What passed

Resolution 262/26, moved by Cr Vance and seconded by Cr Jenvey, sends a planning proposal to the Minister for Planning for gateway determination in accordance with section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Four things are in it, all on land at Valla:

  • it Amends the zoning of Lot 10 DP 1314136 – 80 Red Ash Road, Valla;
  • a 12 metre maximum building height on the part of that lot zoned R3 Medium Density Residential;
  • an 8.5 metre maximum height on the part zoned R1 General Residential, and on Lot 19 DP 755560 - 55 Cow Creek Road, Valla;
  • minimum lot sizes of 450 square metres in R1 and 400 square metres in R3.

Twelve metres is about four storeys. These are the first height controls the residential land in the growth area has had.

The same proposal, five weeks apart

On 22 July the item was 11.1, file SF396. The resolution, 215/26, was moved by Cr Vance and seconded by Cr Jenvey, and read in full: That Council defer this item. It carried 8-0. No reason appears in the minutes.

On 26 August the item was 11.1 again, file SF396 again, moved and seconded by the same two councillors, and carried 8-0 again. We compared the August report with the July one: the recommendation is identical, down to the lot numbers and the metres. The August report does not mention the deferral at all.

Both votes were eight to nil because one of the nine councillors was absent each time, and not the same one: the July roll lists Cr McWilliam among the eight, the August roll lists Cr MacSmith. Nobody voted against on either night.

Why the names are in the record and the reason is not

The report carries a note explaining its own paperwork. This is a Planning Decision, meaning a decision under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and under Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 it requires the General Manager to record the names of each Councillor supporting and opposing the decision.

That provision exists so that planning decisions are attributable. It worked: we can name all eight. What no provision requires is a recorded reason for a deferral, and so there is not one, on a proposal where the council is both the planning authority and the landowner. The August report describes the site as the Council owned Lot 10 DP 1314136 – 80 Red Ash Road, Valla.

We are not suggesting anything improper happened in those five weeks. We are reporting what the public record does and does not contain, which is: the names, the clauses, the dates, and no explanation.

What happens next

A gateway determination is the Minister’s decision on whether a planning proposal proceeds, and on what conditions, including exhibition. Until it is made nothing in the list above is law. The report offered councillors three courses: 1 Do nothing/business as usual 2 Proposed recommendation 3 Alter proposed zoning, minimum lot sizes or maximum building heights. They took the second, unaltered.

The next ordinary meeting, on 23 September, did not mention Valla. We will read the October papers for the gateway determination and report what it says.