Waterworks Road Planning Proposal For Residential Zone in Junee Causes Controversy
During Council’s March 18th Meeting, a planning proposal for a residential lot was recommended to be finalised without modification, a decision which has created controversy due to a number of people who are against some of the specifics of the report.
Council has received and supported the original application to amend the Junee Local Environmental Plan through a Planning Proposal. The amendment requested is whats known as 192 Waterworks Road, Junee, in which the applicant seeks to rezone the site and seek a reduction in the current Minimum Lot Size from 100ha down to as low as 700sqm.
The proposal also includes a preliminary subdivision layout with an expected yield of up to 300 residential allotments.
During the exhibition phase of the Planning Proposal, the proposal was notified to adjoining landowners and publicly advertised to the wider community. As a result of this exhibition period, four submissions were received by Council.
Submissions were taken from 13 November 2024 to 12 December 2024, and incorporated neighbour notification, public advertisement and NSW State Departments, including Transport for NSW (TfNSW) and the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD).
No changes have been made to the Planning Proposal since the previous Council Meeting where the proposal was recommended for issue for Gateway Determination.
Two submissions were received from NSW State departments.
The key issues that were identified through the public submissions, and that are relevant to the planning proposal process, are:
• Increased traffic in area, including Waterworks Road, Cedric and Pitt Streets.
• Land conflict issues with agricultural practices, including spray drift, tillage operations, vermin control, livestock losses from domestic animals.
• Change in character of local area, loss of privacy and amenity.
The issues raised are inherent changes to the area as a result of the rezoning and would be subject to further review during future development application processes involving subdivision application. While it is acknowledged by Council that some additional impacts will occur, predominantly through character changes as a result of more urban style development.
The NSW State agencies, including TfNSW and DPIRD, did not object to the proposal, but provided recommendations to Council in relation to a number of matters that are to be considered during the assessment of any future development application. The key recommendations are:
• Safety analysis of Waterworks Road Intersection to be required (TfNSW).
• Active transport links to be provided from the site to existing network in Junee (TfNSW).
• Formation of road along the western site boundary to improve connectivity to Cedric Street (TfNSW).
• Provision of a Land Use Conflict Risk Assessment (LUCRA) (DPIRD).
These recommendations and requirements relating to design detail, such as traffic intersections with existing roads, buffer areas to adjoining agricultural lands, active transport links, measures to reduce visual privacy impact and other considerations are to be addressed through future development application needs to progress land development at this site should rezoning take place.
A concerned person spoke against the planning proposal as it is to Council, saying, “there will be an increase in the amount of traffic, it will change the character of the area, but land conflict will be the biggest issue, which will have the most serious impact…..Since the original proposal was sent for gateway determination, a lot of issues have surfaced which are worthy of consideration now and not left to consideration during assessments in any future DAs.”
The speaker argued that Council should remove a section on the Eastern edge of Junee from the Development Application since it would eliminate issues portrayed by the Department of Primary Industries and regional development, NSW Farmers and other objectors to the proposal.
“The recommendations and requirements relating to design details, such as traffic intersections, existing roads, buffer areas to adjoining agricultural lands, active transport links, measures to reduce visual privacy, impact, and other considerations need to be considered now and not into the future.
“How can Council justify approving this proposal in its current form before the submissions are received, raising pressing issues with reports saying, and this is from the Council business paper, public submissions have been considered, and the issues raised out of this process does not require any modifications or provision of additional information at this stage.
“It doesn’t ring true to what I have just said.”
General Manager James Davis elaborated on Council’s report. “The report is essentially….to consider a rezoning change, which is to effectively allow a different land use on this land that would otherwise be the case. The report speaks to a number of submissions. However, the details in those submissions has been considered, however, it is in the report, you’ll see it’s suggesting that these things are better dealt with at subsequent subdivision stage.”
Deputy Mayor Marie Knight inquired whether the developer would still be interested if the zone was taken out of the plan.
Author of the report, Rowan Johnston, replied, “That is the proposal that was put forward to us in the initial stages of the planning proposal. However, since that time and in considering the amount of infrastructure that would need to be put in just to service…..it does economically stack up better for the developer, if they include that portion, and especially given, there’s going to be the provision of a plumbing station, a sewer, that’s going to be a large cost for them. I think for all intents and purposes…the proposal that we have before us is going to be their preferred approach, but that’s probably where we’ll leave that.”
Davis elaborated, “in Council’s view, we can go back to the applicant and suggest that. But I think Rowan is right. The developer has considered all things in putting their application forward. In terms of Council’s position, the planning staff have relied on the local strategic planning statement. The Council’s longheld view is that they are seeking to have more residential land come to market to try and facilitate growth and the demand for housing at the moment. So that has been the basis upon which staff have considered this, the Council’s long-held view to try and move in that direction.
“It’s very difficult to activate land development. It is the only proposal that’s come forward from a developer for Council to consider. In terms of residential land strategies, there was one completed. We have not turned our mind to having a specific housing strategy across land because we’ve been effectively waiting for the unused….land, which is currently zoned above the soccer fields there, which, could take up to another 280 lots if it were developed, it’s suitably zoned for residential urban development. But the Council, and previous Councils are well aware of our proactive discussions with that landowner to try and get some of it activated on your behalf, which have unfortunately not materialised and there is no prospects of that materialising from any interest or discussions since that time. So that’s where we are currently at.”
Rowan added, “there’s a number of solutions out there and that’s just working through them once we have a development application and a detailed design of how that is going to actually be developed, the appropriate response in each of those situations along that border. So again, we’re going to get another bite at those sort of issues.”
The recommendation was adopted with only two Councillors against it.
-Jack Murray
The South West Slopes Times covers an area approximately the size of Fiji in country NSW. We look after a population of more than 50,000 people with our staff servicing 7 major towns and dozens of villages with our story telling footprint.
We offer weekly print editions at $3 a copy and we also offer digital subscriptions across 3 months $30, 6 months $60 and 12 months $120.
We are one of the last truly local independent family run newspaper businesses in the state.
Contact us today to find out how we can promote your business or organisation across our huge network by emailing ads@thetimes.net.au or by calling 0413 763 216.
If you have a news tip, lead or scoop for us please make contact as we love celebrating our communities. You can contribute articles via our South West Slopes Times website.