilities and works (including the production of mushroom

substrate),

(d) sawmill or log processing works,

(e) stock and sale yards,

(f) the regular servicing or repairing of plant or equipment used for the purposes of a

rural enterprise.

Whilst some of the uses categorised as rural industries in the above definition may be

suitably located in a rural zone, some uses may require locations which are better supported

by town infrastructure such as access to the Hume Highway for semi- trailers, proximity to

rail, town water and sewer services, child care and support services provided for workers in

the town, proximity to cold storage and distribution centres etc. The exclusion in the LEP of

rural industries as a permissible use in the IN1 Industrial zone would appear to be an

omission. Rural industries are permissible subject to consent within the IN1 zone under the

following LEPS in surrounding Council areas:

Wingecarribee Local Environmental Plan 2010

Yass Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013

Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014


The zone objectives for the IN1 General Industrial Zone are consistent with the proposed

use being:

• To provide a wide range of industrial and warehouse land uses.

• To encourage employment opportunities.

• To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

• To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

Like most industries (other than light industries) rural industries have the potential to

generate, noise, odour and amenity issues and should not be located in areas that are too

close to residential. Rural industries also have the potential to negatively impact water

quality, however, the neutral or beneficial effect (NorBE) requirements of the State

Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Drinking Water Catchments) 2011 would apply to

any development application (DA).

The proposed Poultry Rendering Plant (identified by white hatching in the figure below) is

likely to provide a catalyst for further development of this precinct therefore, it is consistent to

support more intensive uses on both sides of Common Street. It is also consistent with the

Precinct identified in the ELS that the buffer, zoned RU6 Transition zone between the

proposed IN1 General Industrial zone and the B6 Enterprise to the west be retained.

Figure 3 – Land Subject to Planning Proposal Including the Proposed Poultry Processing Plant.


There is a current Section 94 Contributions Plan that includes the subject precinct which

extends across Sydney Road to the north. However this plan focuses solely on the

rehabilitation of Common Street and provides no costing’s for any other works or facilities.

The lack of development from which to garner contributions and charges has meant that no

funds have been available to upgrade road infrastructure to support the B6 Enterprise

Corridor land uses. Rezoning the subject area to IN1 General Industrial would make the

most cost effective use of any infrastructure provided.

Council has received grant funding under NSW “Growing Local Economies Fund” to provide

essential infrastructure and to master plan the whole of the recommended area.

Funding provided is to:

Provide essential infrastructure, including roundabouts for heavy vehicles entering Sydney Road; and

Attract new development, thereby making a more attractive environment for businesses to establish adjacent to the eastern access of Sydney Road.

Full details of the grant application to the Growing Local Economies Fund are provided in Appendix 3 - “Growing Local Economies Fund – North East Goulburn Enterprise Corridor Precinct Enhancement Business Case” dated 9 July, 2018. Based on the above it is considered that the Planning Proposal is consistent with the Strategy. 3.2 Is the Planning Proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or

intended outcomes, or is there a better way? The Planning Proposal is considered to be the best means of achieving the intended outcomes which are to create a precinct which has one specific land use activity and consistent place based controls which will assist with master planning, infrastructure provision and funding. The area affected is currently already zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor and has since 2009 failed to gain any momentum with development as outlined in the Employment Lands Strategy. The area is located between Council’s Waste Management Facility to the west and land zoned for B6 Enterprise Corridor to the North and is considered to be unsuitable for residential development as it is not contiguous with a residential zoning and will be impacted upon by the activities of the Waste Management Facility.


Section B – Relationship to Strategic Planning Framework

3.3 Is the Planning Proposal consistent with the objectives and actions contained within the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy?

3.3.1 South East and Tablelands Regional Plan The Planning Proposal is consistent with the South East and Tablelands Regional Plan. Goal 1 of the Plan is: “A connected and prosperous Economy”. Direction 4: Leverage Growth opportunities from Western Sydney states:

The region, especially Wingecarribee and Goulburn-Mulwaree local government areas are well positioned to use Western Sydney’s growth as an impetus to create new jobs. The availability of jobs enables economic development, and employment lands at Goulburn or the Moss Vale Enterprise Corridor offer well located opportunities. High quality infrastructure, including electricity, gas and telecommunications, must be available to service businesses and industries. For example, a deficiency in the gas network to service Harden has been identified as a barrier to attracting more diversity in the agricultural sector, including poultry farming, and capturing growth opportunities from Western Sydney.

The Planning Proposal is intended to be a part of a master planning process which will ensure that future infrastructure required in this precinct is provided. The current stagnation of development in this area appears to be largely due to the lack of infrastructure available. It is considered that the Planning proposal is consistent with Direction 4 of the South East and Tablelands Regional Plan. 3.3.2 The Tablelands Regional Community Strategic Plan 2016 – 2036 The Tablelands Regional Community Strategic Plan (CSP) 2016 – 2036, identifies the aspirations of the community through a clear set of strategic priorities that achieve the region’s vision for the future. The CSP is the highest level of plan under the NSW Government’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (IPRF). All other plans developed by the Council as a part of the IPRF must reflect and support the implementation of the CSP. The CSP is has adopted five strategic pillars as follows:

Community;

Environment;

Economy;

Infrastructure; and

Civic Leadership. The Planning Proposal is consistent with the following CSP pillars and strategies as follows:

Environment – Strategy EN4 – Maintain a balance between growth, development and environmental protection through sensible planning. The area identified for rezoning within the Planning Proposal is currently already zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor. The affected area is predominantly cleared grazing land with scattered remnant woodland to the northwest and southwest of the site. Assessment


of the impacts of individual developments on the remnant woodland can be undertaken during the development application stage as the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non Rural Lands) applies to both the current and proposed zone. In addition to this the provisions of the Biodiversity Conservation Act, 2016 would also apply. Our Economy – Strategy EC1 – Capitalise on the region’s close proximity to Canberra and its position as a convenient location to attract industry and investment. The Planning Proposal is intended to attract industry to a precinct which has good access to the Hume Highway. Coupled with the funding provided by the Growing Local Economies Fund the Planning Proposal is intended to provide some impetus to an area which is has remain undeveloped since at least 2009.

3.4 Is the Planning Proposal Consistent with a council’s local strategy or other

local strategic plan?

3.4.1 Goulburn Mulwaree Strategy 2020

The Goulburn Mulwaree (GM) Strategy 2020 identifies this area for a B6 Enterprise Corridor Zoning. This Strategy was adopted in 2006 and has been in place for some time. As discussed previously in this report the later Employment Lands Strategy, 2016 has identified this precinct as having poor infrastructure and high vacancy rates. One of the sections of the GM Strategy titled ‘Commercial and Employment’ which states:

Council is currently experiencing pressure within Goulburn and Marulan for additional employment land due to good access to road and rail infrastructure. The Strategy focuses on Goulburn continuing to be the commercial and administrative centre for Goulburn Mulwaree… Future employment areas would require direct access to the Hume highway to promote efficient ingress and egress to maximise exposure. Providing separation from sensitive land uses is also required to minimise potential for land use conflict and enable extended hours of operations for freight and distribution facilities. Employment land uses within Goulburn are likely to be Zones IN1 General Industrial and IN2 Light Industrial, B6 Enterprise Corridor and potentially B7 Business Parks. Employment land uses require access to core utilities including connection to water supply, energy and sewerage systems. Providing access to these utilities is integral to encouraging future development in Goulburn.

As previously stated due to poor development take up in this precinct since the GM Strategy 2020 was adopted, it is considered that an IN1 Industrial zone may, together with grant funding, provide some impetus. It is considered that the Planning Proposal is consistent with the intent of this Strategy.


3.4.2 Community Strategic Plan 2012 – 2022

The Community Strategic Plan (CSP) 2030 was adopted by Council on the 17 April 2015. The Plan seeks to provide opportunities for rural lifestyle, settlement, housing, sustainable farming and natural resource protection.

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the CSP 2030 as follows:

Relevant Strategies Key Direction 2 – Business and Industry 2.5.1 To provide opportunity and encouragement for the development of employment lands Key Direction 4 – Sustainable Environment 4.2.1 To protect, maintain and improve the diversity of our native fauna and flora provided there is a balance between environmental protection, population growth and development Given the relatively small size of the subject land the planning proposal should allow Council to achieve its performance indicators, via: P4 Adequate supply of employment lands are provided within the local planning framework.

Given that the area identified in the Planning Proposal is already zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor and an IN1 General Industrial is proposed, it is considered that the Planning Proposal is consistent with the Community Strategic Plan.

3.5 Is the Planning Proposal consistent with the applicable State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP)?

State

Environmental

Planning Policy

(SEPP)

Compliance of Planning Proposal

State Environmental

Planning Policy

(Sydney Drinking

Water Catchment)

2011

Water NSW has been consulted as a part of the Planning Proposal process. Advice received prior to exhibition from Water NSW on 6 March, 2019 included:

As the site is located within the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment, Section 9.1 Direction (5.2) applies. This Direction includes requirements that the relevant planning authority must ensure Planning Proposals are consistent with State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011 and give consideration to the outcomes of the Strategic Land and Water Capability Assessments (SLWCA). SLWCA constraints mapping provides a broad scale assessment of the potential risk to water quality from a range of developments; reference to other environmental and planning data is required to identify other relevant constraints and opportunities. The SLWCA for the site ranges


State

Environmental

Planning Policy

(SEPP)


from Low to Moderate Risk to water quality for Light Industrial, and Moderate to Extreme Risk to water quality for lntensive Livestock Agriculture, which includes livestock processing. The areas of Extreme Risk to water quality are associated with the drainage lines through the site, which are tributaries of the Mulwaree River. lt is also noted the soils are dispersive and therefore prone to erosion, contributing to the assessment of the risk to water quality. WaterNSW notes lN1 General lndustrial zoning prohibits Heavy industrial storage establishments and Heavy industries, therefore the SWLCA mapping has not been assessed

for this land use category.

All future development on this land must have a neutral or beneficial effect on water quality, including the management of water quality during construction, and the ongoing management of stormwater from future impervious areas. As noted in the Planning Proposal, all development applications will require the concurrence of WaterNSW.

In 2003 Storm Consulting prepared a Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) report for the “Common Street Business Precinct” precinct prior to it being rezoned to B6 Enterprise Corridor (Appendix 4). The report considered impacts of development of this precinct in relation to water quality, flooding, drainage etc. Further to the controls identified in the WSUD Report Council developed a site specific precinct chapter of the Development Control Plan (DCP) 2009 to address water quality concerns.

Further to Water NSW advice above Water NSW has also advised on 20 June, 2019 that:

WaterNSW has undertaken SLWCAs for Light Industrial and Intensive Livestock Agricultural Uses. The SLWCA ranges from Low to Moderate Risk to water quality for Light lndustrial and Moderate to Extreme Risk to water quality for lntensive Livestock Agriculture. The areas of Extreme Risk to water quality are associated with the drainage lines through the site which feed to the Mulwaree River.

Development in areas of High to Extreme water quality risk should be recognised as a site constraint and avoided where possible to help ensure that future development will be able to meet a NorBE on water quality. The proposed poultry rendering plant is largely associated with land which has a Moderate Risk to water quality.

Water NSW also advised:

Sewerage The Proposal discusses the current water and sewerage infrastructure available, noting that current services are limited to the north of the Precinct. New infrastructure is proposed including for water, sewerage (new sewer reticulation, rising main, and upgrades to the existing sewer pumping station) and stormwater management. The supporting


State

Environmental

Planning Policy

(SEPP)


Business Case identifies that these services will be upgraded to accommodate industrial outputs. WaterNSW supports these initiatives and believes that any new industrial development in the area should be connected to the sewerage system. Stormwater New development will need to provide additional stormwater water quality controls, taking into account the extent of future impervious areas and applying appropriate water quality treatment measures. It will also will need to take into account any constraints and values presented by the existing drainage features on site (discussed below). Such matters can be addressed at the DA stage and through the requirement for all development to have a NorBE on water quality.

Drainage Features The Proposal is currently silent on waterways and other drainage features on the site. The site is bisected by a 3rd order stream and a 1st order drainage feature, with a further 1st order drainage feature traversing the south-western corner of the site. The Proposal should identify the drainage features and whether there are any existing open areas of water on the site (e.g. farm dams), and also identify how these features might be managed in future development of the area.

Amendments to the site specific DCP chapter are intended to address concerns raised by Water NSW in the two submissions and to specifically identify water courses/dams and the risks posed to water quality by development

The SEPP requires that development consent cannot be granted unless there is a neutral or beneficial effect (NorBE) on water quality. Future development applications will be subject to the SEPP and will require the concurrence of Water NSW following a NorBE assessment.

It is considered that this Planning Proposal is consistent with the SEPP.

State Environmental

Planning Policy

(Vegetation in Non-

Rural Areas) 2017

This planning proposal is generally consistent with all the aims of

this SEPP, the aims of the policy are as follows;

a) to protect the biodiversity values of trees and other

vegetation in non-rural areas of the State, and

b) to preserve the amenity of non-rural areas of the State

through the preservation of trees and other vegetation.

The Planning Proposal area has not been identified as containing

any significant biodiversity value land. Portions of the southern

section of the precinct do have scattered remnant woodland


State

Environmental

Planning Policy

(SEPP)


which under the provisions of this SEPP and Biodiversity

Conservation Act. This area may be potentially be avoided

through Development Control Plan provisions or master planning

following site specific assessment. An area of Lot 22 DP 750050

was identified as potentially containing Box Gum Woodland

endangered ecological facility (EEC), however, the affected

portion of the site is located outside the B6 zoned area within an

E3 Environmental Management Zone. Specific consideration of

the biodiversity values of the portion of Lot 22 DP750050 is a part

of the matters to be addressed in the SEARs assessment

provided to the proponent of the poultry processing plant. The

Environmental Impact Statement submitted with the DA included

an ecological assessment for the site which found that the area of

greatest ecological diversity was in the section zoned E3

Environmental Management. Vegetation communities identified

did not substantially extend to within the current area zoned B6

Enterprise Corridor and was therefore, largely outside the subject

area for this planning proposal.


3.6 Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (Section 9.1 Directions)?

The planning proposal is consistent with all relevant s.9.1 directions, consistency with all

directions is outlined in table 3 below;

Table 3 – s9.1 Directions

Direction Justification Consistent

(yes or No)

Direction 1.1 –

Business and

Industrial Zones

This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will affect land within an existing or proposed business or industrial zone (including the alteration of any existing business or industrial zone boundary). A planning proposal must: (a) give effect to the objectives of this direction, (b) retain the areas and locations of existing business and industrial zones, (c) not reduce the total potential floor space area for employment uses and related public services in business zones, (d) not reduce the total potential floor space area for industrial uses in industrial zones, and (e) ensure that proposed new employment areas are in accordance with a strategy that is approved by the Director-General of the Department of Planning. This Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction as the land is already zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor and an IN1 General Industrial zone is proposed. The introduction of Rural industries as a permissible land use is consistent with the function of a general industrial area within a rural local government area. No changes to potential floor space for employment uses are proposed. The proposed change is in accordance with Council’s Employment Lands Strategy. Further details are provided in the attached Goulburn Mulwaree Council “Growing Local Economies Fund – North East Goulburn Enterprise Corridor Precinct Enhancement Business Case” dated 9 July, 2018.

Yes

Direction 1.2 -

Rural Zones

A planning proposal must:

(a) not rezone land from a rural zone to a residential,

business, industrial, village or tourist zone.

(b) not contain provisions that will increase the permissible

density of land within a rural zone (other than land

within an existing town or village)

N/A


The planning proposal will not alter any rural zones or alter

the intended density of future development. The rezoning

of the precinct is consistent with this direction.

Direction 1.3 –

Mining

Petroleum and

Extractive

Industries

Not applicable

N/A

Direction 1.4 –

Oyster

Aquaculture

Not applicable.

N/A

Direction 1.5 –

Rural Lands

Applies when:

(a) a relevant planning authority prepares a planning

proposal that will affect land within an existing or

proposed rural or environment protection zone (including

the alteration of any existing rural or environment

protection zone boundary), or

(b) a relevant planning authority prepares a planning

proposal that changes the existing minimum lot size on

land within a rural or environment protection zone.

A planning proposal to which clauses (a) and (b) apply must

be consistent with the Rural Planning Principles listed in

State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008.

A planning proposal to which clause (b) applies must be

consistent with the Rural Subdivision Principles listed in

State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008.

The Rural Planning Principles are as follows: (a) the promotion and protection of opportunities for current and potential productive and sustainable economic activities in rural areas,

(b) recognition of the importance of rural lands and agriculture and the changing nature of agriculture and of trends, demands and issues in agriculture in the area, region or State,

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

(d) in planning for rural lands, to balance the social, economic and environmental interests of the community,

(e) the identification and protection of natural resources, having regard to maintaining biodiversity, the protection of native vegetation, the importance of water resources and avoiding constrained land,

(f) the provision of opportunities for rural lifestyle, settlement and housing that contribute to the social and economic welfare of rural communities,

N/A


(g) the consideration of impacts on services and infrastructure and appropriate location when providing for rural housing,

(h) ensuring consistency with any applicable regional strategy of the Department of Planning or any applicable local strategy endorsed by the Director-General.

Direction 2.1 –

Environment

Protection

Zones

A planning proposal must include provisions that facilitate

the protection and conservation of environmentally

sensitive areas.

A planning proposal that applies to land within an

environment protection zone or land otherwise identified for

environment protection purposes in a LEP must not reduce

the environmental protection standards that apply to the

land (including by modifying development standards that

apply to the land). This requirement does not apply to a

change to a development standard for minimum lot size for

a dwelling in accordance with clause (5) of Direction 1.5

“Rural Lands”.

N/A

Direction 2.2 –

Coastal

Management

Not applicable. N/A

Direction 2.3 –

Heritage

Conservation

A planning proposal must contain provisions that facilitate

the conservation of:

(a) items, places, buildings, works, relics, moveable

objects or precincts of environmental heritage

significance to an area, in relation to the historical,

scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural,

natural or aesthetic value of the item, area, object or

place, identified in a study of the environmental

heritage of the area,

There are no identified items of environmental heritage

within the subject precinct.

The items closest to the precinct identified with the GMLEP

are the Jewish Cemetery (Inventory No. 233) and the War

Memorial (Inventory Number 114).

The site is within the visual catchment/setting of both items

and any development application within this precinct should

include a visual impact assessment.

It is possible that there are Aboriginal archaeological sites

within the precinct, accordingly a due diligence assessment

is being undertaken as a part of the Planning Proposal in

consultation with the Pejar Local Aboriginal Land Council as

Yes


advised by the Office of Environment and Heritage (now

Department of Planning Industry and Environment). The

outcome of which will be considered in the post exhibition

report to Council.

Direction 2.4 –

Recreational

Vehicle Areas

Not applicable

N/A

Direction 2.5 –

Application of

E2 and E3 Zones

and

Environmental

Overlays in Far

North Coast

LEPs

Not applicable

N/A

Direction 3.1 –

Residential

Zones

Not applicable

N/A

Direction 3.2 –

Caravan Parks

and

Manufactured

Home Estates

Not applicable

N/A

Direction 3.3 –

Home

Occupations

Not applicable

N/A

Direction 3.4 –

Integrating Land

Use and

Transport.

Not applicable

N/A

Direction 3.5 –

Development

Near Licensed

Aerodromes

Not applicable N/A

Direction 4.1 –

Acid Sulphate

Soils

Not applicable

N/A

Direction 4.2 –

Mine

Subsidence and

Unstable Land

Not applicable

N/A

Direction 4.3 –

Flood Prone

Land

Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning

proposal that creates, removes or alters a zone or a provision

that affects flood prone land.


Yes


include provisions that give effect to and are consistent with the NSW Flood Prone Land Policy and the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005 (including the Guideline on Development Controls on Low Flood Risk Areas).

not rezone land within the flood planning areas from Special Use, Special Purpose, Recreation, Rural or Environmental Protection Zones to a Residential, Business, Industrial, Special Use or Special Purpose Zone.

not contain provisions that apply to the flood planning areas which:

(a) permit development in floodway areas, permit development that will result in significant flood

impacts to other properties, (b) permit a significant increase in the development of

that land, (c) are likely to result in a substantially increased

requirement for government spending on flood mitigation measures, infrastructure or services, or

(d) permit development to be carried out without development consent except for the purposes of agriculture (not including dams, drainage canals, levees, buildings or structures in floodways or high hazard areas), roads or exempt development.

not impose flood related development controls above the residential flood planning level for residential development on land, unless a relevant planning authority provides adequate justification for those controls to the satisfaction of the Director-General (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General).

not determine a flood planning level that is inconsistent with the Floodplain Development Manual 2005 (including the Guideline on Development Controls on Low Flood Risk Areas) unless a relevant planning authority provides adequate justification for the proposed departure from that Manual to the satisfaction of the Director-General (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General).

Consultation with OEH (now DPIE) in relation to flooding

and consideration of a 2003 Water Sensitive Urban Design

Report by Storm Consulting for the Business Precinct (prior

to the B6 zoning) has identified that there is localised

flooding within the precinct area.

As discussed in Section 3.8 of this proposal through State agency consultation prior to exhibition it was determined that the site specific DCP chapter be amended for this precinct which further addresses identification of water courses and dams, water quality impacts, flooding impacts


and drainage impacts. It was identified that there is some potential for localised flooding as a result of the water courses and that the water courses pose risk to water quality if development impacts are not appropriately managed. The WSUD Report prepared by Storm Consulting (Appendix 4) identifies areas affected by 100 year flood extents. The WSUD does not address probable maximum flood events or evacuation which should be addressed in the DCP chapter as constraints to be addressed as a part of any future development application.

Direction 4.4 –

Planning for

Bushfire

Protection

Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a

planning proposal that will affect, or is in proximity to land

mapped as bushfire prone land.

In the preparation of a planning proposal the relevant

planning authority must consult with the Commissioner of

the NSW Rural Fire Service following receipt of a gateway

determination under section 56 of the Act, and prior to

undertaking community consultation in satisfaction of

section 57 of the Act, and take into account any comments

so made.


a) have regard to Planning for Bushfire

Protection 2006,

b) introduce controls that avoid placing

inappropriate developments in hazardous

areas, and

c) ensure that bushfire hazard reduction is not

prohibited within the APZ.

A planning proposal must, where development is proposed,

comply with the following provisions, as appropriate:

(a) provide an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) incorporating at

a minimum:

(i) an Inner Protection Area bounded by a perimeter road

or reserve which circumscribes the hazard side of the

land intended for development and has a building line

consistent with the incorporation of an APZ, within the

property, and

(ii) an Outer Protection Area managed for hazard

reduction and located on the bushland side of the

perimeter road,

(b) for infill development (that is development within an

already subdivided area), where an appropriate APZ

cannot be achieved, provide for an appropriate

performance standard, in consultation with the NSW

Rural Fire Service. If the provisions of the planning

proposal permit Special Fire Protection Purposes (as

defined under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997),

the APZ provisions must be complied with,

Yes


(c) contain provisions for two-way access roads which link

to perimeter roads and/or to fire trail networks,

(d) contain provisions for adequate water supply for fire

fighting purposes,

(e) minimise the perimeter of the area of land interfacing the

hazard which may be developed,

(f) introduce controls on the placement of combustible

materials in the Inner Protection Area.

The Planning Proposal seeks to rezone land currently

zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor to IN1 General Industrial. It

is considered that there is no significant increase in bushfire

risk associated with the proposed zone change.

The Planning Proposal is consistent with Planning for

Bushfire Protection 2006, as it will not place inappropriate

development in a hazardous area and will not prohibit

bushfire hazard reduction within any APZ’s. Prior to public

exhibition the bushfire mapping for GM LGA was updated

by the NSW RFS. An extract of the latest Bushfire Prone

Map is shown below.

The new mapping has picked up grassland (previously

identified as “managed land”) as per the new Australian

Standard.

It is noted that the access road to the North is still outside of

the bushfire prone area. It is also noted that residential use

is not permitted in either the current or proposed zone.


The NSW RFS have advised during pre- exhibition

consultation on 15 October, 2019:

“Based on an assessment of the information provided, the

NSW RFS raises no objections to the proposal subject to a

requirement that future development complies with the

relevant provisions of Planning for Bushfire Protection

2006.”

The relevant site specific DCP chapter will be amended to

make it clear that compliance with the relevant provisions of

Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 is required.

Direction 5.1 –

Implementation

of Regional

Strategies

Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal. Planning proposals must be consistent with a regional strategy released by the Minister for Planning. The planning proposal is consistent with the Sydney-Canberra Corridor Regional Strategy 2006-2031 (see Section 3.3).

Yes

Direction 5.2 –

Sydney Drinking

Water

Catchment

Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a

planning proposal that applies to the hydrological

catchment.

Refer to Section 3.5 for further information in relation to

consultation with Water NSW.

Water NSW has advised that the water courses running

through the precinct pose a high risk to water quality in

terms of intensive livestock agriculture.

Yes


The Planning Proposal affects land within the Sydney

drinking water catchment. Development within the

catchment is to have a neutral or beneficial effect on water

quality. All development applications whether the site is

zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor or IN1 Industrial require the

concurrence of Water NSW. As a part of the assessment

process any DA will need to meet the neutral or net

beneficial impact requirements under the SEPP.

Intensive livestock agriculture would be a prohibited use

under the IN1 General Industrial zoning, however, there is

no Strategic Land and Water Capability Assessment

(SLWCA) specifically prepared for livestock processing.

Given the intensity of a use such as livestock processing

specific on site measures would need to be designed in

order to meet the neutral or beneficial effect test under the

State policy for any such proposal.

Consultation with Water NSW has occurred following the

positive Gateway Determination received under section

3.34 of the Act. Subsequent to Water NSW advice the


Planning Proposal has been amended to incorporate Water

NSW advice and to identify water courses and dams. It is

also recommended that there is a need for a site specific

DCP chapter to be amended for this precinct to address

matters raised by Water NSW.

Direction 5.3

Farmland of

State and

Regional

Significance on

the NSW Far

North Coast

Not applicable

N/A

Direction 5.4

Commercial and

Retail

Development

along the Pacific

Highway, North

Coast

Not applicable

N/A

Direction 5.8 –

Second Sydney

Airport:

Badgerys Creek

Not applicable

N/A

Direction 5.9 –

North West Rail

Link Corridor

Strategy

Not applicable

N/A

Direction 5.10 –

Implementation

of Regional

Plans

A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of

this direction only if the relevant planning authority can

satisfy the Secretary of the Department of Planning and

Environment (or an officer of the Department nominated by

the Secretary), that the extent of inconsistency with the

Regional Plan:

a) is of minor significance, and

b) the planning proposal achieves the overall intent of

the Regional Plan and does not undermine the

achievement of its vision, land use strategy, goals,

directions or actions.

The Planning Proposal is consistent with all parts of the plan and will facilitate the implementation of Goal 1 of the Plan is: “A connected and prosperous Economy”. Direction 4: Leverage Growth opportunities from Western Sydney states:

Yes


The region, especially Wingecarribee and Goulburn-Mulwaree local government areas are well positioned to use Western Sydney’s growth as an impetus to create new jobs. The availability of jobs enables economic development, and employment lands at Goulburn or the Moss Vale Enterprise Corridor offer well located opportunities. High quality infrastructure, including electricity, gas and telecommunications, must be available to service businesses and industries. For example, a deficiency in the gas network to service Harden has been identified as a barrier to attracting more diversity in the agricultural sector, including poultry farming, and capturing growth opportunities from Western Sydney.

The Planning Proposal is intended to be a part of a master planning process which will ensure that future infrastructure required in this precinct is provided. The current stagnation of development in this area appears to be largely due to the lack of infrastructure available. It is considered that the Planning proposal is consistent with Direction 4 of the South East and Tablelands Regional Plan.

Direction 6.1 –

Approval and

Referral

Requirements


(a) minimise the inclusion of provisions that require the

concurrence, consultation or referral of development

applications to a Minister or public authority, and

(b) not contain provisions requiring concurrence,

consultation or referral of a Minister or public authority

unless the relevant planning authority has obtained the

approval of:

(i) the appropriate Minister or public authority, and

(ii) the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or

an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-

General),

prior to undertaking community consultation in satisfaction

of section 57 of the Act, and

(c) not identify development as designated development

unless the relevant planning authority:

(i) can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of

Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the

Director-General) that the class of development is likely to

have a significant impact on the environment, and

(ii) has obtained the approval of the Director-General of the

Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department

nominated by the Director-General) prior to undertaking

community consultation in satisfaction of section 57 of the

Act.

Yes


The planning proposal does not contain a provision that

requires concurrence, consultation or referral of

development applications.

Consultation with the community and relevant Government

Agencies will occur should a positive Gateway

Determination be received under section 3.34 of the Act.

Direction 6.2

Reserving Land

for Public

Purposes

Not applicable

N/A

Direction 6.3 –

Site Specific

Provisions

A planning proposal that will amend another environmental

planning instrument in order to allow a particular

development proposal to be carried out must either:

(a) allow that land use to be carried out in the zone the land

is situated on, or

(b) rezone the site to an existing zone already applying in

the environmental planning instrument that allows that land

use without imposing any development standards or

requirements in addition to those already contained in that

zone, or

(c) allow that land use on the relevant land without imposing

any development standards or requirements in addition to

those already contained in the principal environmental

planning instrument being amended.

This planning proposal is not intended to facilitate any one particular development. The intention of the planning proposal is to facilitate industrial development generally throughout the subject precinct. Refer to the “Growing Local Economies Fund – North East Goulburn Enterprise Corridor Precinct Enhancement Business Case” dated 9 July, 2018 in Appendix 3.

This planning proposal seeks to amend the zone from B6

Enterprise Corridor to IN1 General industrial, the IN1

Industrial Zone is an existing zone within the GMLEP 2009.

No development standards or provisions in addition to that

already contained for this zone in GMLEP 2009 are

proposed.

Yes

Directions Part 7

– Metropolitan

Planning

Not applicable

N/A


Section C – Environmental, social and economic impact.

3.7 Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal?

The precinct has been substantially cleared in association with agricultural land use. The south western portion of the site does contain scattered stands of remnant native woodland. The land is not mapped as being affected by a biodiversity hot spot or wetland on Council’s mapping. The site is not mapped as environmentally sensitive land as per the plan below.

Figure 4 – Extract of Terrestrial Biodiversity Layer – GMLEP 2009

The site is not identified as having biodiversity value under on the OEH Biodiversity Values map as detailed below.

Figure 5 – Extract of OEH Biodiversity Values Map


Council’s Biodiversity Strategy, 2007 has identified the area as having a varying level of priorities for management. The map identifies low (green), moderate (orange) and high (red) priority land. The precinct is approximately covered by 50% low to moderate and 50% high priority land. It is noted that the Strategy was very broad in its coverage and was not ground truthed and is relatively out of date. The northern portion of the site has been cleared with a relatively new road constructed. The main area containing scattered remanent woodland is in the south western portion of the site.

Figure 6 – Extract of GMC Biodiversity Strategy

The NSW Bionet Map Atlas does not detail any species records within the subject area as detailed on the map below.

Figure 7 – Extract of OEH Bionet Map Atlas


The mapping associated with the South Eastern Tablelands Regional Plan identifies some land of High Environmental Value on the fringe of the precinct as identified in Figure 8 below.

Figure 8 – Extract of High Environmental Value Lands, South Eastern Tablelands Regional Plan. The area is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) Vegetation in Non Rural Areas, 2017 and the provisions of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act, 2016. Accordingly, any development application lodged for a site under the IN1 zone would require the same level of environmental assessment as within the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone. It is noted that a portion of Lot 22 DP 750050 was identified as potentially containing Box Gum Woodland endangered ecological facility (EEC), however, the affected portion of the site is located outside the B6 zoned area within an E3 Environmental Management Zone. Specific consideration of the biodiversity values of the E3 portion of Lot 22 DP750050 is a part of the matters to be addressed in the SEARs assessment provided to the proponent of the poultry processing plant which requires a Biodiversity Assessment Method (BAM) report. Post Gateway consultation with OEH (now DPIE) resulted in Council further assessing the biodiversity value of the precinct. Council’s Native Vegetation Officer has undertaken a preliminary assessment of the precinct and found:


The majority of the vegetation on the site consists of degraded pasture that is heavily infested with exotic weed grasses, especially extensive stands of African Love Grass (Eragrosis curvula) and Serrated Tussock Grass (Nassella trichotoma). There are extensive patches of Couch (Cynodon dactylon) and some areas infested with Chilean Needle Grass (Nassella neesiana). Other exotic species recorded on site included Cocksfoot Grass (Dactylis glomerata), Sheep’s Sorrel, (Acetosella vulgaris), Cape Weed (Arctotheca calendula), Plantain (Plantago lanceolata), Cat’s Ear (Hypochaeris radicata), St John’s Wort (Hypericum perforatum), Blackberry (Rubus fruticosus agg.), African Box Thorn (Lycium ferocissimum) and Hawthorn (Crataegus species). Native groundcover plant species in cleared areas appear to be minimal and comprise less than 10% cover. There was also evidence of heavy rabbit activity, including active warrens, diggings and scats found particularly in the north western paddock. Overall the site could be described as having minimal biodiversity value and it does not constitute an environmentally sensitive area in need of protection or conservation. Remnant trees on the site and vegetation on adjoining areas Trees along the north eastern boundary of Common Street and the southern side of Sinclair Street leading to the resource recovery centre are exotic pines (Pinus radiata) and elms (Ulmus species). There are some scattered Hawthorn (Crataegus species) and Early Black Wattles (Acacia decurrens) also along the roadsides of Sinclair and Common Streets. There is one large Apple Box (Eucalptus bridgesiana) and three saplings of this species at the intersection between Sinclair Street and Common Street (at the start of the Sinclair Street road reserve on the western side of the intersection. The large tree has been extensively damaged (presumably by previous vehicle impact) and has a very active feral honey bee colony established in the base (numerous bees seen entering and leaving a fissure approximately 1.5 metres above ground level). Given that this tree is close to the road, in poor health, and has internal decay, it is likely that it will need to be removed due to WHS reasons in the foreseeable future. There is also a small patch of 9 small to medium sized Blakely’s Red Gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi) and some scattered Early Black Wattle (Acacia decurrens) in the Sinclair Street western road reserve, approximately half way along the reserve between the Common Street intersection and the western boundary of the site. This area is also infested with Blackberry (Rubus fruticosus agg.), Firethorn (Pyracantha species) and African Boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) The remnant vegetation located partly within, but mostly outside the site boundary at the north western corner comprises mostly Red Stringybark (Eucalyptus macrorhyncha). One Broad Leaf Peppermint (Eucalyptus dives) and one Apple Box (Eucalyptus bridgesiana) were also found in the north western corner of the site, along with some Pinus radiata. Other exotic species in this area included Hawthorn (Crataegus species) and Privet (Ligustrum species).


Vegetation to the south of the site, along Chiswick Street, is dominated by Red Stringybark (Eucalyptus macrorhyncha) and Inland Scribbly Gum (Eucalyptus rossii). Remnant trees within the boundaries of the site, along the southern and in the south western corner, were found to be these species (ie Red Stringybarks or Inland Scribbly Gum) A previous fauna and flora assessment report for DA 0382 1718 Drill Mud Processing Facility by Ecoplanning on the land to the east of the site (2018) and site inspection by Brian Faulkner (January, 2019), recorded that the vegetation was Eucalypt woodland dominated by Red Stringybark (Eucalypytus macrorhyncha) with some Blakely’s Red Gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi) and Apple Box (Eucalyptus bridgesiana), which is consistent with the findings on the current site. No evidence was found to support the current or previous presence of the Endangered Ecological Community commonly known as “Box Gum woodland” on or near the site.

Figure 9 – Summary of Preliminary Biodiversity Value Assessment

The proposed change of use from an enterprise corridor zone to an industrial zone, with a common FSR of 0.8:1 is considered to have a comparable level of impact on the existing environment. Both the current and proposed zoning would potentially permit a considerable change to the precinct of a similar scale and intensity. The introduction of Rural industries as a permissible use is consistent with a IN1 General Industrial zoning within a rural local government area. 3.8 Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the planning

proposal and how are they proposed to be managed? Impacts associated with development are very similar between the existing B6 Enterprise Corridor Zone and the proposed IN1 Industrial zone. Impacts such as vegetation clearing and water quality impacts are a potential issue with any green field development.


This precinct is crossed by at least one first order and one third order water course as detailed in Figure 10 below. These water courses pass through at least two small dams, with another larger dam present in the North East of the precinct.

Figure 10 – Watercourses and Farm Dams.

Through State agency consultation prior to exhibition it was determined that a site specific DCP chapter be prepared for this precinct which addresses identification of water courses and dams, water quality impacts, flooding impacts and drainage impacts. It was identified that there is some potential for localised flooding as a result of the water courses and that the water courses pose risk to water quality if development impacts are not appropriately managed. The WSUD Report prepared by Storm Consulting (Appendix 4) identifies areas affected by 100 year flood extents. Figure 11 below generally indicates areas of 100 year flood extents from the 2003 WSUD report within the precinct. The WSUD does not address probable maximum flood events or evacuation which should be addressed in the DCP chapter as constraints to be addressed as a part of any future development application.


Figure 11– General extents of 1:100 year flood event as identified in the Storm 2003 WSUD (note the above figure is indicative of the general area affected for a more accurate location of flooding reference should be made directly to the Storm Consulting report (Appendix 4)

It is noted that there is some potential for engineering design to provide different options for flood management and mitigation within this precinct subject to further assessment. A DCP could assist in the planning process by identifying known flooding and water quality issues and providing suitable objectives for addressing these issues. Whilst there are no LEP listed heritage items located within the precinct, there are heritage items located in proximity to the area including the Jewish Cemetery and War Memorial. Proposed development under both the current and proposed zone has the potential to have a visual impact on the setting of these items. A couple of the dwellings within the Planning Proposal area such as the dwelling on Lot 48 DP 750050 may also warrant further assessment for significance given their age. An unlisted slab hut is also located opposite the Jewish Cemetery on Long Street.


Figure 12 – Potential and Known Heritage Sites

Following consultation with OEH (now DPIE) it has been agreed that an Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment be undertaken during the processing for this Planning Proposal in consultation with Pejar Local Aboriginal Land Council. Furthermore, any development application should include an Aboriginal archaeological assessment. Infrastructure upgrades will be required in association with the proposed industrial usage. This is discussed in more detail in Section 3.10 of this planning proposal. Further impacts are to be addressed via the development assessment process as any application will need to address the provisions of:

Section 4.15 of the NSW Environmental planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act.

SEPP (Sydney Drinking Water Catchments) and the neutral or beneficial effect test.

SEPP (Vegetation in Non- Rural Lands).

Other relevant legislation and environmental planning instruments. 3.9 Has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic

effects? The area proposed to be rezoned is currently zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor, as discussed the Employments Lands Strategy has found no significant take up of development in this locality since 2009. The proposed change to IN1 Industrial, the grant funding and poultry processing plant is intended to provide an impetus for development in conjunction with precinct master planning for infrastructure upgrades etc. The range of permissible land uses are relatively similar between the existing and proposed zones. Key differences are:


The B6 zone permits business premises and commercial premises (although shops are limited to 150m2 of gross floor area). The B6 zone prohibits agriculture and prohibits industries other than light industries. The General Industrial Zone permits extensive agriculture and permits industries. Business premises are prohibited. Neighbourhood shops are permissible and have a 1000m2 restriction on gross floor area. Both zones prohibit residential accommodation. The broader economic impacts and benefits of the zoning change are discussed in the grant application to the Growing Local Economies Fund are provided in Appendix 3 - “Growing Local Economies Fund – North East Goulburn Enterprise Corridor Precinct Enhancement Business Case” dated 9 July, 2018. The addition of rural industries as a use permissible subject to consent is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the IN1 General Industrial zone given that the Goulburn Mulwaree is a rural LGA. Social impacts in this instance are potentially related to the impact on the cultural landscape which contains the Jewish Cemetery on Long Street and a slab hut on Long Street, a couple of the dwellings within the B6 Enterprise Corridor precinct are also potentially of significance. The area is located to the north east of the War Memorial on Rock Hill which is visible throughout this locality. A visual impact assessment should be included as a part of any development application in addition to a heritage assessment.

Section D – State and Commonwealth interests

3.10 Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal? The planning proposal is intended to facilitate the provision of upgrades to existing public infrastructure in the precinct. Water (shown blue) and sewer services (shown red) are limited to the northern portion of the precinct as identified on the plan below (Figure 13).


Figure 13 – Current Water and Sewer Services

The infrastructure identified in the Business Case for funding (Appendix 3) is as follows:

New Traffic Signal Intersection, corner Sydney Rd and Common St Subject to further negotiation with RMS, the proposal will construct EITHER a two lane roundabout OR a traffic signal intersection, to facilitate access by vehicles up to and including B-double classification. South Common St road enhancements - Construct 12m width asphalt carriageway; 1150m, including turning lane

access to 52 Sinclair St. - Construct kerb & guttering, 2300m. - Construct B-double capacity turning head located at corner of Common St

and Chiswick St. - Construct stormwater drainage, 1150m. East Sinclair St road enhancements - Construct 9m width asphalt carriageway; 418m. - Construct kerb & guttering, 560m. - Construct stormwater drainage, 1150m.


Facility for Future Services - Excavate and lay along Common St and Sinclair St (1568m) conduit

facilitating the future extension of communication, electrical and gas services to the area.

Water and Sewerage Upgrades - Excavate and lay new water reticulation Common St and Sinclair St (750m). - Supply and construct new water pumping station (designed to meet the

pressure and flow demands of an industrial sub-division including the minimum fire-fighting requirements specified under AS2419).

- Excavate and lay new sewer reticulation (1250m, 225mm diameter to facilitate large flows from commercial and industrial activities, in accordance with the Water Services Association Gravity Sewer Code WSA 02-2014).

- Excavate and lay new sewer rising main (450m). - Upgrade existing sewer pumping station. Land Acquisition The road treatment at the corner of Sydney Road and Common St and construction of the turning head at the southern end of Common St will require some land acquisition, which has been included in the detailed budget provided as Attachment 7 – Project Budget. This is an estimate only and subject to quantification following completion of the detailed design process.

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) advised post Gateway that prior to the finalisation of the planning proposal, Council must ensure that a traffic study has been prepared for the proposal, and that a concept design for the identified /agreed upgrade to the intersection of Sydney Road and Common Street needs to be prepared and the costs and methods of cost recovery for the upgrades be identified. Furthermore the planning proposal should promote sustainable transport where possible.

Figure 14 - Intersection Upgrade Required at the Corner of Common Street and Sydney

Road.


Council will undertake traffic and design work in accordance and in consultation with RMS for the intersection upgrade. Funding specifically for the intersection upgrade has been included in the Growing Local Economies Fund grant which includes budget items such as design, acquisition of land, and intersection upgrades. Given that this area is an industrial precinct there may be limitations on addressing sustainable transport. 3.11 What are the views of State and Commonwealth public authorities’ consultation

in accordance with the gateway determination? No consultation has been undertaken with Commonwealth Public Authorities. As a part of the Planning Proposal process consultation has been undertaken with the following State Authorities:

Water NSW letters dated 6March and 20 June, 2019

RMS letter dated 14 June 2019

RFS letter dated 15 October, 2019

OEH (Now DPIE) – Ecological, Flooding and Heritage letters dated 19 June, 2019 and 31 July 2019.

This Planning Proposal has been subsequently amended prior to exhibition to address additional matters raised by public authorities through post Gateway consultation.

Copies of submissions from State agencies are provided with the public exhibition material.

Part 4 – Mapping

The planning proposal is intended to amend the Goulburn Mulwaree LEP 2009 zone maps for:

Part Lots 22, 23 and 25 in DP 750050 and part Lot 240 DP 1064721 where zoned B6.

Lots 47, 48, 60, 267, 287 in DP 750050.

The detail of this is outlined in Part 2 of this planning proposal. This will be achieved by amending Goulburn Mulwaree LEP 2009 map sheet:

Land Zoning Map - Sheet LZN_001G. No amendments are proposed to the Minimum Lot Size Map and FSR map. Refer to Appendix 2 for the proposed LEP Map.


Part 5 – Community Consultation

Council will commence community consultation post-Gateway Determination. For the purposes of public notification, Council considers that a twenty-eight (28) day (public exhibition period is appropriate. Notification of the exhibited Planning Proposal will include:

A newspaper advertisement that circulates in the area affected by the Planning Proposal;

The website of Goulburn Mulwaree Council and the Department of Planning and Environment.

Written notice will be provided to affected land owners will:

Provide a brief description of the objectives or intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal;

State where and when the Planning Proposal can be inspected; and

Provide details of how members of the community can make a submission. Exhibition Material:

The Planning Proposal, in the form approved for community consultation by the Director General of the Department of Planning and Environment;

Planning Proposal Appendix 3 -“Growing Local Economies Fund – North East Goulburn Enterprise Corridor Precinct Enhancement Business Case” ,dated 9 July, 2018;

The Gateway Determination;

Reports to Council titled Planning Proposal to Amend Zoning of the North East Enterprise Corridor Precinct dated 18 December, 2018 and 19 March, 2019;

Goulburn Mulwaree Employment Lands Strategy, Hill PDA, November, 2016;

Water Sensitive Urban Design Common Street Business Precinct, Storm Consulting, 2003;

Water NSW letter dated March 2019 ;

Water NSW letter dated June 2019;

RMS letter dated June 2019;

OEH letter dated June 2019;

DPIE (Former OEH) letter dated July 2019; and

NSW RFS letter dated – October, 2019.

Supporting studies identified by RMS 9Trafffic Study and Intersection Upgrades etc) and OEH (now DPIE) for the Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment are not required by these agencies to be available for the public exhibition of this planning proposal but must be completed prior to the finalisation of the planning proposal process.

The Gateway Determination has confirmed the public consultation requirements.


Part 6 – Project Timeline

Gateway Determination 22 May, 2019

Timeframe for completion of technical studies

June - January 2020 (Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence and consultation with Pejar Local Aboriginal Land Council; and Traffic Study to be undertaken whilst on public exhibition following Agency consultation)

Timeframe for agency consultations June - October, 2019

Public exhibition November 7 – December 6, 2019

Public hearing Not required

Consideration of submission February 2020

Date of submission of LEP to DPE March 2020

Anticipated date of plan made April, 2020

Anticipated date plan forwarded to DPE for notification

May, 2020

Conclusion

Goulburn Mulwaree Council has initiated a planning proposal to modify its Local

Environmental Plan 2009 to amend the zoning of certain land in the Common Street precinct

from B6 Enterprise Corridor to IN1 General Industrial, and furthermore to introduce rural

industries as a permissible use in the IN1 General Industrial zone. This decision follows

strategic planning assessment undertaken in the Employment Lands Strategy and subsequent

identification of a need to better master plan this precinct to deliver required infrastructure

outcomes.

The subject planning proposal is broadly consistent with the South East and Tablelands

Regional Strategy (SETRS, 2036) and SEPPs. It is also generally consistent with the relevant

Local Planning Directions. It is not considered that this planning proposal raises any issues

that require further studies or detailed assessment.

As noted in Part 5 of the Council resolution, Council is seeking delegation from the NSW

Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) to make – and determine not to make – the

proposed LEP under section 3.36 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act,

1979. The proposed amendments are consistent with adopted strategies and the zone

objectives, furthermore, the plan is only of local significance. The resolution only seeks

delegation to the Council and does not specify that the delegation will extend to a specific

officer (such as the General Manager without a prior resolution of Council).

Appendix 1 – Locality Map

Locality Map

Appendix 2 – LEP Maps

Existing Zoning

Proposed Zoning

Documents

Goulburn Mulwaree Council Planning Proposal to Amend Zoning … · Council considered a report on this matter at its meeting held on 18 December, 2018 and resolved: Resolution 2018/606