Grant District Council has waived an agreement to enable a local timber processing company to move forward with upgrading its facilities.


AAM Investment Group has been waived of its owner’s obligation for Land Management Agreement (LMA) which prohibited the subdivision of land.


AAM Timber and Sustainability director Ben Edser wrote to council that it has negotiated the purchase of property immediately adjacent the Marte Siding Road facility, located on Cafpirco Road at Compton.


He said as part of the company’s growing investment in the region, AAM is seeking to upgrade the timber processing facility, including additional log and timber storage.


Mr Edser informed council a development application for a land division by boundary realignment has been lodged for this land division.


“(This) annexes the portion of the adjoining property being purchased to the existing title at 75 Marte Siding Road, without any additional allotment being created,” he said.


“It has been brought to our attention as part of the assessment the property at 764 Cafpirco Road is covered by a LMA.


“The LMA entered into by previous owners and council in 2005 prohibits the subdivision of land.


“The effect of the LMA essentially prevents AAM from acquiring portion of the adjoining property and being able to upgrade the timber processing facility.”


On behalf of AAM, Mr Edser sought council’s consideration to remove the LMA from the property at Cafpirco Road and a new LMA being placed over the balance if the property.


“On this basis, the intent of LMA to prevent the further subdivision of primary production land is preserved and AAM Investment Group proposed upgrading can proceed,” Mr Edser said.


At council’s September monthly meeting, Strategy and Growth manager Rebecca Perkin reported on the request from AAM and outlined its agreement.


“Council was introduced to the proposed expansion of the AAM Timber operations at Compton, via a council workshop held in May,” she said.


“AAM Timber is in the process of securing approvals, through the development assessment process, to expand the operations onto a neighbouring site.


“As part of the proposed expansion, a development application for a land division by boundary realignment has been lodged for this purpose, which proposes to annexe the portion of the adjoining property being purchased to the existing title without any additional allotment being created.


“The property is covered by a Land Management Agreement (‘LMA’) entered into in February 2005, by previous owners and Grant District Council.


“That presents the owner’s obligation not to undertake any division of the land.


“The LMA relates to a Land Division Development Application by previous owners to excise their dwelling and create allotments of approximately 40 hectares and 60 hectares.


“The owner’s obligations of the LMA outlines that no further land division should occur on the allotments created.


“The original intent of the LMA was to prevent further subdivision for dwelling allotments which would be incompatible with land uses aligned to primary industry in the area, it did not contemplate a situation such as that proposed to be facilitated by the boundary realignment application.”


Ms Perkin said AAM’s proposed boundary realignment land division was associated with a land use that is conducive to primary production.


“The proposed boundary realignment does not introduce any new land use in the area, it is intended to facilitate the expansion of a pre-existing land use which is envisaged in the rural zone (subject to approval of the land use application),” she said.


“For these reasons it is appropriate for council to consider deviating from the usual application of the Land Management Agreement.


“While the currently proposed boundary realignment land division does not create any additional allotments, it triggers the definition of a land division, and therefore ‘activates’ the relevant provisions of the LMA that applies to the site.


“As a point of clarification, there are a number of assessment processes currently under way for the site.


“However, council has the authority to make a decision on the LMA request only.”


Ms Perkin said the other processes include Land Division Application – Boundary realignment to annex a portion of the neighbouring property and amalgamate with the allotment on which the existing mill operations exist, and Land Use application – expansion of operations including additional log and timber storage.


“While LMAs may seek to prohibit certain forms of development, an LMA cannot deny a person the ability to make an application for development approval,” she said.


“The existence of the LMA is not decisive. It will be a matter for the relevant authority undertaking the development assessment to determine how much weight is given to an LMA.


“While the elected council is not the relevant authority with regard to the land division application, it is a party to the Land Management Agreement.


“Therefore, council has the opportunity to provide input to the external consultant who is assessing the land division application, and in its deliberations, it is prudent to consider the context of the original LMA.


“The original LMA was put in place by council in 2005. The report to council in 2004 which introduced the implementation, indicated the intent of the LMA was to, ensure the proposal complies with the requirements of the development plan for development in the Primary Industry Zone.


“Its purpose was to prevent the further fragmentation of the land for uses that are incompatible with Rural and Agricultural Primary Industry land uses i.e. limit additional housing allotments in the zone.”


Ms Perkin said the original LMA and “No further Land Division” provisions were historically applied with the intent of preserving rural land for purposes associated with primary industry.


“Updated zoning provisions introduced through the Planning and Design Code now mean that land division which creates additional allotments is classified as restricted development, therefore the terms of this LMA are largely superseded by the introduction of the Planning and Design Code,” she said.


“However, it is noted that council and property owners probably feel a sense of security in knowing that an LMA highlights the concern to protect the intended primary industry/rural land uses at the site.


“The AAM Land Division proposes a boundary realignment, which does not create any additional allotments and is not a restricted form of development in the zone.


“The existence of the LMA has the effect of creating an unresolved matter for the land division application, which is delaying the progress of the assessment.”


“Following discussions with the Director of Environmental Services and having considered the original intent of the LMA and the current zone policy, it is proposed that, on this occasion, the provisions of the LMA be waived.


“In doing so, council puts aside a potential barrier for the proposed boundary realignment land division, which will, if approved, (subject to all relevant land use development consents) facilitate development that is aligned to the intent of the Rural Zone and the original intent of the Land Management Agreement to support land uses aligned to primary industry.


“Once the LMA factor is resolved, the assessment of the boundary realignment land division can proceed.”


The staff recommendation was moved by Councillor Barry Kuhl and seconded by Cr Katherine Greene.


Crs Peter Duncan and Brad Mann were in favour of the recommendation, however Crs Rodney Virgo, Megan Dukalskis and Karen Turnbull voted against.


The recommendation was carried.


Crs Bruce Bain and Gavin Clarke were an apology from the meeting.