Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council - Monday, 8 February 2021

Report submitted to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Monday 8 February 2021

RP-1

Reports from Staff

RP-1 Petition by residents of Malaya Drive and Bavaria Street Tolland for the installation of speed humps along Malaya Drive

Author: Frank Goodyer

Director: Warrick Faulkner

Summary:

Council received a petition on the 2^nd December 2020 from 40 signatories residing in Malaya Drive, Nordlingen Drive, McCoullough Drive and Bavaria Street in Tolland requesting speed reduction measures along the entire length of Malaya Drive.

Recommendation

That Council:

a receive and note the petition

b decline the request to install speed humps in Malaya Drive

c request staff advise the petition contact person of Councils determination in accordance with Councils Petition Policy (POL 086)

Report

Background

The petition suggests the installation of six “low-level/trapezoidal speed humps” at identified locations along the entire length of Malaya Drive to reduce vehicle speeds (Attachment 1).

The petition was submitted by Leanne Hastings and is the contact person for the petition. Leanne initiated the petition on the 5^th November 2020 as the first signatory. In accordance with the Petitions Management Policy POL086, an e-mail acknowledging the receipt of the petition was sent to Leanne Hastings (Attachment 2).

Leanne Hastings has provided information in support of the proposal, noting two incidents where vehicles lost control and drivers failed to stop, resulting in collisions as well as a general increase in speeding incidents and through traffic. Supporting documents suggest locations for speed humps and potential re-routing of bus services.

Comment

Council Traffic Officers investigated the issues raised in consultation with the author, residents, Police, and other stakeholders. Staff conducted a traffic data analysis for Malaya Drive, which provides a concise overview of vehicle counts and speeds measured over a seven day period.

Some previous advice relating to the unsuccessful trial of speed humps in Boronia Street in 2011 is also provided which is instructive as to how such a proposal may impact upon traffic and the amenity of residents.

Following are the results of the investigations, data capture and previous outcomes regarding petitions for speed humps.

Traffic Survey Data

Two traffic classifiers were installed between Nordlingen Drive and Ries Crescent and McCoullough Drive and Leavenworth Drive on Malaya Drive from Wednesday 28 October to Friday 6 November 2020. Downloaded data from the classifiers is as follows:

· Nordlingen Drive to Ries Crescent – 10,149 vehicles surveyed

85^th speed percentile - 45.36km/h

95^th speed percentile - 48.42km/h

Ave - 39.96km/h

· Leavenworth Drive to McCoullough Drive – 29,929 vehicles surveyed

85^th speed percentile - 48.96km/h

95^th speed percentile - 52.74km/h

Ave - 43.02km/h

The combined average speed of ninety five percent of vehicles surveyed for the full length of Malaya Drive did not exceed 50.58km/h.

The data does not represent or highlight any incidents of excessive speed nor concerns with the average speed of vehicles in Malaya Drive during the survey period.

Traffic Collision History

Inquiries with Transport for NSW Centre for Road Safety reveal that there are no recorded traffic crashes in Malaya Drive between Leavenworth Drive and Nordlingen Drive for all years on record.

Police Comment

A request was made of Riverina Police District Highway Patrol to provide information as to whether the incidents referred to in the customer’s letter had been reported to Police and whether any complaints regarding speed or driver behaviour had been received and acted upon by Police in Malaya Drive.

The Wagga Wagga Highway Patrol Supervisor advised that no traffic complaints or complaints of speeding or driver behaviour had been received for Malaya Drive. They stated that there was no record of “serious speed” offences detected in Malaya Drive and were unable to locate any reports of the incidents referred to in the petition or other incidents in Malaya Drive including collisions.

Bus Services

The petition suggested changes to bus routes and recommendations for additional bus stops “if they find the speed humps difficult to negotiate.”

Comment was sought from the Manager, Busabout Wagga Wagga which is the main provider of bus services which use the Malaya Drive route. The following information was provided:

· Changes to the overall network were approved by Transport for NSW in consultation with Busabout in early 2020 identifying the most suitable routes to service the local community.

· The revised network has been operating successfully now since March 2020.

· Town services continue to use Malaya Drive as they historically have. The 961 and 969 services travel this route up to 26 times per day between 7am and 10pm.

· School bus services are additional to this and directly service Malaya Drive for two hours each morning and afternoon.

Negotiation of speed humps by buses will result in:

· increased wear on components such as brakes and suspension

· increased fuel consumption and pollution due to repeated braking and acceleration

· increased noise pollution

· Customer complaints due to the inevitable passenger discomfort.

The proposal is not supported by this operator and changes to current routes will not be considered.

Consultation with Residents

Council Traffic Officers interviewed several residents of Malaya Drive inclusive of those who had not signed the petition and others who had been specifically identified as having experienced incidents of damage where drivers had failed to stop after a collision.

The following responses reflect the divided opinion of residents who were interviewed.

The occupant of number 21 Malaya Drive stated they had been residing there for over six years and had no knowledge of the incident referred to as item 1 in the letter. They also stated that they had not observed any incidents of illegal driver behaviour and had no concerns relating to the speed of vehicles. Despite signing the petition, the resident emphatically stated they were opposed to the installation of speed humps.

A long-term resident of Malaya Drive who is not a signatory of the petition stated they did not sign the petition when requested because it was not clear to them what they were signing their name to. They told the author of the petition that they had not witnessed any “hooning” as described by the author and had not personally witnessed any adverse driver behaviour or speeding in Malaya Drive.

Another stated that they fully supported the proposal for speed humps because of regular “hooning and high speeds” past their residence, which is located nearer to Nordlingen Drive. They said they would be happy to have a speed hump installed at the front of their premises if it resulted in cars slowing down.

The author, Leanne Hastings was interviewed and provided more clarity in respect of the issues raised. Incident 1 resulting in her letterbox being run over occurred about ten years ago and she contacted Police at the time but no follow up occurred. Incident 2 involving the wheelie bins occurred about five years ago and she was unable to recall if it was reported to police or council.

Leanne also advised that she had not made any specific complaint about speeding vehicles to the Police and had not requested them to conduct patrols or speed enforcement in response to specific incidents.

Previous advice regarding Speed Hump installations

In 2011, in response to a similar petition to Council, a speed hump was installed on a trial basis for six months in Boronia Street Wagga Wagga. In early 2012 three speed cushions, 75mm high were installed at a specific location in Boronia Street, midway between Waratah Street and Acacia Street.

Council received numerous complaints by phone and in writing from residents of Boronia Street and surrounding streets regarding the noise of vehicles traversing the hump, disrupting sleep, and potentially affecting property values.

A sample of written complaints is summarised as follows:

“I own number … Boronia Street as an investment property which is where the speed hump is located. I have had the same tenants in this property for over 3 years and 2 months after the speed hump went in they informed us they were moving out because the noise of the speed hump was to (sic) much and was disturbing the sleep of there one year old twins and there 3 year old.”

Customer via email 18 December 2012

“I would like to put in a complaint about this speed hump as the constant noise created by the traffic that enter and exit this speed hump is almost getting unbearable as the main living room and main bedroom of our property faces directly onto this speed hump. Every time a vehicle goes over this hump it makes a noise and then when they accelerate away it makes more noise and as Boronia St is such a busy road the noise is constant and is causing my family and I endless amount of heartache.”

Resident of Waratah Street via letter 19 December 2012 (original complainant regarding driver behaviour)

The device was removed in early 2013 and there has been no subsequent complaint history in relation to driving habits in Boronia Street.

Policy

Guidance for the application of vertical deflection devices commonly referred to as speed or road humps, is contained in the Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 8 (Local Street Management) 2020.

Considerations for road authorities include:

· Road humps…are the most often complained about device currently used in Australasia.

It is appropriate to use road humps:

· where there is a need to reduce vehicle speed

· on streets with low traffic volumes

It is inappropriate to use road humps:

· on streets without adequate street lighting

· where property access may be significantly affected

· on bends or crests or other locations where sight distance is insufficient

· at intersections

· on bus and designated cycle routes unless an acceptable sympathetic design is used

Advantages of road humps include:

· a significant reduction in vehicle speeds in the vicinity of the device

· a significant reduction in road crashes

· they discourage through traffic

Disadvantages of road humps:

· traffic noise level may increase just before and after the device due to braking, acceleration, and the vertical displacement of vehicles

· they may divert traffic to nearby streets without LATM measures

· they are uncomfortable for vehicle passengers and cyclists

· they may adversely affect access for buses, commercial vehicle, and emergency vehicles

· they can impact on passenger comfort when used on bus routes

Findings

· The petition is not supported by available data relating to vehicle speeds, traffic incidents or crash history.

· Some residents contradict the information provided and opinion is divided.

· The proposal would adversely impact on a large and diverse cohort of road users and residents and likely result in a considerable number of complaints to council.

· The adverse driver behaviour described appears to be attributable to isolated incidents of intentional speeding as opposed to a broader problem of speeding by a majority of drivers and therefore selective Police enforcement strategies should be prioritised over LATM measures.

Conclusion

The installation of speed humps in Malaya Drive is not recommended.

Financial Implications

Estimated cost

Cost of supply and installation of speed cushions typically used for roads similar to Malaya Drive including associated signage is estimated to be between $5,500 and $6,500 per device. The proposed recommendation in this report is to not proceed with the supply and installation of speed cushions, therefore there is no financial implications for Council in resolving as per the recommendation.

Policy and Legislation

Petitions Management Policy – POL 086

Link to Strategic Plan

Community Leadership and Collaboration

Objective: City of Wagga Wagga services reflect the needs of the community

Outcome: We have access to the City of Wagga Wagga

Risk Management Issues for Council

There are no significant risk issues for Council in adopting the recommendation.

Internal / External Consultation

Consultation was conducted with the author of the petition, residents of Malaya Drive, Police, and Busabout company management.

Attachments

1 ⇩.	Malaya Drive Petition
2 ⇩.	Response to Leanne Hastings

Report submitted to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Monday 8 February 2021

RP-2

RP-2 Draft Wagga Wagga Local Strategic Planning Statement for Adoption

Author: Crystal Atkinson

Director: Michael Keys

Summary:

At the ordinary meeting of Council on 26 October 2020, Council endorsed the draft Wagga Wagga Local Strategic Planning Statement to be placed on public exhibition.

The purpose of this report is to provide feedback on the public consultation and submissions received. The report also recommends adoption of the Wagga Wagga Strategic Planning Statement.

Recommendation

That Council:

a note the submissions received during the exhibition period from 31 October 2020 to 12 December 2020

b adopt the Wagga Wagga Local Strategic Planning Statement with minor adjustments as identified in the report

c notify the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment of the adoption

Background

The Wagga Wagga Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) is a state government requirement under legislative changes introduced in March 2018. As part of these changes, all NSW Councils are required to prepare a LSPS setting out the 20-year vision for land use planning in their local government area.

The Wagga Wagga LSPS will strengthen and guide future planning, providing an integrated approach to growth and development by focusing on the long-term vision for the city and local government area. The LSPS will replace the Wagga Wagga Spatial Plan 2013-2043 and will form the basis for rezoning decisions and inform changes to planning controls.

Public exhibition

Public exhibition of the draft LSPS occurred over a six (6) week period from 31 October 2020 to 12 December 2020. The draft LSPS and supporting maps and FAQ’s were made available for viewing on Council’s website with six (6) public notices, two (2) graphic notices and two (2) articles placed in Council News within the Daily Advertiser.

During the public exhibition period, the following engagement options were made available:

§ Dedicated website: https://connect.wagga.nsw.gov.au/lsps

o Online questions and answers

o Online submissions

o Online youth survey

o Key dates

o Document library

o Frequently asked questions

o Newsfeed

§ Two (2) Facebook live forums

§ Facebook posts

§ Information videos

§ Community and Stakeholder information sessions

§ Wagga Wagga Business Chamber event

Engagement outcomes

During the exhibition period, a total of 74 submissions were received. A full copy of all submissions is provided with this report under separate cover (attachment 3).

A summary of the key topics raised in submissions is provided under the Internal/External Consultation section below. A further summary table together with a planning response to all the key issues raised in the submissions has been collated and provided with this report under separate cover (attachment 4).

Website:

A dedicated website was established for the public exhibition which attracted 1,109 page views and 1,047 visitors during the exhibition period.

Full details of key statistics on website visits together with social media activity is provided as an attachment to this report (attachment 2).

Key statistics of online engagement outcomes include:

§ Two Facebook Live events with a reach of 2,372

§ Nine Facebook posts with a combined reach of 24,421

§ 1,241 LSPS project website visits

§ 41 online submissions

Financial Implications

Commitment to implementing the actions identified within the Local Strategic Planning Statement will require resourcing to be identified in Council’s long-term financial plan and resourcing plan. These may be in addition to current resourcing and staffing levels. Requirements for resourcing of these actions will be referred to Council in future reports as they arise.

The LSPS supports and promotes sustainable growth of the City. This includes financial planning and management of infrastructure to support that growth.

Policy and Legislation

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Link to Strategic Plan

The Environment

Objective: We plan for the growth of the city

Outcome: We have sustainable urban development

Risk Management Issues for Council

All NSW Councils are required to have a Local Strategic Planning Statement to set a 20-year visions and guide land use planning outcomes. Failure to prepare and adopt a Local Strategic Planning Statement could limit the opportunities for Wagga Wagga as part of State and Regional planning outcomes.

The LSPS provides a long-term vision for the City that is based on financial sustainability including infrastructure to support growth. A clear vision and strategy for sustainable growth will support Council’s long-term outlook and financial position. This reduces financial and asset management risks in the long-term.

Providing a strategy and clear vision for the future provides greater certainty to the community including residents, developers, and visitors for the future. This helps to reduce conflicts and provides strategic direction for future land use planning decisions.

Internal / External Consultation

The draft Local Strategic Planning Statement was made available on Council’s website and Council’s customer service counter from 31 October 2020 to 12 December 2020.

During the public exhibition period, 74 submissions were received. Ordinarily a table summarising submissions is provided in this section of the report, however, due to the exhibition attracting many submissions, the summary table and response to each submission has been provided as a separate attachment.

Village sessions:

Approximately 40 attendees over 8 village sessions in the following locations:

§ Tarcutta x 2

§ Humula

§ Ladysmith

§ Collingullie

§ Oura

§ Currawarna

§ Uranquinty

Various topics were raised during the village sessions and have been raised and addressed in the submissions provided.

Community information sessions:

23 attendees over 4 sessions. During these sessions, clarification on the contents of the LSPS was sought and various topics were raised in relation to climate change, growth, transport corridors, biodiversity, infrastructure, and employment. These topics were also raised and addressed through submissions.

Stakeholder sessions:

29 attendees over 3 sessions. The sessions provided an opportunity for developers, consultants, and industry to discuss growth in detail. Topics highlighted issues being experienced and discussed how the LSPS might address this. These topics were further raised and addressed in submissions.

Online Youth survey:

19 online responses to survey received. The survey responses are provided as attachment 5.

The survey responses relate to public transport, housing, CBD, youth retention, public spaces, education, employment, and growth. The responses and information provided confirm the approach taken in the LSPS in addressing these planning considerations and will further inform the development of a housing strategy and CBD Master Plan.

Wagga Wagga Business Chamber event and online interview:

An after-hours event was held with the Wagga Wagga Business Chamber providing an overview of the LSPS and providing opportunities to network and further discuss the plan.

An online interview occurred where the plan was discussed and identified why the business community should get involved in the consultation.

Internal discussions:

Numerous internal discussions on topics identified below:

§ Community facilities location, quality, and size relevant to population

§ References to adopted Council plans

§ Public transport and state roads importance and need to ensure State Government are planning for and addressing needs for the future

§ Planning for cultural heritage

§ Overlay education, services, transport and cultural facilities to determine growth

§ Address access to employment, education, and services

§ Wording on inclusion or inclusive

§ Acknowledge people live in suburbs and look at language of ‘neighbourhood’

§ Build on infrastructure that supports visitor economy

§ Addressing social and affordable housing for low and very low income households

The internal discussions have been considered in finalising the LSPS.

A list of topics raised in submissions is summarised in the following table with a detailed planning response. A copy of the full submissions is provided under separate cover.

General / Comment:

Comments / issues

§ Intent seems good.

§ Impressed with positive changes such as FOGO, biodiversity strategy, bike track, walking paths, climate marches, mardi gras and attempt to declare climate emergency.

Planning response / amendments to plan

Comments are noted.

Sustainability / Climate Change

Comments / issues

§ LSPS does not adequately address the need to address and mitigate the effects of climate change.

§ Several recommendations are provided on what Council can implement to mitigate the effects of climate change and contribute to Net Zero Carbon.

§ Urge Council to be leaders to ensure we are sustainable.

§ Expanding population will place more strain on resources.

§ Companies, banks, and governments worldwide are acting on climate change from a financial and risk management approach.

§ Need to have sustainable city goals.

Planning response / amendments to plan

Of the 74 submissions, 21 have identified sustainability / climate change as a key concern. The level of interest warrants further investigation and position on what Council will commit to in response to the issues raised. Further engagement regarding climate change will form part of the Community Strategic Plan engagement process over the next 6 months as previously endorsed by Council.

Whilst the LSPS does list sustainability, resilience, and environmental outcomes, the following changes to the plan have been made:

1. Include an action to support the implementation of the NSW Government Net Zero 2050 and NSW Government Riverina Murray Integrated Regional Vulnerability Assessment

2. Included an action to further consider local opportunities that will contribute to achieving Net Zero through an appropriate local strategy such as the Community Strategic Plan

Campground

Comments / issues

§ Oppose the use of land on Nelson Drive for a primitive campground.

Planning response / amendments to plan

The comments are noted.

The use of this land does not form part of the LSPS, however, the principle of having high quality public spaces will assist in addressing concerns raised on the use of public space.

Lake Albert

Comments / issues

§ Council is to develop a strategy to ensure more consistent water levels in the lake.

Planning response / amendments to plan

The comments are noted.

Council is continuing to manage and address water concerns in relation to Lake Albert.

Environment / Biodiversity

Comments / issues

§ No evidence of protecting the environment now.

§ Want Council to be leaders in addressing biodiversity loss and to see natural assets as values.

§ Biodiversity Certification is a positive way of providing a catchment wide strategic approach.

§ No discussion on what Council is doing once Biodiversity Certification has expired.

§ Nothing in the document about water way health and security.

§ Cancer Council & Cancer Institute providing recommendations on public space shade provision.

Planning response / amendments to plan

Extensive work has been undertaken to transition once the Biodiversity Certification expires. This work is proposing a mix of Biodiversity Assessment reports for clearing in development areas and a site-specific Certification for Lloyd. This work will demonstrate Council’s commitment to Biodiversity protection and enhancement.

Throughout the LSPS, it is identified that our environment is one of our biggest assets and this will be planned for and protected as part of development.

It is understood that there is adequate capacity and security of the water supply of the Murrumbidgee River as a long-term water supply.

In response to submissions, the following is changes and actions have occured:

1. Provided further details in the LSPS about how Council will manage Biodiversity now the Biodiversity Certification has expired.

2. Sought confirmation from Riverina Water that water security for 100,000 people is identified in their Integrated Water Management Plan.

3. Note the comments and refer to the Streetscape Design Guide action and Urban Canopy Strategy Action that will be the tools for implementing the suggestions from the Cancer Council & Cancer Institute.

Growth / Population

Comments / issues

§ Several requests for inclusion of sites as ‘growth’ areas or ‘infill’ areas as identified on attached map.

§ Low density residential will remain the market preference.

§ Question achieving 100,000 population by 2038.

§ Does the community really want 100,000 people and does Council have a plan to manage issues resulting from population growth?

§ There is a demand for lifestyle lots around the city.

§ Need to consider social and affordable housing requirements for low and very low-income households

Planning response / amendments to plan

Infill development in the existing R5 Large Lot Residential Areas can be supported and encouraged where infrastructure provision is adequate or upgraded by the developer. This will require an infrastructure assessment at a catchment or precinct scale to ensure full development potential can be serviced. Council has indicated this will be done within the short-term, if developers want to progress ahead of Council’s schedule, this work will need to be completed to support an application.

Areas that are not a direct extension of existing residential areas or adjacent to existing large lot residential areas that cannot be intensified should not be supported as general residential. These areas should only be supported in areas where it will not inhibit further growth of the city. A key outcome of the LSPS is to limit large lot residential on the fringe of the city as it is an infrastructure burden and inhibits further growth.

In response to submissions, the following is changes have been made:

1. Provided further direction on where Council could consider applications for growth areas and infill development and what the expectations would be for these applications to be lodged.

2. Further developed the wording in the LSPS to make it clear that low density will continue to be the main form of housing provision, but the intent is to encourage and increase the percentage of medium density housing options.

3. Provided reference to the development of a Rural Lands Strategy as the key document that will guide changes to the rural zoning and minimum lot size.

4. The housing strategy includes consideration of social and affordable housing requirements for low and very low-income households

Connectivity / Accessibility:

Comments / issues

§ The 15-minute city is an abomination of the well-recognised movement around the world which promotes a 15-minute city where residents can walk to amenities within 15-minutes.

§ No mention of shuttle bus service between airport and Central Wagga.

§ Need to address the lack of duplication of Gobba Bridge.

§ Ideal time to push a Wagga Wagga by-pass.

§ The lack of availability of planning and strategies from Transport for NSW for major transport corridors is a concern.

Planning response / amendments to plan

Whilst the 15-minute city is proposed to contain sprawl, we continue to plan for walkable neighbourhoods with facilities and services located within a 400m walk of most residents.

Further planning for transport and connectivity will be actioned as part of implementing the Wagga Wagga Integrated Transport Strategy

The concerns with duplication of Gobbagombalin Bridge are noted.

To ensure our major transport corridors can support growth, Council will continue to lobby and work with Transport for NSW on the importance to provide clear direction and planning in the long-term regarding capacity and alignment of key transport corridors.

The Transport NSW Place Plan is currently under development and provides the ideal opportunity to address these concerns and confirm long-term planning.

Infrastructure:

Comments / issues

§ Council needs to act on an infrastructure plan for the south.

§ An infrastructure plan is required for the Northern Growth Area.

Planning response / amendments to plan

The comments are noted and planned for within the LSPS.

Heritage:

Comments / issues

§ Support heritage initiative in the LSPS.

§ Not enough detail on Heritage.

§ If Aboriginal communities and / or groups have not been consulted, do so prior to finalising the LSPS.

§ There need to be more specific controls and less sweeping comments that can be misinterpreted.

§ Infill development in older parts of Central Wagga need to respect and retain heritage character.

Planning response / amendments to plan

A key principle is to guide infill to areas where it is suitable and will not impact on the heritage character.

Heritage both European and Aboriginal will continue to be a priority.

Controls relating to heritage currently exist in the Development Control Plan and comments provided will be considered as part of the review of the Development Control Plan.

Preservation and enhancement of heritage is a key principle of the plan.

Community:

Comments / issues

§ Would like to see strategic thinking and planning in terms of creating community connections, community engagement and education.

§ A reputation as a creative and innovative city draws people to the city.

§ Homelessness – there is a shortage of social housing.

Planning response / amendments to plan

Throughout the plan, community, connection, engagement, and education are identified as key components of the city.

Acknowledgement of the Wagga Wagga Cultural Plan 2020-2030 ensures our land use planning will contribute to the outcomes of this strategy and acknowledges the creative sectors of our community.

Developing a Housing Strategy will assist in addressing housing affordability that may contribute to addressing homelessness.

Economy:

Comments / issues

§ Support placing strong emphasis on economic development and investment attraction in the region.

§ There is already a CBD Master Plan.

§ Activation of CBD must happen.

Planning response / amendments to plan

Comments are noted.

Rural / Villages:

Comments / issues

§ Development standards and advice in the villages is inconsistent.

§ Mix of support and opposition to growth of the villages.

§ Concerns with growth in Uranquinty being identified on flood prone land.

§ Various maintenance / works requirements identified.

§ Concerns with uptake of and conflict of growth on productive agricultural land.

Planning response / amendments to plan

During consultation with the villages, it was identified that there is an opportunity to commence regular forums / contact with the villages to capture issues and concerns and implement a reporting mechanism to identify what is or has been done in response to concerns raised. Further consideration to setting up an engagement process for the villages will occur.

As a result of submission, the following actions and changes have occured:

1. Refine the growth areas identified for Uranquinty and ensure commentary in the LSPS on growth in the villages being dependent on ensuring growth is directed away from natural hazards and constraints.

2. Note the village maintenance requests and forward to appropriate sections of Council.

3. Reference the need for a Rural Lands Strategy and consultation with NSW Department of Primary Industries on impacts on agricultural land.

Support:

Comments / issues

Support provided for the LSPS.

Planning response / amendments to plan

Support is noted.

Community engagement methods undertaken during the exhibition period are identified in the table below:

Mail

Media

Community Engagement

Digital

Rates notices insert

Direct mail

Letterbox drop

Council news story

Council News advert

Media releases

TV/radio advertising

One-on-one meetings

Your Say website

Community meetings

Stakeholder workshops

Drop-in sessions

Surveys and feedback forms

Social media

Email newsletters

Website

Digital advertising

TIER

Consult

Attachments

1.	Revised Local Strategic Planning Statement - Wagga 2040 - Provided under separate cover
2.	LSPS Website Engagement Statistics - Provided under separate cover
3 .	Submissions - Provided under separate cover
4 .	Submission summary and response table - Provided under separate cover
5 .	Youth Survey responses - Provided under separate cover

Report submitted to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Monday 8 February 2021

RP-3

RP-3 Planning Proposal (LEP20/0003) to rezone land and remove the minimum lot size provisions for 47 and 49 Vincent Road, Lake Albert

Author: Crystal Atkinson

Director: Michael Keys

Summary:

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 29 June 2020, Council resolved to support a planning proposal and seek Gateway Determination from NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. The Planning Proposal sought to rezone land and remove the minimum lot size provisions of the Wagga Wagga Local Environmental Plan 2010 applicable to 47 and 49 Vincent Road, Lake Albert.

Council received a Gateway Determination from the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment on 19 August 2020 to proceed with the above-mentioned planning proposal subject to public exhibition.

The planning proposal was on public exhibition from 5 September to 16 October 2020.

The purpose of this report is to provide feedback on the public consultation and submissions received. The report also requests adoption and gazettal of the amendment to the Wagga Wagga Local Environmental Plan 2010.

Recommendation

That Council:

a note the results of the public exhibition for planning proposal LEP20/0003

b adopt planning proposal LEP20/0003 to amend the Wagga Wagga Local Environmental Plan 2010 for Lot 4 DP228763, 49 Vincent Road, Lake Albert

c advise the landowner and NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment that the changes to land zoning and minimum lot size are withdrawn for Lot 5 DP228763, 47 Vincent Road, Lake Albert

d gazette the plan for Lot 4 DP228763, 49 Vincent Road, Lake Albert and notify NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment of the decision

Application details

Submitted Proposal:	Amendment to Wagga Wagga Local Environmental Plan 2010 to rezone land and remove the minimum lot size provisions for 47 and 49 Vincent Road, Lake Albert.

Applicant:	Wayne Preston

Landowners:	Various landowners

Site and location

The site is located south of the city on Vincent Road within Lake Albert.

The site is an existing rural residential area (R5 Large Lot Residential zone) with urban residential (R1 General Residential) immediately south of the site.

Proposal

The planning proposal and addendum (Attachment 1) sought to amend the land zoning from R5 Large Lot Residential to R1 General Residential and to remove the minimum lot size provisions for the following properties:

§ Lot 4 DP228763, 49 Vincent Road, Lake Albert

§ Lot 5 DP228763, 47 Vincent Road, Lake Albert

The proposed changes exhibited are illustrated below:

As a result of the submissions received during the public exhibition period (detailed in internal / external consultation below), the recommendation is to proceed with the changes to Lot 4 DP228763, 49 Vincent Road, Lake Albert and remove Lot 5 DP228763, 47 Vincent Road, Lake Albert. The proposed changes for adoption are illustrated below:

Gateway Determination

The NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment issued a Gateway Determination for the planning proposal subject to public exhibition. A copy of the Gateway Determination is provided as attachment 2.

Public Exhibition

The planning proposal and accompanying exhibition material were on public exhibition from 5 September to 16 October 2020 (inclusive).

During the exhibition period, five submissions were received. A summary of the key issues raised in the submissions and a response is provided under the Internal / External Consultation section below.

In response to submissions received, the following is proposed:

§ Endorse the changes to land zoning and minimum lot size provisions for Lot 4 DP228763, 49 Vincent Road, Lake Albert

§ Withdraw proposed land zoning and minimum lot size changes for Lot 5 DP228763, 47 Vincent Road, Lake Albert

Financial Implications

The planning proposal was lodged during the 2019/20 financial year and attracted an application fee of $40,000 in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges Policy.

Council’s contributions plans will apply to any future development of the land.

Policy and Legislation

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Wagga Wagga Local Environmental Plan 2010

Link to Strategic Plan

The Environment

Objective: We plan for the growth of the city

Outcome: We have sustainable urban development

Risk Management Issues for Council

The planning proposal was subject to public consultation where objections were received against the proposal. The consultation shows a general level of objection from adjoining landowners.

Internal / External Consultation

The planning proposal was placed on public exhibition between 5 September and 16 October 2020 (inclusive) with engagement as per the table below:

Mail

Media

Community Engagement

Digital

Rates notices insert

Direct mail

Letterbox drop

Council news story

Council News advert

Media releases

TV/radio advertising

One-on-one meetings

Your Say website

Community meetings

Stakeholder workshops

Drop-in sessions

Surveys and feedback forms

Social media

Email newsletters

Website

Digital advertising

TIER

Consult

The planning proposal and accompanying exhibition material were made available for viewing by the public on Council’s website and at Council’s Customer Service Counter in the Civic Centre between 5 September and 16 October 2020. Notices with factsheets were provided to adjoining and affected landowners.

During the public exhibition period, five submissions were received from affected and adjoining landowners. The submissions are provided as attachment 3.

A summary of the submissions and Council Officer response is provided below:

Submission	Officer Response
No. 1	i. Do not support the proposal. ii. Concerned with localised flooding having experienced flooding on property in 2010 and 2012. iii. Allowing up to 40-50 lots will have significant impact on existing infrastructure. iv. The report to Council does not identify the subject land and adjoining land being affected by overland flow flooding in a 100-year event. v. There is a stormwater easement running through our property and being at the lower end of the catchment, the proposed 40-50 lots will increase hardstand areas and increase the amount of stormwater runoff, decrease time of concentration and push more water into the system faster. This will increase the chance of over floor flooding in my property. vi. The stream or stormwater drain to the east in its current state without addressing issues of past flooding does not seem adequate. vii. Understand review of major overland flow flooding and note Council have reviewed the proposal confirming there is suitable solutions for flooding, sewer, and stormwater management. Whilst this may be the case would like to ensure that these solutions not only consider the proposed lots but the impact to adjoining properties.	Noted. Noted. All development proposals resulting need to demonstrate and address impact on existing infrastructure. The application identified overland flow flooding on the subject land and indicated minimal impact. Further review has confirmed the impacts can be managed for Lot 4, however impacts from development of Lot 5 are unknown and therefore will be withdrawn from the proposal. Review of stormwater catchment for this area has been assessed demonstrating there is overland flow within this catchment. Lot 4 is outside of the overland flow area and will have no impact on the existing overland flow. Lot 5 is impacted by the overland flow flood area and the impacts of development are unknown and therefore will be withdrawn from the proposal. The stream or drain to the east is a natural watercourse (blue line on topographic map) that is not confined to a well defined channel with banks. The upstream catchment is significant (in the order of 550ha). Therefore, considerable overland stormwater flows will travel down this catchment and continue to spread out naturally across the land as shown in the MOFFS. Development of Lot 4 will not increase or contribute to the peak flood flow for this property and adjoining properties. The impacts of Lot 5 are unknown and therefore the proposed changes for Lot 5 will be withdrawn from this planning proposal.
2	i. Have concerns about the likely impact further residential development will have on the overall stormwater drainage in Lake Albert area and in particular the Sycamore Drain. ii. Experiences since 2010 tells us that increased residential subdivision have impacted an under maintained and overloaded drainage system being that of Sycamore Drain. iii. Bellgum and the other residential developments upstream from Brunskill Road in recent years are examples of our concerns where increased hydraulic action has exacerbated flooding downstream. iv. Aware of the effects of flooding in the Grevillea Crescent area and the inadequacy of the Grevillea drain in large downpours. v. The proposal does not address the impact of additional stormwater emptying into the Grevillea drain and how that additional flow might impact the overall drainage system encompassing the Grevillea and Sycamore drains. vi. There is no suggestion of any stormwater retention to slow stormwater flow.	Review of the stormwater catchment for this area has been assessed demonstrating there is overland flow within this catchment. Lot 4 is outside of the overland flow area and will have no impact on the existing overland flow. Lot 5 is impacted by the overland flow flood area and the impacts of development are unknown and therefore will be withdrawn from the proposal. See response to comment vi under Submission 1. See response to comment vi under Submission 1. The Overland Flood Mapping identifies flooding extents in the Grevillea Crescent area. The proposals are downstream of Grevillea Crescent and there are other alternatives to the Grevillea drain to convey stormwater flows to the natural watercourse. Lots 4 & 5 are currently not beneficiaries to the stormwater easement that covers the Grevillea drain. There are other options to drain stormwater from Lots 4 & 5 other than the Grevillea drain. Stormwater detention in this location is not identified as the preferred stormwater management method as holding stormwater back has the potential to exacerbate peak flows in the existing catchment. Directing stormwater to the existing channels or road reserves will result in more effective stormwater management.
3	i. Concerns about further construction of this land as it tends to flood in high rainfall times due to the creek in the rear of the land. ii. The stormwater system in this area has struggled with dispersing water in the past and if more housing is built this may become worse. iii. Concerned with the drop in value of my property which backs onto this area with the addition of new homes and losing the semi-rural outlook of my property which adds a selling point for my property.	The application identified overland flow flooding on the subject land and indicated minimal impact. Further review has confirmed the impacts can be managed for Lot 4, however impacts from development of Lot 5 are unknown and therefore will be withdrawn from the proposal. There are a number of stormwater disposal options available for the proposals to convey improved flows from the development to the natural watercourse without significant flow on impacts. The impact on property value is not a planning related consideration and cannot be considered grounds to object to a planning proposal. The Valuer General determines land value on highest and best permitted use in most cases, this is based on current zoning and planning restrictions.
4	i. Object to the proposal as my property backs onto the land and when purchased were advised by Council that the land could never be rezoned as it was in proximity to the treatment works. ii. The decision to buy was based on not having buildings at our back fence, just rural property. Would have made the decision to buy closer to the village should we have wanted houses all around. iii. Rezoning the blocks would be a loss of habitat for the wildlife that frequent the sometime marsh like area. iv. The rezoning would further add to the congestion of traffic at the Vincent Road and Kooringal Road intersection during peak times.	Guarantees can never be given that land will never be rezoned. Buffer guidelines for sewerage treatment works are 400 metres and this proposal is outside of the 400-metre buffer area. Guarantees that development will not occur cannot be given. Rezoning and development is subject to assessment under NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment guidelines. There are no known habitat or wildlife within Lot 5 that is proposed to progress. Development is not anticipated to significantly increase traffic in the area.
5	i. As property owners do not wish to have property rezone at this stage and seek further advice. ii. If it can be assured that there will be no pressure to subdivide and can postpone rates until we wish to subdivide, and that there will be no expense for this to occur, then it may proceed.	Noted, further advice was provided to the landowners. As a result of discussion, the support is noted. Rezoning of land will not force landowners to subdivide or develop. Options are also available for landowners to request postponement of rates until the land is subdivided and this information has been provided.

Submission

Officer Response

No. 1

i. Do not support the proposal.

ii. Concerned with localised flooding having experienced flooding on property in 2010 and 2012.

iii. Allowing up to 40-50 lots will have significant impact on existing infrastructure.

iv. The report to Council does not identify the subject land and adjoining land being affected by overland flow flooding in a 100-year event.

v. There is a stormwater easement running through our property and being at the lower end of the catchment, the proposed 40-50 lots will increase hardstand areas and increase the amount of stormwater runoff, decrease time of concentration and push more water into the system faster. This will increase the chance of over floor flooding in my property.

vi. The stream or stormwater drain to the east in its current state without addressing issues of past flooding does not seem adequate.

vii. Understand review of major overland flow flooding and note Council have reviewed the proposal confirming there is suitable solutions for flooding, sewer, and stormwater management. Whilst this may be the case would like to ensure that these solutions not only consider the proposed lots but the impact to adjoining properties.

Noted.

All development proposals resulting need to demonstrate and address impact on existing infrastructure.

The application identified overland flow flooding on the subject land and indicated minimal impact. Further review has confirmed the impacts can be managed for Lot 4, however impacts from development of Lot 5 are unknown and therefore will be withdrawn from the proposal.

Review of stormwater catchment for this area has been assessed demonstrating there is overland flow within this catchment. Lot 4 is outside of the overland flow area and will have no impact on the existing overland flow. Lot 5 is impacted by the overland flow flood area and the impacts of development are unknown and therefore will be withdrawn from the proposal.

The stream or drain to the east is a natural watercourse (blue line on topographic map) that is not confined to a well defined channel with banks. The upstream catchment is significant (in the order of 550ha). Therefore, considerable overland stormwater flows will travel down this catchment and continue to spread out naturally across the land as shown in the MOFFS.

Development of Lot 4 will not increase or contribute to the peak flood flow for this property and adjoining properties.

The impacts of Lot 5 are unknown and therefore the proposed changes for Lot 5 will be withdrawn from this planning proposal.

i. Have concerns about the likely impact further residential development will have on the overall stormwater drainage in Lake Albert area and in particular the Sycamore Drain.

ii. Experiences since 2010 tells us that increased residential subdivision have impacted an under maintained and overloaded drainage system being that of Sycamore Drain.

iii. Bellgum and the other residential developments upstream from Brunskill Road in recent years are examples of our concerns where increased hydraulic action has exacerbated flooding downstream.

iv. Aware of the effects of flooding in the Grevillea Crescent area and the inadequacy of the Grevillea drain in large downpours.

v. The proposal does not address the impact of additional stormwater emptying into the Grevillea drain and how that additional flow might impact the overall drainage system encompassing the Grevillea and Sycamore drains.

vi. There is no suggestion of any stormwater retention to slow stormwater flow.

Review of the stormwater catchment for this area has been assessed demonstrating there is overland flow within this catchment. Lot 4 is outside of the overland flow area and will have no impact on the existing overland flow. Lot 5 is impacted by the overland flow flood area and the impacts of development are unknown and therefore will be withdrawn from the proposal.

See response to comment vi under Submission 1.

The Overland Flood Mapping identifies flooding extents in the Grevillea Crescent area. The proposals are downstream of Grevillea Crescent and there are other alternatives to the Grevillea drain to convey stormwater flows to the natural watercourse.

Lots 4 & 5 are currently not beneficiaries to the stormwater easement that covers the Grevillea drain. There are other options to drain stormwater from Lots 4 & 5 other than the Grevillea drain.

Stormwater detention in this location is not identified as the preferred stormwater management method as holding stormwater back has the potential to exacerbate peak flows in the existing catchment. Directing stormwater to the existing channels or road reserves will result in more effective stormwater management.

i. Concerns about further construction of this land as it tends to flood in high rainfall times due to the creek in the rear of the land.

ii. The stormwater system in this area has struggled with dispersing water in the past and if more housing is built this may become worse.

iii. Concerned with the drop in value of my property which backs onto this area with the addition of new homes and losing the semi-rural outlook of my property which adds a selling point for my property.

There are a number of stormwater disposal options available for the proposals to convey improved flows from the development to the natural watercourse without significant flow on impacts.

The impact on property value is not a planning related consideration and cannot be considered grounds to object to a planning proposal.

The Valuer General determines land value on highest and best permitted use in most cases, this is based on current zoning and planning restrictions.

i. Object to the proposal as my property backs onto the land and when purchased were advised by Council that the land could never be rezoned as it was in proximity to the treatment works.

ii. The decision to buy was based on not having buildings at our back fence, just rural property. Would have made the decision to buy closer to the village should we have wanted houses all around.

iii. Rezoning the blocks would be a loss of habitat for the wildlife that frequent the sometime marsh like area.

iv. The rezoning would further add to the congestion of traffic at the Vincent Road and Kooringal Road intersection during peak times.

Guarantees can never be given that land will never be rezoned. Buffer guidelines for sewerage treatment works are 400 metres and this proposal is outside of the 400-metre buffer area.

Guarantees that development will not occur cannot be given. Rezoning and development is subject to assessment under NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment guidelines.

There are no known habitat or wildlife within Lot 5 that is proposed to progress.

Development is not anticipated to significantly increase traffic in the area.

i. As property owners do not wish to have property rezone at this stage and seek further advice.

ii. If it can be assured that there will be no pressure to subdivide and can postpone rates until we wish to subdivide, and that there will be no expense for this to occur, then it may proceed.

Noted, further advice was provided to the landowners.

As a result of discussion, the support is noted.

Rezoning of land will not force landowners to subdivide or develop. Options are also available for landowners to request postponement of rates until the land is subdivided and this information has been provided.

Attachments

1.	LEP20/0003 - Addendum and Planning Proposal - Provided under separate cover
2.	LEP20/0003 - Gateway Determination - Provided under separate cover
3.	LEP20/0003 - Submissions - Provided under separate cover

Report submitted to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Monday 8 February 2021

RP-4

RP-4 COVID-19 Fast Track Event Sponsorship

Author: Fiona Hamilton

Director: Janice Summerhayes

Summary:

Council is in receipt of one application for the COVID-19 Fast Track Event Sponsorship Program for events held from 1 February to 30 June 2021. Council supported this approach in November 2020 as a response to COVID-19 impacts. This application is from the Murrumbidgee Turf Club to support the delivery of the Southern District Race Association’s Country Championships to be held on Saturday 20 February 2021 in Wagga Wagga. The application has a total amount requested of $11,000 and staff are recommending this application for funding as detailed in this report.

Recommendation

That Council authorise the General Manager or their delegate to enter into an agreement to support the Murrumbidgee Turf Club in the hosting of the Southern District Racing Association’s Country Championships to the amount of $11,000 funded through the 2020/21 COVID-19 Fast Track Events Sponsorship budget.

Report

The Murrumbidgee Turf Club (MTC) is seeking $11,000 in funding through the COVID-19 Fast Track Event Sponsorship Program to support the delivery of the Southern District Race Association’s (SDRA) Country Championships to be held on Saturday 20 February 2021 in Wagga Wagga.

In line with the COVID-19 Fast Track Sponsorship Program the application for sponsorship was assessed by the Major Events Advisory Panel (the Panel).

Event details are as follows:

· Name: SDRA Country Championships

· Date: Saturday 20February, 2021

· Expected attendance: 3000

· Visitors (from outside of LGA): 60%

· Program:

o Major regional race day attracting state-wide trainers and owners

o BlazeAid luncheon with high profile guest speakers including Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons

o Event precinct for under 30s with ARIA award winning DJ

o Kids entertainment – pony rides, jumping castle and free bbq

· Duration: one day

· Venue: Murrumbidgee Turf Club

· Total event cost: $84,250

The funding requested will be utilised to support the MTC with the provision of entertainment, marketing and COVID-19 event delivery compliance.

This event has been held in Albury for the last 2 years and the MTC are working to secure this event for future years in Wagga Wagga.

If successful, the MTC will acknowledge Council as a premier partner with Council’s logo included on all promotional material and platforms.

The Panel has assessed this application against the COVID-19 Fast Track Events, Festival and Films Sponsorship Guidelines and recommends this festival be funded $11,000 for the following reasons:

· The event provides benefit to both the community and local business, particularly addressing COVID-19 impacts and the resulting cancellation of many of the city’s larger events

· The MTC has demonstrated the capability and partnerships to deliver an event of this nature, particularly during COVID-19 restrictions

· The MTC has provided detailed budgets and event management plans to support this application (see attached)

· The event includes new programming elements to support the youth demographic and families in addition to the entertainment provided to traditional racegoers

· The event aligns to the major tourism event category defined in the Events Strategy and Action Plan 2020-24 attracting significant attendee numbers, economic benefit and generates national media exposure

· The event will generate visitor spend of between $327,600 and $408,600 (source: economy.id)

Financial Implications

The 2020/21 COVID-19 Fast Track Events Sponsorship budget is $100,000 with no expenditure or commitments occurring to date for this financial year. If Council approves the recommendation to fund the event outlined in this report totalling $11,000, this will leave $89,000 budget for the remainder of the 2020/21 financial year.

Job consolidation number: 15308

Policy and Legislation

POL087

Link to Strategic Plan

Community Place and Identity

Objective: We have opportunities to connect with others

Outcome: We activate our community spaces to promote connectedness

Risk Management Issues for Council

Financial risk if events not successful, mitigated through controls in sponsorship contracts with staged payment based on KPI targets.

Internal / External Consultation

Mail

Media

Community Engagement

Digital

Rates notices insert

Direct mail

Letterbox drop

Council news story

Council News advert

Media releases

TV/radio advertising

One-on-one meetings

Your Say website

Community meetings

Stakeholder workshops

Drop-in sessions

Surveys and feedback forms

Social media

Email newsletters

Website

Digital advertising

TIER

Consult

Involve

Collaborate

Attachments

1 .

MTC Funding Application

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, as it deals with: personnel matters concerning particular individuals. - Provided under separate cover

2 .

SDRA MTC Budget

3 .

Event Management Plan

Report submitted to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Monday 8 February 2021

M-2

M-2 TRAFFIC COMMITTEE – ELECTRONIC MEETING – RIVERINA ANGLICAN COLLEGE – 1 FEBRUARY 2021

Author: Frank Goodyer

Director: Warren Faulkner

Summary:

The Local Traffic Committee were provided with an urgent electronic business paper on 1 February 2021 and asked to provide comment and/or feedback on the Council officer recommendation presented.

The intent of the report was to seek the Traffic Committee support to install NO RIGHT TURN signs at the exit driveways from the Riverina Anglican College onto Farrer Road.

The Minutes are attached for Councillors’ reference.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

That Council endorse the following regulatory “No Right Turn” restrictions at 127 Farrer Road, Boorooma:

· The installation of one “NO RIGHT TURN” sign at the western most vehicle exit onto Farrer Road.

· The installation of one “NO RIGHT TURN” sign with an additional “BUSES EXCEPTED” sign at the Bus Zone exit onto Farrer Road.

Report

Background

The Riverina Anglican College are undertaking a staged expansion of the school that fronts Farrer Road. During the second half of the 2020 calendar year, a new primary school building was built to commence the introduction of junior students in the 2021 calendar year. As part of the introduction of this change for the school, the traffic arrangements for operation of the facility were modified as recommended in the traffic impact assessment approved as part of the consent.

Fundamentally, the new traffic arrangement created a dedicated bus drop off and collection area separate to the light vehicle drop off, collection and parking areas as shown in the plans attached. The traffic impact assessment also recommended all movements out of the facility onto Farrer Road be left only for road safety purposes, thus a regulatory ‘NO RIGHT TURN’ sign was installed at both exits of the school.

Comment

An oversight has occurred with the installation of the ‘NO RIGHT TURN’ restrictions in that they were not reviewed by the Local Traffic Committee and endorsed by the Council prior to their installation, thus not making them legally enforceable.

In addition, the installation of a ‘NO RIGHT TURN’ sign at the exit of the bus zone also impacts on the approved travel routes for the school buses.

Essentially, if the bus operators obey the ‘NO RIGHT TURN’ restriction, they are required to travel up to Boorooma Street, around the roundabout and back (a total additional length of 1.2km), which is not part of the contracted service with Transport for NSW.

The addition of the ‘BUSES EXCEPTED’ tag on the ‘NO RIGHT TURN’ at the bus zone exit will permit buses to adhere to their approved school bus routes, thus solving this problem.

Advice was received back from a majority of Committee members and the Committee were unanimous in their support for the Council officer recommendation that is now presented as the Traffic Committee recommendation.

Council adopting the recommendation of the Traffic Committee also ensures the restrictions are legally enforceable.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications for Council in erecting the signs. The signs will be installed by the developer at their cost.

Policy and Legislation

Transport Administration Act 1998 – Delegations to Councils, regulation of traffic

TfNSW – A guide to the delegation to Councils for the regulation of traffic

Australian Standards

Link to Strategic Plan

Community Leadership and Collaboration

Objective: We are informed and involved in decision making

Outcome: Everyone in our community feels they have been heard and understood

Risk Management Issues for Council

The intended purpose of this report is to safely manage a risk that has been identified as result of the development.

Internal / External Consultation

The Local Traffic Committee were consulted for their advice in regard to the installation of the two ‘NO RIGHT TURN’ signs. Support for the signs has also been received from the Principal of the school, the Chief Operating Officer, and the developer’s representative.

Attachments

1 ⇩.	Traffic Committee Minutes - 1 February 2021
2 ⇩.	TRAC Junior School Plan - DA1
3 ⇩.	TRAC Junior School - Figures 1 and 2

1 ⇩.	Traffic Committee Minutes - 9 December 2020
2 ⇩.	Estella School Traffic Facilities Plan - 1
3 ⇩.	Estella School Traffic Facilities Plan - 2
4 ⇩.	Estella School Traffic Facilities Plan - 3