Overview
The Wagga Wagga Development Control Plan 2010 was adopted by Council over 13 years ago. Whilst there have been 25 previous amendments (and a further amendment relating to the Gumly Gumly enterprise corridor area under consideration), these have largely focused on addressing specific issues and adding new controls for rezoned land rather than general maintenance of the document to ensure it remains current in terms of related legislation, practice, applied interpretation and decisions of Council. There are also a range of unresolved errors within the WWDCP 2010.
The proposed amendment is an omnibus amendment that proposes to resolve these matters where possible. The goal is to ensure the WWDCP 2010 remains a contemporary and usable document, while the new, comprehensive DCP for Wagga Wagga is prepared.
Overall, the amendments are not expected to significantly alter how developments are assessed, as the changes are generally consistent with how the WWDCP 2010 is currently consistently applied.
Document Adopted:
Council adopted amendments to the Wagga Wagga Development Control Plan 2010 at the 11 December 2023 Ordinary Council Meeting.
You can find the newly adopted document on the DCP page on our website.
Amendments:
The proposed amendments are set out in the attached documents and broadly fall into the following categories:
Legislative change
The WWDCP 2010 contains a range of references to legislation that has changed. Examples include the former Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and various renamed State Environmental Planning Policies.
Legislative change also has led to the need for amendments where controls are inconsistent with higher order legislation. Examples include the maximum number of farm stay accommodation units, changes to the planning framework in Bomen, and consolidation of some business and industrial zones.
Amendments proposed seek to rectify incorrect references, and update controls to reflect legislative changes. Unnecessary content, which relates to legislative arrangements outside of the DCP, has also been proposed to be removed to reduce the potential for future legislative inconsistency.
Clarification of controls
Some controls due to poor drafting, are unclear in intent or how they are to be applied. Others are difficult to enforce compliance in practice, due to reasons such as inconsistency with other controls, unreasonableness, or unintended consequences.
Examples of these include the 40m minimum frontage for lots in Uranquinty, which was poorly drafted resulting in confusion regarding the exact land to which it applies. Amendments have been proposed to resolve this consistent with previous decisions of the full Council. Other poorly drafted controls include the car parking requirements in the CBD, which when read literally does not result in the intended outcome, and the site cover control in residential area, which is inconsistent as developments shift between land uses and lot sizes.
Errors and incorrect information
There are a number of errors and items of incorrect information in the DCP. Examples include an example of a preferred solution for parking for health consulting rooms which is inconsistent with the associated controls.
Other errors include controls which are essentially unenforceable, such as controls that relate to the content of signage, as this is expressly outside the scope of planning legislation, the colour of buildings outside the conservation area, where painting can usually be carried out as exempt development, and fencing controls in the villages which are contrary to what can generally be constructed as exempt development.
Outdated information
Given the time that has elapsed since the making of the original DCP, some provisions have become outdated and superseded. These include many of the controls adopted by reference to the 2005 DCP, which prior to this review, had not been reviewed for 18 years. For those controls that remain relevant, provisions have been proposed to be incorporated into the WWDCP 2010.
Other examples of this are links and references to superseded documents.
Policy position
Some amendments relate to controls which have been consistently applied in a particular manner or are consistently varied. Examples of the interpretation of the maximum panel area for signage, which has been taken in decisions, including by those of the full Council, to relate to each individual side of a pylon sign, despite the control not expressly stating this.
Other examples of policy position in the amendments are the inclusion of controls giving force to the Tolland Concept Masterplan, and clarification of the circumstances where a masterplan is required in MU1 and E3 zones.
Confusing, unnecessary, inappropriate or irrelevant content
There is a substantial volume of content in the DCP that are not controls, objectives or principles, and essentially comprises background information. Often this information contains detail that relates to documents such as the LEP, which can be wrong, dated, and is neither necessary nor appropriate in the DCP. Examples of this include discussion on the permissibility of land uses in particular zones.
Further information
Attached to this page are two draft versions of the WWDCP 2010. The first is a “track changes” version, which highlights the proposed amendments. The second is a “clean” version, with all changes made, and represents to proposed final document. Also attached is a summary document outlining the proposed changes. This comprises two parts. The first part is the overall summary of the changes, whilst the second part relates specially to the provisions of the WWDCP 2005 that are called up by the WWDCP 2010.
