agenda for the ordinary meeting of council … · bet 10 contract extension m819-2011 management...

AGENDA

FOR THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL TO BE HELD ON

TUESDAY 26 JULY 2016 COMMENCING AT 7.30 PM IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBER, MOUNT ALEXANDER SHIRE CIVIC CENTRE

CORNER LYTTLETON AND LLOYD STREETS, CASTLEMAINE.

Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting of Council – Mount Alexander Shire Council – 26 July 2016 of 64

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PRESENT 4

2. APOLOGIES 4

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 4

4. MINUTES 4

4.1. ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL – 12 JULY 2016 4

5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 5

6. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS 5

7. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5

8. ASSEMBLIES OF COUNCILLORS 5

8.1. ASSEMBLIES ON 5 JULY (12.00 PM AND 2.00 PM) AND 12 JULY (6.00 PM) 2016 5

9. OFFICER REPORTS 14

9.1. A VIBRANT HEALTHY COMMUNITY (VIB) 14 NO REPORTS. 14

9.2. BETTER COMMUNITY FACILITIES (BET) 15 BET 10 CONTRACT EXTENSION M819-2011 MANAGEMENT AND

OPERATION OF OUTDOOR POOLS – NEWSTEAD AND DISTRICT SWIMMING POOL INC. 15

9.3. A THRIVING LOCAL ECONOMY (ECO) 19 ECO 49 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 356/2002-1 – AMENDMENT TO

PLANNING PERMIT PA356/2002-1, REMOVAL OF CONDITION 3, AT CA 12 SEC 9 PARISH OF GUILDFORD, 949 NEWSTEAD-GUILDFORD ROAD, GUILDFORD (PA356/2002-1) 19

ECO 50 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 016/2016 - USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF A DWELLING AND VETERINARY CENTRE AT LOT 1 TP954721, MOONS LANE, FARADAY 3451 (PA016/2016) 29

ECO 51 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 053/2016 - USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF A DWELLING AT CA 10A SEC 5C PARISH OF HARCOURT, 57 PEELERS ROAD, HARCOURT (PA053/2016) 45

9.4. BUILDING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES (COM) 56 COM 47 APPOINTMENT OF NEW AUDIT AND RISK ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MEMBERS 56 COM 48 AWARDING OF CONTRACT M1260-2016 FOR GABION RETAINING

WALL CONSTRUCTION HARCOURT-SUTTON GRANGE ROAD HARCOURT 58

10. DELEGATES REPORTS 62

11. NOTICES OF MOTION 62


11.1. NOTICE OF MOTION 2016/06 – THANKS TO ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 62

11.2. NOTICE OF MOTION 2016/07 - REQUESTING THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING TO PROGRESS AND FINALISE AMENDMENT C36 TO THE MOUNT ALEXANDER PLANNING SCHEME REGARDING TARRAN VALLEY. 62

11.3. NOTICE OF MOTION 2016/08 – COALTION RETURN TO GOVERNMENT, FOLLOW UP ON PROMISED FUNDING BY COALITION DURING THE ELECTION. 63

12. URGENT SPECIAL BUSINESS 64

13. MEETING CLOSE 64

SEPARATE ATTACHMENTS: Confidential Attachment COM 48A Tender Evaluation Report, Contract M1260-2016 for Gabion Retaining Wall Construction Harcourt

Sutton Grange Road, Harcourt.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

To start the official proceedings I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on Jaara country

of which the members and elders of the Jaara Jaara community and their forebears have been custodians for many centuries

and have performed age old ceremonies of celebration, initiation and renewal. We acknowledge their living culture and their unique role in the life of this region.

1. PRESENT

2. APOLOGIES

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

4. MINUTES

4.1. ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL – 12 JULY 2016

The unconfirmed minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Mount Alexander Shire Council held at 7.30 pm on 12 July 2016 at the Mount Alexander Shire Civic Centre have been circulated to Councillors. The unconfirmed minutes have also been posted on the Mount Alexander Shire Council website, pending confirmation at this meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Mount Alexander Shire Council held on 12 July 2016 be confirmed.


5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

6. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS

Nil

7. COMMITTEE REPORTS

Nil

8. ASSEMBLIES OF COUNCILLORS

8.1. ASSEMBLIES ON 5 JULY (12.00 PM AND 2.00 PM) AND 12 JULY (6.00 PM) 2016

RECOMMENDATION

That the Records for the Assemblies of Councillors on 5 July at 12.00 pm, 2.00 pm and 12 July at 6.00 pm 2016 be entered into the record of this meeting (Attachments 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3).


9. OFFICER REPORTS

9.1. A VIBRANT HEALTHY COMMUNITY (VIB)

NO REPORTS.


9.2. BETTER COMMUNITY FACILITIES (BET)

BET 10 CONTRACT EXTENSION M819-2011 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF OUTDOOR POOLS – NEWSTEAD AND DISTRICT SWIMMING POOL INC.

Responsible Director: Acting Director Sustainable Communities Responsible Officer: Manager Community Places and Spaces Original Document: DOC/16/24630

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for the extension of contract M819-2011, Management and Operation of Outdoor Pools for Newstead and District Swimming Pool (Newstead Pool) to Newstead and District Swimming Pool Incorporated (NDSPI) for a final one year extension, as the remaining option within the current contract.

2. Background

NSDPI has managed Newstead Pool for the past 5 years.

The term of the base contract was from November 2011 to October 2014 with an option to extend the contract for two, by two year, terms. At its Ordinary Meeting on 23 September 2014, Council resolved to;

1. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to approve the extension of Contract M819-2011 Management and Operation of Outdoor Pools for one by two year period to Newstead and District Swimming Pool Committee (NDSP) commencing 1 November 2014 to 31 October 2016 for the lump sum of $50,611 for the 2014/2015 season and $52,130.00 for the 2015/2016 season. (GST not applicable); and

2. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to sign and affix the Common Seal to the contract extension documentation for Contract M819-2011 Management and Operation of Outdoor Pools with Newstead and District Swimming Pool Committee Inc.

This first contract extension between Council and NDSPI will expire on 31 October 2016.

The contract makes provision for a further two years until 31 October 2018. This is the final extension option available in the contract.

3. Policy and Statutory Implications

In achieving its vision for a thriving community working together to create a sustainable and vibrant future, Council has identified ‘Better Community Facilities’ as a key priority in the Council Plan 2013-2017. This priority includes the objective “provide access to well –maintained sporting and recreation facilities for all residents”.

The Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) provides direction to local Government Authorities in regards to procurement of goods and services and the awarding of contracts. Section 186 of the Act requires Council’s to undertake competitive market testing process before entering into contracts for goods and services or for the carrying out of works over the value of $150,000.


Clause 208 of the Act – Best Value Principles requires Local Government Authorities to comply with a range of principles including the need for Council services to meet quality and cost standards. Other Best Value considerations when evaluating tenders include community expectations, opportunities for local employment growth or relations, and potential environmental advantages.

All good and services purchased by Council must be compliant with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, the Dangerous Goods Act, Equipment (Public Safety) Act 1987, and associated regulations and codes of practice wherever applicable.

The awarding of the outdoor pool management contract and the subsequent management and operations of Council’s outdoor swimming pools is consistent with the above priorities and policies.

4. Issues

This contract is in place to provide residents and visitors to the Shire with the opportunity to enjoy aquatic activities that are high quality and safe, in facilities that are well maintained and pleasant to visit.

Performance is monitored at monthly meetings of NDSPI and Council’s Recreation Services staff. The contract is monitored against performance indicators specified in the contract.

The contract is for the management, operation and maintenance of the facilities and includes, but is not limited to, the following functions:

• Program planning and development. • Day to day management, operation supervision and maintenance of the pools,

plant equipment, buildings and surrounds. • Cleaning of pools, buildings and surrounds. • Administration and financial management. • Staff management. • Evaluation and reporting.

The varying contract extension periods granted to Bendigo Regional YMCA and NDSPI has resulted in the completion dates of the two contracts for the management and operation of Council’s outdoor pools to not be aligned.

By granting NDSPI a one year extension, rather than the two year option, both contracts will become aligned. This will enable Council to procure the management and operation of all four pools at the same time, creating significant procurement and administration efficiencies and enabling tenderers to competitively tender for the management and operation of Councils pools.

If NDSPI were to receive a two year extension, then the possible options for further management of the aquatic facilities include:

• Procurement through public tender for the management and operation for Castlemaine, Harcourt and Maldon Pools for one year only in order to align the contract in 2018.

• Procure through public tender the management and operation for Castlemaine, Harcourt and Maldon Pools for a longer period with Newstead pool being advertised through public tender the following year.


The issues with these two options are; the separate operating and reporting standards, and that the manner in which the current contracts are written and developed provides no clear guidelines or service level agreements for both Council and the contractors to work towards. This affects particularly the contract components of; community usage and participation, compliance of the contract, relevant reporting, risk management and asset management. Due to this, neither of the two above options are recommended.

Additionally, in the recommended option of a one year extension, contract specifications can be improved uniformly to ensure contractors are more accountable with clear identifiable objectives and responsibilities removing any ambiguities within their contractual obligations.

5. Financial and Resource Implications

The current budget for the management and operations of the four outdoor pools in the 2016/2017 financial year is $289,986.

Council requested from NDSPI a schedule of pricing for the second option of a one year only extension.

The price submitted for the 2016/2017 season is $53,824.80 (excluding GST). This represents a 3.24% increase on the previous years accepted contract amount. This is congruent with previous years and is considered as reasonable.

6. Consultation

Consultation with NDSPI has confirmed their commitment to continue to operate the swimming pool facilities for a further year. A schedule of pricing documents and all relevant certificates for the 2016/2017 pool season has been submitted.

Feedback received through community consultation undertaken at the Newstead Pool has been positive, with no issues raised on the management or standard of facilities.

7. Conclusion

The contract extension for the management of Newstead Pool is due to expire 31 October 2016, with the option to extend the contract for a further two years subject to the agreement of both parties.

Aligning the contracts of the two pool management suppliers (YMCA and NDSPI) will result in the best outcome for Council and, for this to occur, a one year extension to the contract with NDSPI is required.

Council officers have discussed the extension period with the NDSPI, whom have confirmed their commitment to continue to operate the swimming pool facilities and have submitted a schedule of pricing for the second and final option for extension.


RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Approve the final extension of contract M819-2011 Management and Operation of Outdoor Pools for a one year period to Newstead and District Swimming Pool Incorporated commencing 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2017 for the lump sum of $53,824.80 for the 2016/2017 season (GST not applicable); and

2. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to sign and affix the Common Seal to the contract extension documentation for contract M819-2011 Management and Operation of Outdoor Pools with Newstead and District Swimming Pool Committee Inc.


9.3. A THRIVING LOCAL ECONOMY (ECO)

ECO 49 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 356/2002-1 – AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMIT PA356/2002-1, REMOVAL OF CONDITION 3, AT CA 12 SEC 9 PARISH OF GUILDFORD, 949 NEWSTEAD-GUILDFORD ROAD, GUILDFORD (PA356/2002-1)

Responsible Director: Director Sustainable Development Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Original Document: DOC/16/27156

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to enable Council to make a determination on an application to amend planning permit PA356/2002-1 to enable the removal of a planning permit condition requiring the consolidation of two land titles. The application has been referred to Council for a decision as Council officers are recommending refusal.

Refer to:

Attachment ECO 49A: Context and site aerial Attachment ECO 49B: Current Planning Permit

2. Background

The application was lodged on 11 February 2016 and seeks to amend planning permit 356/2002-1 to remove Condition 3 which requires the consolidation of land titles.

The subject site lies approximately 1.5 kilometres to the west of the Guildford Township. The site consists of 2 lots and is rectangular in shape. Lot 1(CA 8 SEC 9 Parish of Guildford) is 6.73 hectares in size, while Lot 2 (CA 12 SEC 9 Parish of Guildford) is 7.9 hectares in size, a total of 14.6 hectares. The site has a southern frontage to the Newstead-Guildford Road, a western boundary to Franzi Track and adjoins large farm zone lots containing dwellings to the north and east.

The site is currently separated into 2 lots and contains a dwelling and multiple outbuildings in the north-east section of the site. The lots are otherwise mostly vacant, with only sporadic vegetation present on the site, concentrated around the boundaries of both lots. There are three (3) dams of various sizes and a minor tributary waterway passes over parts of the southern boundary of the site.

In 2002 a planning application was submitted to Council for the development and use of a dwelling and shed (356/2002). On 12 May 2003, Planning Permit 356/02 was issued for use and development of a dwelling and shed. The two parcels were in joint ownership of Sharon Deborah Baker and Jai Kenneth Baker when PA356/02 was issued. The planning permit included a condition requiring the consolidation of CA 8 and CA 12 prior to construction of the dwelling. The construction of the dwelling proceeded without the consolidation of the two parcels and to date the permit condition has not been met. The permit required development to commence within 1 year and completion of development of 2 years from the date of issue.

The proposal is for an amendment to planning permit 356/2002 for the removal of condition 3, which reads as follows:


“Consolidation

All lots comprising the subject land must be consolidated into one (1) lot prior to the commencement of the development and/or use permitted by this permit”

Removing this condition then would allow for the separate sale of the lots.


State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

Clause 14.01 Agriculture

Relevant strategies mentioned in this Clause relate to encouraging sustainable agricultural uses and to protect productive farmland. Strategies include preventing unplanned loss of productive land due to permanent changes in land use.

Clause 16.02 – 1 Rural residential development

The objective of this clause is to identify land suitable for rural living and rural residential development. Strategies include to manage development in rural areas to protect agriculture.

Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

Clause 21.02 Vision and framework plan

This clause contains some of the guiding policy linking the municipal vision, derived from Mount Alexander Shire Council Plan, to the land use and development planning vision for the Shire.

Clause 21.06-1 Productive agricultural land

This clause identifies agriculture as the predominant land use in the Shire. Productive capacities of various areas of the Shire are outlined based on land quality. The site is located within an area of moderate agricultural quality which is the highest rating within the Shire.

Clause 21.06 - 2 Sustainable agricultural land use

The relevant objectives to this clause relate to the minimisation of potential amenity impacts between agricultural uses and rural lifestyle uses.

Clause 22.04 Use and development of land in the farming zone and rural living zone

This clause applies to the use and development of land in both the farming and rural living zones. The relevant objective of this clause is to ensure that the use and development of land for a dwelling does not adversely impact on the agricultural activities carried out on the land and neighbouring sites and to ensure that the proposed dwelling will not result in the loss or fragmentation of productive agricultural land.

Zoning

Clause 35.07 Farming Zone (FZ))

The use of land for a dwelling on an allotment of less than 40 hectares requires a permit under Clause 35.07-1 of the Farming Zone. The farming zone also requires


a permit for building and works associated with a section 2 use and buildings and works within stated setbacks under Clause 35.07-4.

This permit trigger was the reason the original planning permit was required.

Overlay

Not Applicable

Particular provisions

Not Applicable

4. Issues

Previous Permit History

The ownership of CA8 and CA12, Section 9, Parish of Guildford is now in individual ownership of the same persons who owned both parcels jointly when PA356/02 was granted. The owners of the two parcels were aware of the requirement to consolidate the two lots.

The permit applicants have put forward 2 separate pieces of legal advice in relation to the consolidation of lots:

• On 20 March 2015 a letter was received from a solicitor acting on behalf of the Bakers which stated that CA 8 and CA12 were now in separate ownership and Council had no legal right to enforce consolidation of the two parcels given they are in separate ownership.

• On 13 July 2015 a letter was received from a solicitor acting on behalf the Bakers which stated that at all relevant times the two titles have been in different names and consolidation of land can only apply to parcels in the same ownership.

Prior to the purchase of the land, the applicants chose to apply for a permit to build on a combined site of CA8 and CA12. They applied with plans, a land capability assessment, restrictive covenant declarations, and other submitted information all including and referring to both land titles as the proposed site.

Council accordingly assessed and issued a permit for the combined site of CA8 and CA12, which is clearly stated on the permit as the address of the subject land. The permit granted permission to build on the combined site, subject to various permit conditions including consolidation of the site. The combined site was an important consideration for Council’s decision as a larger lot size better supports the purpose and objectives of the Farming Zone.

While Council cannot force the applicants to place the land into one ownership, without the land being in one consolidated allotment as required by the permit there is no planning permission for the development and use of a dwelling.

The applicants were granted a permit for development of the combined site, subject to consolidation, prior to purchase of the subject land. They were legally required to consolidate the land prior to construction of the dwelling and failing to do so leaves them open to potential planning enforcement action. This could include requiring the dwelling to be removed.


The applicants could choose to work together to resolve the land title ownership between them and consolidate the land as originally required if they wished to reach compliance with the permit conditions.

If they do not, as is currently the case, failing to do so leaves the dwelling without valid planning permission as an illegal structure, and leaves them open to potential planning enforcement action. This could include requiring the dwelling to be removed.

Until the titles are consolidated they remain liable to planning enforcement action, unless an amendment as they propose is approved. This would remove the consolidation requirement and would enable each lot to be sold and developed separately if desired.

Farming Zone

The proposed removal of condition 3 of the permit, does not comply with the original intent of planning permit PA356/2002. The intent was to consolidate land to create a larger parcel within the Farming Zone and increase the agricultural potential and output of the site. In the Farming Zone a minimum lot size of 40 hectares is required to subdivide land or construct a dwelling without a permit. This clause is in place to prevent fragmentation of viable farming land and protect it from residential development.

Allowing the removal of the consolidation condition, would only serve to increase the perception of a cluster of rural living properties. The proliferation of dwellings in a Farming Zone limits the availability of productive land and the opportunities for expansion of adjoining and nearby agricultural uses. Furthermore dwellings and other development attributed to retaining the small lot can potentially contribute to increased land values, give rise to land use conflicts and remove land from agricultural / farming activity, which can impact negatively on agricultural production.

In this instance that the removal of condition 3 of planning permit PA356/2002 would not enhance and support agricultural production on the site. The subject site can easily be managed from the existing dwelling without allowing one of the lots to be kept separate and sold or developed separately.

The original planning permit decision only requires a consolidated lot of 14.6 hectares, which is already far below the Farming Zone lot size standard of 40 hectares. If the amendment were to be approved, this would rescind Council’s previous consolidation requirement and allow for a lot of only 6.73 hectares to be kept separate, sold off and potentially developed separately.

Outstanding objections to the application

Following advertisement of the application in accordance with Sections 52(1)(a) and 52(1)(d) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, one objection was received.

The objectors concerns can be summarised as follows:

The land must be consolidated, as the subject parcel of land, even with both lots combined, is still smaller than the minimum required under the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme.

The consolidation of the land prior to the commencement of development was an important permit condition requirement, but development was conducted before


condition 3 of planning permit PA356/02 was satisfied. The planning requirements for the development of the land have not changed and therefore consolidation of the land is still appropriate and still required.

The proposal will have a negative effect on the farming area and further sub-division into lifestyle block and dwellings, including the effect it will have on the viability of commercial farming enterprises.

The site was required to be consolidated to prevent further segmentation of viable agricultural land and reduce the impact to surrounding farming enterprises. This concern has merit as discussed throughout this report, and Council officers are recommending refusal on that basis.


Cost of potential appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

6. Consultation

Advertising

Notice of the application was given in accordance with Sections 52(1)(a) and 52(1)(d) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to owners and occupiers of adjoining land and a sign was also placed on-site.

Applicant-objector correspondence

The objector submitted to Council on 16 May 2016 a written objection stating their concerns. A copy of this objection was sent to the applicant, and a rebuttal response was received from the applicant on 21 May 2016.

While Council officers called and discussed the application with both parties, no applicant-objector meeting was undertaken as the parties refused to meet, and it was not considered that an outcome which satisfied both applicant and objectors could be reached.

External Referrals

• none

Internal Referrals

• Environment Officer No objection, No conditions

7. Conclusion

Council has received an application for the removal of condition 3 on planning permit 356/02 at CA 12 SEC 9 Parish of Guildford, 949 Newstead-Guildford Rd, Guildford. The site is located within the farming zone.

The proposal has been assessed as being not in accordance with relevant provisions of the planning scheme.

It is recommended that Council issue a refusal to grant an amendment to planning permit.


RECOMMENDATION

That Council issue a Refusal to Grant an Amendment to Planning Permit PA356/2002 for removal of condition 3 (consolidation requirement) at CA 12 SEC 9 Parish of Guildford, 949 Newstead-Guildford Road, Guildford, on the following grounds:

1. The proposed amendment is contrary to State Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework, more specifically Clause 11.05-3 – Rural Productivity, Clause 12.04-2 Landscapes, Clause 21.01-1 Protection of biodiversity, Clause 12.01-2 Native vegetation management, Clause 14.01-1 – Protection of Agricultural Land, Clause 21.02 – Vision and Framework Plan, Clause 21.04-1 Biodiversity, Clause 21.06-1 – Protection of Agricultural Land, and Clause 22.04 – Use and Development of Land in the Farming Zone and Rural Living Zone;

2. The proposed amendment is contrary to the purpose and decision guidelines of the Farming Zone;

3. The amendment would not support and enhance agricultural production; and

4. The amendment may adversely affect the operation and expansion of adjoining agricultural uses and has the potential to lead to a greater proliferation of dwellings in the area.


ECO 50 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 016/2016 - USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF A DWELLING AND VETERINARY CENTRE AT LOT 1 TP954721, MOONS LANE, FARADAY 3451 (PA016/2016)


1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to enable Council to make a determination on Planning Permit Application 016/2016 for the use and development of a dwelling and veterinary centre at Lot 1 TP954721, Moons Lane, Faraday. The application has been referred to Council for a decision as there is one outstanding objection and officers are recommending approval.

Refer to:

Attachment ECO 50A: Context and site aerial Attachment ECO 50B: Final plans submitted with application

2. Background

The application was lodged on 11 February 2016 and seeks approval for use and development of a dwelling and veterinary centre on land within the Farming Zone.

The subject site is located approximately 7.1 kilometres to the east of Castlemaine on the eastern side of the Calder Highway and the western side of Moons Road. The site consists of a single, regular rectangular shaped parcel of land with an area of approximately 18.27 hectares.

The site has a ridge which runs north to south through the site approximately 200 metres west of the eastern boundary. The topography of the site slopes downward from the top of the ridge west approximately 20-30 metres and a downward slope to the east toward Moons Road approximately 10-20 metres.

The site is currently vacant of any buildings. The site is mainly clear of vegetation but some large and medium sized trees are scattered across the site with a concentration along the eastern border. There are three dams on the property, one located in the eastern corner, one in the western corner and one in the centre of the site. The subject site is entirely fenced with post and wire fencing and vehicle access is afforded from an existing gated access from Moons Road.

The subject site is in the Farming Zone and is covered by the Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 1 (ESO1). Surrounding land consists of a mix of broad acre grazing land, vineyards on the eastern side of the Calder Highway and vegetated bushland which is mainly on the western side of the Calder Highway.

There are several dwellings located on Moons Lane. The closest dwellings are located on Faraday-Sutton Grange Road approximately 600 metres to the north and a similar distance to the east on Harmony Way. The balance of lots are used for extensive agriculture.

The proposed dwelling is a single storey building setback approximately 50 metres from Moons Road and 90 metres from the northern boundary. The dwelling is proposed to be built with cement sheet wall lining, have a galvanised corrugated steel roof and contain 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, a kitchen, laundry, living area,


adjoining carport, 2 water tanks and a storage shed which is to be made from a shipping container.

The veterinary centre is a small scale equine dentistry. Treatment and care of patient horses is to be undertaken in a fenced yard, containing a shelter, to the south of the dwelling.

Vehicle access to the site will continue to be from Moons Road.



Clause 11.04-5 Environment and Water

Relevant strategies within this clause aim to plan for better waste water management and to protect and restore natural habitats.

Clause 11.05-3 Rural productivity

The policy objective for rural productivity is to manage land use change and development in rural areas to promote agriculture and rural production. It includes strategies to prevent inappropriately dispersed urban activities in rural areas and limit new housing in rural areas including directing housing growth into existing settlements.

Clause 14.01-1 Protection of Agricultural Land

This clause aims to protect productive farmland which is of significance in the local or regional context and also protect unplanned loss of agricultural land due to permanent changes in land use.

Clause 14.02-1 Catchment Planning and Management

The objective of this clause is to assist the protection and, where possible, restoration of catchments, waterways, water bodies, groundwater, and the marine environment.

Clause 14.02 -2 Water Quality

The objective of this clause is to protect water quality.



This clause contains some of the guiding policy linking the municipal vision, derived from Mount Alexander Shire Council Plan, to the land use and development planning vision for the Shire.

This clause also contains the Mount Alexander Strategic Framework Plan which, amongst other things, aims to support productive agricultural land use of rural land and ensure development of rural land is compatible with the Shire’s rural landscapes.

Clause 21.04-3 Rural and landscape character

This policy recognises the importance and appeal to both residents and visitors of the rural appearance and character of the Shire. When deciding on an application for development of land in rural zones, Council should consider, where


appropriate, issues such as the effect on views and the natural landscape, setbacks of nearby development and consideration of topographical features in the siting of the development.

Clause 21.06-1 Protection of agricultural land

Policy within this clause recognises the prominent role that agriculture plays in the Shire. The dominant form of agricultural use is identified as broad acre grazing, particularly of cattle and sheep which is mixed with other agricultural and non-agricultural uses.

Clause 21.06-3 Water

This clause aims to protect and improve water quality and quantity in the Shire. Policy recognises the poor condition of water catchments, including open potable water catchment areas, which cover much of the Shire and outline strategies to address identified issues.

Clause 21.11 Infrastructure

This clause gives an overview of the Shire’s significant infrastructure assets and also issues arising due to lack of infrastructure in some areas. Key issues include preventing unplanned residential development in rural areas which can increase costs of infrastructure maintenance and provision.

Clause 22.04 Use and development of land in the Farming Zone and Rural Living Zone

The policy basis for this clause builds on other Municipal Strategic Statement objectives of:

• Clause 21.03 to provide for rural living development in identified areas. • Clause 21.03 to ensure that rural living development is economically

sustainable. • Clause 21.06 to protect the land resources relied upon by agriculture.

The policy basis acknowledges that the fragmentation of productive agricultural land is to be avoided to ensure the productive capacity of the land is maintained. Objectives include that use and development of land for a dwelling is required to support the rural use of land, ensuring that dwellings do not adversely impact on agricultural activities on adjacent site.

Zoning

Clause 35.07 Farming Zone (FZ)

As the land is less than 40 hectares, the use of land for a ‘dwelling’ is a section 2 use for which a permit is required under clause 35.07-1 of the farming zone.

A veterinary centre is also a section 2 use within the farming zone.

Building and works associated with a section 2 use also require a permit under clause 35.07-4 of the farming zone.

Overlay

Clause 42.01 Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO1)

A permit is required under the ESO to construct a building or construct or carry out works.


Schedule 1 to the ESO relates to the protection and maintenance of water quality and water yield within the Lake Eppalock Catchment.

4. Issues

Farming Zone

Both the use of the land for a veterinary centre and the use as a dwelling require a permit under the Farming Zone. While these are two separate land uses, the nature of the application requires the consideration of the two uses in conjunction. The proposal itself ties the two together, indicating that the dwelling is required for the effective use of the land for the specialized veterinary practice.

Generally, the use of land for a dwelling in the Farming Zone, which does not support an agricultural use, is considered inappropriate due to the conflicts which occur between residential and agricultural land uses. The current application, however, includes an additional land use that requires intensive and more permanent attendance on site.

In this regard, it is considered that the foremost consideration is the appropriateness of the use as a veterinary centre. If the veterinary centre is not consistent with orderly planning of the area then the dwelling, subsequently, would be an inappropriate land use for the site.

Use as a veterinary centre

The proposed use is an intensive care equine dentistry facility, which is defined in the planning scheme as a veterinary centre. The definition of a veterinary centre is:

Land used to:

(a) diagnose animal diseases or disorders;

(b) surgically or medically treat animals; or

(c) prevent animal diseases or disorders.

It may include keeping the animals on the premises for treatment.

The definition does not specify types of animals to be treated, the kinds of treatments given or the length of time that animals may be kept on premises. It is, therefore, evident that these aspects will vary depending on the specific veterinary practice, the types of animals they treat, treatments given and the duration that animals need to be kept on the premises.

The current application proposes a very specialised type of veterinary centre, being equine dentistry, which provides ongoing care, treatment and rehabilitation for horses with protracted dental problems.

It is understood that dental problems in horses can, in most cases, have only minor implications on animal health and can be treated with one or two visits by an equine dentist. However, more serious dental issues can result in ongoing and sometimes permanent health problems for animals including periodontal disease and resulting bacterial infection of other organs. In these instances, more long term care and treatment is required, similar to more serious dental problems of humans.

Considering the specific aspects of the proposed veterinary centre it is considered that a rural setting, such as the subject site, is an appropriate location for such a practice. Both the type of animal being treated, which generally require moderate


areas of grazing land, and the length of time to keep animals on site for treatment support the use of the site for the proposed use as a veterinary centre.

The proposed use and development is consistent with the purpose and decision guidelines of the Farming Zone. In general, the veterinary centre can be accommodated on site and is compatible with adjoining agricultural uses. The keeping of horses in a rural area is consistent with normal activity in a rural area and will not remove land from agricultural production. The buildings and works proposed as part of the veterinary centre are minor in nature and wholly compatible with the agricultural setting.

Use of land for a dwelling

The other aspect of the application is whether a dwelling is required for the effective operation of the veterinary centre and the impact, if any, of the buildings and works.

As outlined above, the nature of the proposed veterinary centre requires relatively consistent on ongoing monitoring of patient animals. The application indicates that a single horse may require several check-ups and treatment throughout the day. This would particularly be the case during early stages of treatment and rehabilitation. The need for permanent on-site attendance is clearly proportionate with the number of patient animals that would be on-site. That is, the need for permanent or ongoing attendance would increase significantly with an increase in the number of patient animals.

In this regard, it is considered that a dwelling is reasonably required for the effective operation of the veterinary centre on the site, even with a relatively minor number of patient animals being kept and treated on the property.

The scale of the proposed dwelling is also proportionate to supporting the use of land as a veterinary centre. The dwelling is a modest building containing a single bedroom and essential amenities. The siting of the dwelling is located on the eastern side of the small rise, minimising the impact of the building on views to the site, particularly from the Calder Freeway to the west.

The primary issue relating to the proposed use as a dwelling relates to the potential for the dwelling to limit expansion on adjoining agricultural uses. This is of particular concern if the use as a veterinary centre ceases and the use as a dwelling continues. In this regard, and given the specific nature of the proposal, it is considered appropriate that the use of land for a dwelling is tied to the use of land for a veterinary centre. That is, if the use of the land for a veterinary centre ceases, then the use of the land for a dwelling must also cease as there would be no ongoing requirement for the dwelling to be on the site. This outcome would then return the land to a purely agricultural use.

The applicant also proposes environmental improvements and maintenance of the land as a result of the occupation of the site. This would be consistent with the decision guidelines of the Farming Zone and is a beneficial outcome of the proposal. However, it is in itself not a strong aspect in terms of providing support to the proposal. In order to fully demonstrate proposed environmental improvements and the links to the business, the applicant should provide additional assessment by way of a whole farm plan.

Overall, the proposed use and associated building works is compatible with surrounding land uses, and though not specifically agricultural, and is appropriate for the area.




6. Consultation

Advertising


One submission was received. Objector’s concerns can be summarised as follows:

The close proximity of the proposed dwelling to a dwelling currently under consideration for a planning permit on an adjacent lot.

Under clause 35.07-4 of the farming zone, a permit is required for buildings and works within 100 metres of a dwelling not in the same ownership. This is a distance that is considered acceptable to minimise amenity impact resulting from proximity of buildings within a rural setting. Despite the adjacent property not containing an existing dwelling, the dwelling proposed as part of this application exceeds the specified distance by an additional 50 per cent, to approximately 150 metres. The modest scale of the proposed dwelling and its setting amongst some scattered trees further minimises any potential impact.

It is also noted that the dwelling proposed as part of this application is setback 90 metres to the common boundary and the proposed dwelling on the adjacent site is setback 62 metres from the common boundary. Re-siting of the adjacent proposal could be proposed to further minimise perceived impact resulting from proximity, particularly given the adjacent development is still in planning stage.

The land is under 40 hectares in area which is below the planning guidelines.

Under the farming zone, a permit is required to use land for a section 2 use. A dwelling on a lot less than 40 hectares is a section 2 use.

The requirement for a permit is not a prohibition on the use of land, but is a trigger for assessment. Each application is assessed on its merits based on specific land use and development proposed. As outlined above, the application has been assessed on its merits and is considered to be consistent with the purpose and decision guidelines of the farming zone.

It is consistent with policy within both state and local planning policy frameworks to encourage and require consolidation of smaller lots within the farming zone. When this can be achieved, it lends strong support to an application, however it is not a prohibitive condition if it cannot be achieved. The current application applies to a single parcel of land which is not part of a broader land holding. If the subject site was part of a larger land holding which could be consolidated, this would most likely be required as part of the planning process, consistent with state and local planning policy. As the site is not part of a wider land holding, this is not an outcome which can be achieved.

The use and construction of a dwelling on the site will prohibit possible future use of the land for agriculture and possible consolidation with adjoining lots.

The use of land for a dwelling will not prohibit the consolidation of the site with adjoining properties as this could be undertaken regardless of a dwelling being on the site.


The use of land for a dwelling in the first instance, does have potential to limit the use of land for agriculture. As discussed above, it is considered appropriate that the use of land for a dwelling is tied to the veterinary centre to ensure the ongoing use of land for a dwelling does not prejudice adjoining agricultural uses if the primary land use of the subject site ceases.

The plans do not show footing type of the proposed dwelling.

Specific construction detail is not required as part of the planning permit, but is included as part of a building permit application. Elevations include finished floor levels and existing ground levels, indicating slab construction which is sufficient information for the purposes of assessment as part of the planning application.

The design includes a shipping container which is inconsistent with the landscape character of the area.

The design of the dwelling will result in the shipping container being visible from only two elevations, being the east and the south. The carport wall and dwelling obscures the view from the other two elevations. Additionally, the container will be located underneath the carport roof. Overall, the container itself will be barely visible from any vantage point other than on the property itself, in close proximity to the dwelling. It is not considered that a small container in such a location is out of keeping with a rural character in general or the locality specifically.

External Referrals

• Nil

Internal Referrals

• Infrastructure Unit No objection subject to conditions.

• Environmental Health No objection subject to conditions.

7. Conclusion

Council has received an application for the use and development of a dwelling and veterinary centre at Lot 1 TP954721, Moons Lane, Faraday. The site is located within the farming zone and is covered by the environmental significance overlay.

The proposal for a veterinary centre on the site is considered an appropriate use of the land given the specific type of centre proposed. The use of the land for a dwelling is considered appropriate and is required for the effective operation of the veterinary centre.

The application is consistent with a variety of state and local planning policy. Application of appropriate conditions on the use of land for a dwelling will ensure the use of land for agriculture is not prejudiced if the veterinary centre ceases operation.

The application has been assessed against the provisions of the planning scheme and meets the requirements.

It is recommended that this application be approved.


RECOMMENDATION

That Council issue a Planning Permit for the Use and Development of a Dwelling and Veterinary Centre at Lot 1 TP954721, Moons Lane, Faraday subject to the following conditions:

1 NO LAYOUT ALTERATION 1.1 The use and/or development allowed by this permit as shown on the

endorsed plan(s) and/or described in the endorsed documents must not be altered or modified (for any reason) except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

2 PLANS REQUIRED 2.1 Prior to the commencement of the development approved by this permit, the

applicant must submit a farm management plan outlining not only the proposed veterinary business in accordance with the business plan provided to Council on 23/6/2016, but also agricultural and/or environmental management activities which will result in the development providing an overall improvement to the agricultural use of the land in accordance with the purpose of the Farming Zone. This plan must include the following: • Full details of the proposed veterinary business in accordance with the

business plan provided to Council on 23/6/2016. • Suitable agricultural use and/or environmental works which involve the

entire remainder of the property area that is not intended to be used for veterinary activity or the dwelling and associated works.

• A site plan showing where each of the proposed uses will be occurring. i.e. which area the chosen crops will be grown, etc.

The plan must be suitably detailed, providing (as relevant) information such

as: • Details of the soil and pasture characteristics across the site and their

suitability for the proposed activities. • A description of the state of the property with regard to any issues with

vermin and noxious weeds, and proposed solutions to any such issues. • Internal fencing both current and intended. • Any areas of trees and remnant vegetation from which livestock will be

excluded (if any). • The size of each area of land proposed for each crop or activity. • Proposed timing for plantings or the commencement of activities. • How a sufficient supply of water will be maintained throughout the years

for the proposal, and the method of supplying water to any crops and/or animal stock.

• Details of any ancillary work such as trellising, processing, storing or packaging intended to be carried out on site.

3 SECTION 173 AGREEMENT – FARM MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.1 Prior to the commencing of development or the issue of statement of

compliance, an Agreement under Section 173 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987 must be entered into between the land owner and the Responsible Authority that requires:


• The farming initiatives and veterinary activity as stated in the approved Farm Management Plan must be demonstrably commenced prior to the initial occupation of the dwelling, and thereafter carried out on an on-going basis to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

• This permit will lapse if, for a period of greater than six months, the owner of the land can no longer demonstrably show that the land is being actively used pursuant to the Farm Management Plan as approved by the Responsible Authority or any subsequently amended farm management plan approved by the Responsible Authority.

The Section 173 Agreement must be registered on the title to the land prior to the occupation of the dwelling permitted by this permit. The owner of the land must pay all reasonable costs of the Responsible Authority for all statutory fees and charges.

4 USE OF LAND FOR VETERINARY CENTRE 4.1 The use of the land for a veterinary centre must primarily be for the

diagnosis, treatment and keeping of horses and/or other farm animals and must not be primarily for the diagnosis, treatment and keeping of domestic pets.

5 USE OF LAND FOR A DWELLING 5.1 The use of the land for a dwelling must only be undertaken in conjunction

with the use of the land for a veterinary centre unless otherwise agreed in writing by the responsible authority.

5.2 If the use of land for a veterinary centre expires, the owner must remove the dwelling from the site or remove amenities, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, so that the building no longer constitutes a dwelling. One or more of the following amenities must be removed and proof of removal supplied to the responsible authority: • The kitchen sink and food preparation facilities; • The bath/shower; • The closet pan and wash basin.

6 INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITIONS 6.1 DRAINAGE

The whole of the subject land, including landscaped and paved areas, must be graded and drained to the satisfaction of Council as the responsible drainage authority so as to prevent the discharge of water from the subject land across any road or onto any adjoining land.

6.2 The stormwater runoff from future buildings and paved areas must be directed to storage tanks and overflow dissipated as normal unconcentrated overland flow.

6.3 INTERNAL DRIVEWAY AND VEHICLE CROSSOVER The internal driveway access shall be constructed to appropriate engineering standards approved by council along with appropriate cut off table drains and cross culverts.

6.4 Vehicle crossovers appropriate to the development and existing site conditions are to be constructed to the levels/requirements of the Council. Council’s minimum standards are: - • 3.5 metre wide


• Appropriately sized reinforced concrete pipes 4.8 metre long centred on the crossover. Minimum size is 375 mm diameter.

• Low profile culvert end-walls to all culvert ends • 100mm minimum compacted thickness of road base gravel from edge of

pavement to property line • No impeding or redirection of existing surface flows as a result of these

works 6.5 REMOVAL OR TRIMMING OF ROAD RESERVE TREES

If the applicant / Property owner require removing or Trimming of trees in the road reserve as part of the works permitted by this planning permit or as part of future works, all the cost of such removal must be borne by the applicant / Property owner. Applicant / Property owner must obtain consent and necessary work permits from the council for such future tree trimmings/ removals prior to commencement of the works.

6.6 SEDIMENT POLLUTION CONTROL The developer must restrict sediment discharges from any construction sites within the land in accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA 1991).

6.7 CONSENT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS Prior to the commencement of any works on the road reserve the owner/applicant must submit a Minor Works in a Road Reserve application and be issued a permit to occupy the road for works.

6.8 CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING A certificate of occupancy must only be issued once all the requirements of this permit have been completed to the satisfaction of the relevant authority.

7 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS 7.1 The applicant will be required to install an all-waste on-site waste water

system. The system must be an Environment Protection Authority approved system installed, operated and maintained in accordance with the Environment Protection Authority’s current edition of the Code of Practice – Onsite wastewater management and the Australia New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 1547:2012 – On-site wastewater management.

7.2 Prior to any development the applicant shall apply for a Permit to Install a Septic Tank in accordance with Part IXB of the Environment Protection Act 1970.

8 GOULBURN-MURRAY WATER CONDITIONS 8.1 All wastewater from the proposed dwelling must be treated and disposed of

using an EPA approved system, installed operated and maintained in compliance with the current EPA Code of Practice for Onsite Wastewater Management and Certificate of Approval.

8.2 All construction activities must follow sediment control principles outlined in “Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA 1991).

8.3 The wastewater disposal areas must be kept free of stock, buildings, driveways, and service trenching and must be planted with appropriate vegetation to maximise its performance. Stormwater must be diverted away. A reserve wastewater field of equivalent size to the primary disposal field must be provided for use in the event that the primary field requires resting or has failed.


8.4 Where the following features are present in proximity to the subject land, the wastewater disposal area must be located: • Above the 1 in 100 year flood level • At least 60 metres from any dams: and • At least 20 metres from any bores


9 PERMIT EXPIRY 9.1 The permit for the use and development of the land will expire if one of the

following circumstances applies: • The development is not completed within two years of the date of this

permit; • The use is not commenced within two years after the completion of the

development; • The use of land for a veterinary centre is discontinued for a period of two

years. • The use of land for a dwelling will expire if the use of land for a veterinary

centre is discontinued for a period of two years.

The responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within six months afterwards (for a request to extend the time to commence the development) or twelve months after the permit expires (for a request to extend the time to complete the development).


ECO 51 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 053/2016 - USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF A DWELLING AT CA 10A SEC 5C PARISH OF HARCOURT, 57 PEELERS ROAD, HARCOURT (PA053/2016)


1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to enable Council to make a determination on Planning Permit Application 053/2016 for use and development of a dwelling at CA 10A, Sec 5C Parish of Harcourt, 57 Peelers Road, Harcourt. The application has been referred to Council for a decision as officers are recommending refusal.

Following advertising of the application, one objection was received and not withdrawn.

Refer to:

Attachment ECO 51A: Context and site aerial Attachment ECO 51B: Final plans submitted with application

2. Background

The application was lodged on 26 February 2016 and seeks approval for use and development of a dwelling on a parcel of land with a size of approximately 7.23 hectares within the Farming Zone.

The subject site is located approximately 2.5 kilometres from the centre of Harcourt. The subject site consists of one irregular shaped parcel of land generally fronting Peelers Road to the east but with another access off Pink Lady Lane to the North. All other boundaries abut other allotments.

The site is currently being used for intensive horticultural purposes and has a working apple orchard. There is a large dam to the north of the subject site, a small dam on the eastern boundary of the site, two large sheds to the north east, two small buildings to the west and a windmill in the centre of the site. The general topography of the land slopes east to the west.

A Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) applies to the land. Surrounding land is primarily within the Farming Zone or Public Resource and Conservation Zone. Surrounding land is predominantly used for horticulture with some grazing land located further to the south-east. Low density residential uses are present further to the north and west along Peelers Road.

No dwelling plans have been submitted with the application. Building envelopes have been allocated in the Bushfire Management Plan submitted with this application. This shows the general location of the proposed dwelling at the eastern boundary, south of the existing shedding.

There is no change in land use as part of the application from the horticultural activity currently being undertaken on the site.




Clause 11.05-3 Rural productivity

The policy objective for rural productivity is to manage land use change and development in rural areas to promote agriculture and rural production. It includes strategies to prevent inappropriately dispersed urban activities in rural areas and limit new housing in rural areas including directing housing growth into existing settlements.

Clause 11.12 Loddon Mallee South regional growth

This clause contains specific policy to manage population growth and settlements within the Loddon Mallee South region. Strategies include supporting sustainable growth and expansion in township areas, including Harcourt, to capitalise on their proximity to Bendigo.

Clause 13.05 Bushfire

This clause aims to strengthen community resilience to bushfire. Strategies aim to prioritise protection of human life over other policy considerations in areas at risk of bushfire.

Clause 14.01-1 Protection of Agricultural Land

This clause aims to protect productive farmland which is of significance in the local or regional context and also protect unplanned loss of agricultural land due to permanent changes in land use.

Clause 14.02-1 Catchment Planning and Management

The objective of this clause is to assist the protection and, where possible, restoration of catchments, waterways, water bodies, groundwater, and the marine environment.

Clause 14.02 -2 Water Quality

The objective of this clause is to protect water quality.

Clause 16.02-1 Rural Residential Development

Planning should manage development in rural areas to protect agriculture and avoid inappropriate rural residential development.



This clause contains some of the guiding policy linking the municipal vision, derived from Mount Alexander Shire Council Plan, to the land use and development planning vision for the Shire. This policy identifies the unique and identifiable character of the Shire’s townships and rural environs and the need to manage and sensitively develop the built and natural resources of the Shire in ways which are ecologically sustainable and secure an improved economic future, enhances lifestyle quality and maintains heritage character.


The policy states that cultural identity of Harcourt is derived from the town’s horticultural heritage. The Mount Alexander Strategic Framework Plan specifically supports expansion of the Harcourt horticultural area and encourages protection of agricultural land.

Clause 21.03-1 Urban Growth

The policy statement of this clause outlines the existing and preferred settlement pattern within the Shire. This clause specifically identifies Harcourt as a location for planned growth given its strategic location and availability of reticulated services within the township area.

Objectives of this clause include to ensure low density residential development is appropriately located and serviced.

Clause 21.03-3 Rural Living

This clause identifies rural living as a key element of the Shire’s attraction for many new residents. Within the Shire, the only areas specifically designated for rural living are around Castlemaine. These areas are to the north of Castlemaine (Barkers Creek area), to the west of Castlemaine (towards Muckleford) and to the south of Castlemaine (Ross Drive area), areas in close proximity to services and settlements and in locations which do not compromise existing land uses and values and future needs of the community.

The prevalence of small lots throughout many areas of the municipality makes a substantial contribution to potential supply of rural living land and poses a significant land management issues and infrastructure provision costs, including road maintenance, waste management and community services.

Strategies to implement this policy include to encourage rural living within existing Rural Living Zone and discouraging rural living development outside of areas zoned Rural Living Zone.

Clause 21.05-5 Bushfire

This policy recognises the significant bushfire risk which exists throughout much of the Shire. Relevant strategies aim to minimise the risk of bushfire to life and property.

Clause 21.04-3 Rural and landscape character

This policy recognises the importance and appeal to both residents and visitors of the rural appearance and character of the Shire. When deciding on an application for development of land in rural zones, Council should consider, where appropriate, issues such as the effect on views and the natural landscape, setbacks of nearby development and consideration of topographical features in the siting of the development.

Clause 21.06-1 Protection of agricultural land

Policy within this clause recognises the prominent role that agriculture plays in the Shire. Specifically, Harcourt is identified as one of Victoria’s significant fruit producing regions which also contains manufacturing that adds value to horticultural produce.


The subject site lies just beyond the designated Harcourt irrigation area which lies to the east of the Calder Freeway. The site does form part of the Harcourt district which is one of the most significant production regions in the Shire and the state.

Strategies to implement the objectives of this clause include:

• Promote agriculture and horticulture as the primary land uses in the Shire unless other land uses are strategically justified;

• Discourage development of dwellings in areas of moderate agricultural land unless they directly linked and will benefit an agricultural use.

Clause 21.06-3 Water

This clause aims to protect and improve water quality and quantity in the Shire. Policy recognises the poor condition of water catchments, including open potable water catchment areas, which cover much of the Shire and outline strategies to address identified issues.

Clause 21.11 Infrastructure

This clause gives an overview of the Shire’s significant infrastructure assets and also issues arising due to lack of infrastructure in some areas. Key issues include preventing unplanned residential development in rural area which can increase costs of infrastructure maintenance and provision.

Clause 21.12-5 Harcourt

This clause contains policy specific to Harcourt in the context of the Shire and, in turn, the wider Loddon Mallee South region.

The Harcourt Land Use and Framework Plan details existing and future land use and development issues for the township.

The subject site is located outside of the framework plan area and is therefore not within an area designated for residential infill or possible residential expansion.

Clause 22.04 Use and development of land in the Farming Zone and Rural Living Zone

The policy basis for this clause builds on other Municipal Strategic Statement objectives of:

• Clause 21.03 to provide for rural living development in identified areas. • Clause 21.03 to ensure that rural living development is economically

sustainable. • Clause 21.06 to protect the land resources relied upon by agriculture.

Objectives include that use and development of land for a dwelling is required to support the rural use of land, ensure dwellings do not adversely impact on agricultural activities on adjacent site and that a proposed dwelling will not result in the loss or fragmentation of productive agricultural land.

Clause 22.05 Spray drift

Horticulture is an important component to the agricultural industry in the Shire. Objectives of this clause are to locate new sensitive uses so that the impact of agricultural chemical spray drift on amenity and health is avoided or limited.


Policy includes to discourage residential development that may be affected by spray drift unless they can be located to mitigate adverse effects of spray drift and to maintain a minimum 300 metre separation distance between dwellings and existing agricultural land.

Zoning

Clause 35.07 Farming Zone (FZ)

As the land is less than 40 hectares, the use of land for a ‘dwelling’ is a Section 2 Use for which a permit is required under Clause 35.07-1 of the Farming Zone.

Building and works associated with a Section 2 Use also require a permit under Clause 35.07-4 of the Farming Zone.

A permit is also triggered in relation to building and works setbacks and being within 100m of a waterbody.

Overlay

Clause 44.06 Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO)

A permit is required under the BMO to construct a building or construct or carry out works associated with accommodation. A dwelling is a defined sub-category of accommodation under the planning scheme.

4. Issues

Farming Zone

The proposed use and development of a dwelling on this site is inconsistent with the purpose and decision guidelines of the Farming Zone.

The purpose of the Farming Zone includes to ensure that non-agricultural uses, including dwellings, do not adversely affect the use of the land for agriculture. A dwelling on land zoned farming is explicitly a non –agricultural activity.

The application proposes no change to the current agricultural activity which would support the construction of the proposed dwelling. The subject site is part of a larger property which includes several small parcels of land over Peelers Road, which contains a dwelling.

The location of the proposed dwelling is situated in close proximity to the horticultural activity on the site and also of adjacent sites.

In this instance, the use and development of a dwelling would not enhance and support the existing or any potential future agricultural production on the site. Rather, the use and development of a dwelling will act to reduce the opportunity for agricultural production on the site and also surrounding sites which are actively being used for horticultural production.

No dwelling plans have been submitted with the application. Insufficient information has been provided for Council to make a determination on the potential impact of design and siting issues as required by the decision guidelines of the farming zone.


State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) and Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

The application is contrary to a range of policy outlined within the SPPF and the LPPF relating to protection of significant agricultural land.

Much of the policy within the SPPF and LPPF places a strong emphasis on protecting agricultural land zoned farming for on-going agricultural use, and avoiding dwellings adversely affecting this preferred outcome.

There is a clear theme throughout state and local policies particularly Clause 11.05-3, 14.01-1, 16.02-1, 21.02, 21.03-3, 21.06-1 and 22.04, to focus rural living and residential development into areas zoned for that purpose and to discourage the use of existing small allotments in the Farming Zone for rural living purposes.

The site is located within an area identified in clause 21.06-1 as one of the Shire’s most productive and significant agricultural areas. Despite the predominantly rural land use of the Shire, there are relatively limited areas of high productivity potential due to relatively poor soils and lack of sufficient water supply. Horticultural production within Harcourt has proven to be a highly productive activity.

In addition to its role as a key agricultural centre, Harcourt has also been identified in a range of state and local planning policies as a potential growth centre for the municipality and the region within the identified township area. The subject site is located outside of the existing township area. Residential development on the edge of the township undermines future development of Harcourt in an effective and well-planned manner.

The proposed location of the dwelling is also considered contrary to spray drift policy in clause 22.05. The location of sensitive uses directly within areas which may experience spray drift is contrary to policy outlined in this clause and has potential to impact on the ongoing horticultural activity in the area. There has been no response offered within the application which may act to mitigate negative effects of spray drift on the dwelling. The proposal is therefore inconsistent with the objectives and policy within clause 22.05.

For the reasons outlined above the proposal is deemed to be inconsistent with policy which aims to protect the significant agricultural potential of the land currently, is inconsistent with policy which aims to take a strategic and long term approach to future urban development and also policy with aims to limited impacts of spray drift on sensitive uses.

Setback to a waterbody

The application proposes the 20 metre by 30 metre building envelope to be situated within 100 metres of the large waterbody to the north of the site. The Land Capability Assessment (LCA) supplied with the application has recommended that the treatment of waste water will be able to be achieved on-site with the installation of an appropriate treatment system.

Bushfire

The application included a bushfire management statement which demonstrated how a dwelling could be sited on the property to reduce the risk to bushfire. The application was referred to the CFA who did not object to the grant of a permit subject to standard conditions.

It is considered that the proposal adequately addresses issues of bushfire risk.




6. Consultation

Advertising


One submission was received. Objector’s concerns are summarised and comment provided below:

• The proposal is contrary to the purpose of the Farming Zone and will potentially remove land from agricultural production.

• The proposal is contrary to objectives and policy of clause 22.05 Spray Drift.

Issues raised by the objector are consistent with those discussed above. The fact that these issues are raised by an adjoining owner of an operating horticultural operation lends further support to the position that the proposal is inappropriate for the site and has the potential to both limit ongoing operation of adjacent activities and also to be affected by legitimate activities, specifically crop spraying, which occurs on the site and surrounding properties. Inconsistencies with agricultural land policy and policy relating to spray drift are considered critical failings of the proposal in general.

External Referrals

• Country Fire Authority (CFA) No objection subject to conditions

Internal Referrals

• Infrastructure Unit No objection subject to conditions

• Environmental Health No objection subject to conditions

7. Conclusion

Council has received an application for use and development of a dwelling at CA 10A Sec 5C Parish of Harcourt, 57 Peelers Road, Harcourt. The site is located within the Farming Zone and is covered by a Bushfire Management Overlay.

The application has not demonstrated the dwelling is needed to support or enhance farming activity. It is considered that the proposal will fragment significant agricultural land which could have a negative effect on future production.

The purpose of the Farming Zone is to ensure that non-agricultural uses, including dwellings, do not adversely affect the use of the land for agriculture.

The application is contrary to a variety of State and Local Planning Policy relating to protection of agricultural land and protecting sensitive uses from legitimate horticultural activities such as spray drift.


The application has been assessed against the provisions of the planning scheme and does not meet the requirements.

It is recommended that this application be refused.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: issue a Notice of Refusal to Issue a Planning Permit for use and development of a dwelling at CA 10A Sec 5C Parish of Harcourt, 57 Peelers Road, Harcourt on the following grounds:

1. The proposed use and development is contrary to State Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework, more specifically Clause 11.05-3 – Rural Productivity, Clause 14.01-1 – Protection of Agricultural Land, Clause 16.02-1 – Rural Residential Development, Clause 21.02 – Vision and Framework Plan, Clause 21.03-3 Rural Living, Clause 21.06-1 – Protection of Agricultural Land, Clause 22.04 – Use and Development of Land in the Farming Zone and Rural Living Zone;

2. The proposed use and development is contrary to the purpose and decision guidelines of the Farming Zone;

3. Use and development of a dwelling would not support and enhance agricultural production;

4. The proposed use and development will fragment agricultural land within the Farming Zone; and

5. The proposed use and development is contrary to the objectives and policy within Clause 22.05 as it has not been demonstrated that the proposed dwelling will not be affected by spray drift.


9.4. BUILDING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES (COM)

COM 47 APPOINTMENT OF NEW AUDIT AND RISK ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Responsible Director: Chief Executive Officer, Darren Fuzzard Responsible Officer: Director Corporate Support, Lucy Roffey Original Document: DOC/16/26543

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is for Council to appoint independent committee members to the Audit and Risk Advisory Committee.

2. Background

The terms of the independent members Alan Honey and Garry Johnstone concluded on 30 June 2016 and a process to recruit new members of the Committee was undertaken. The June meeting of the Audit and Risk Advisory Committee was the last meeting attended by these two members.


Relevant policies, strategies and plans

It has been mandatory since 2004 for councils to establish an Audit Committee as an advisory committee under Section 139 of the Local Government Act.

The Audit and Risk Advisory Charter outlines the following membership requirements:

The Committee will be comprised of up to six members as follows:

• Two Councillors; • At least three independent members, one of whom shall be appointed as

Chairperson of the Committee by Council upon a recommendation of the Chief Executive Officer.

Appointment of independent member shall be made by Council following a public advertisement process. The evaluation of potential members shall be undertaken by the Mayor, a Councillor who is a member of the Committee and the Chief Executive Officer.

Initial members of the committee shall be appointed for an initial term of up to three years and are eligible to be reappointed after the expiry of their terms to a maximum of three terms or nine years.

4. Issues

The position for membership to the Audit and Risk Advisory Committee was advertised in May and interviews conducted on 28 June. Two candidates were recommended for appointment, with terms to run for three years. The selection panel comprised the Mayor, Councillor Cole and the Acting CEO, Vicky Mason.

The two candidates put forward were Mr Glenn Sutherland and Ms Marina Bland.


Mr Sutherland has been on the Castlemaine Health Board of Management for 12 years and he has held roles on the Finance and Audit and Risk Committees with the Board. He has considerable understanding of governance, finance and risk management. Mr Sutherland is a local resident and actively involved in community engagement.

Ms Marina Bland is employed with the Department of Defence and holds the position of Risk Manager for the branch and has a good understanding of strategic and operational risk and brings to the Committee an understanding of working within a government environment. Marina has considerable experience in internal auditing and previous experience working in local authorities positions in the UK.


The Audit and Risk Advisory Committee Charter states that “Remuneration will be paid to each independent member of the Committee (the basis shall be an annual fee, with an additional amount paid to the Chair, or a set fee per meeting, or another basis as appropriate)”.

Committee Members receive a fee of $250 per meeting with the Chair receiving an additional $250 per meeting. The total cost to Council is approximately $5,000 per annum.

6. Consultation

Referee checks were undertaken and both candidates considered suitable for membership to the Audit and Risk Advisory Committee.

7. Conclusion

The term of appointment of two members of the Audit and Risk Advisory Committee expired on 30 June 2016. Both Committee members did not seek reappointment and a process was undertaken to fill the vacant positions. Interviews were held and referee checks were conducted. Two suitable candidates were put forward for appointment, namely Mr Glenn Sutherland and Ms Marina Bland.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council appoint Mr Glenn Sutherland and Ms Marina Bland as independent members of the Audit and Risk Advisory Committee for a three year period commencing 1 August 2016.


COM 48 AWARDING OF CONTRACT M1260-2016 FOR GABION RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION HARCOURT-SUTTON GRANGE ROAD HARCOURT

Responsible Director: Director Sustainable Development Responsible Officer: Manager Infrastructure Original Document: DOC/16/23934

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to consider and determine the awarding of tender M1260-2016 for Gabion Retaining Wall Construction Harcourt-Sutton Grange Road Harcourt.

Refer to:

Confidential Attachment COM 48A: Tender Evaluation Report, Contract M1260-2016 for Gabion Retaining Wall Construction Harcourt-Sutton Grange Road Harcourt.

2. Background

This contract is to construct a gabion type retaining wall to support a section of Harcourt-Sutton Grange Road fronting 410 Harcourt Sutton Grange Road Harcourt.

Mount Alexander Shire experienced heavy rain in 2011 resulting in localised flash flooding that affected this site. This particular section of road was exposed to massive surface runoffs which caused severe erosion of the road shoulders and creek embankment. As a result of this severe erosion the adjoining creek embankment became unstable.

Further water flows from the embankment above this road has caused gradual erosion of the embankment below. In addition a creek that flows at the bottom of the embankment is undermining the embankment from below. Both these issues are causing further damage, creating the risk of collapse of the embankment and road.

The need to undertake works to stabilise this embankment was identified and included in the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 budgets. Options to resolve this issue were explored in 2015/2016. The most suitable solution identified was construction of a gabion retaining wall. The project has been approved for funding under the Roads to Recovery Program.

Tenders were invited from suitably qualified contractors for Contract M1260-2016, Gabion Retaining Wall Construction Harcourt-Sutton Grange Road Harcourt by advertisement in The Age and Bendigo Advertiser on 16 April 2016 and the Midland Express on 19 April 2016.

Tender documentation was available for download from Council’s e-Tender website from Saturday 16 May 2016.


Council’s Road Management Plan highlights the requirements for responsible asset management with consideration of expected service delivery, management


of public risk, optimising asset life, efficient use of available resources and developing long term strategies for improvement.

The Local Government Act 1989 provides relevant direction to Local Government in regards to procurement and contracts. Section 186 of the Local Government Act requires Councils to undertake competitive market testing processes before entering into contracts for purchase of goods or services or for the carrying out of works for the value of $200,000 or above. The Act imposes specific restrictions on Council in regard to entering such contracts.

Important provisions within Section 186 include minimum standard processes for giving public notice of the purpose of contracts in excess of the value of $200,000. Nothing in Section 186 of the Local Government Act requires Council to accept the lowest tender or to accept any tender.

Clause 208 of the Local Government Act – ‘Best Value Principles’ requires Local Governments to comply with the Best Value principles, specifically in this instance the need for Council services to meet quality and cost standards, and further provides a number of factors that may be looked at in applying the principles of Best Value.

All goods and services purchased by Council must be compliant with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, the Dangerous Goods Act, Equipment (Public Safety) Act 1987, and associated regulations and codes of practice whenever applicable.

The tender process has been conducted in accordance to the conditions included within the Mount Alexander Procurement Policy. The tender evaluation criteria within Council’s Procurement Policy help to ensure competition in the supply of goods and services and products to Council and supports administrative consistency and fairness through transparency in Council’s decision making.

4. Issues

At the commencement of the tender process and following the close of the tender period, the tender evaluation panel completed conflict of interest and confidentiality declarations. No known conflicts were declared at either stage.

At the closing date of 2.00pm, Friday 6 May 2016, ten conforming tenders were received, from the firms listed below:

Tenderer

Services South East P/L

Whelans Group Investments Pty Ltd

Bitu- mil ( Civil ) Pty Ltd

Foundation Supportworks Australia Pty Ltd

Elite Retaining Systems Pty Ltd /Australian Marine & Civil

Groundtechgeo Supplies and Services Pty Ltd

BLR Provincial Construction

Mad Cat Constructions ( VIC) Pty Ltd


McClure Civil Management

Prospect Contractors Pty Ltd

The Tender Evaluation Panel met on 12 May 2016 to complete a preliminary evaluation of all tenders received for shortlisting purposes. All tenders were evaluated against the pre-determined shortlisting criteria, being:

1. Cost to Council 2. Experience and Qualifications 3. Response to Specification

Four tenderers were shortlisted and interviewed by the tender evaluation panel.

All shortlisted tenderers were asked to explain their program and methodology, previous relevant experience and projects, their crew make-up, subcontractors and suppliers.

At the conclusion of interviews, the tender evaluation panel reviewed the scoring from the preliminary evaluation and evaluated each of the shortlisted tenderers against the remaining tender evaluation criteria below:

1. Risk and Quality Management 2. Business and Financial Capacity 3. Sustainability

As this public tender was estimated to be valued above $250,000 (GST inclusive), Economic Impact Statements were requested to be submitted by tenderers as part of this tender process.

The Economic Impact Statements were not considered as part of this evaluation as tenderers are not within 5% of the highest rank tenderer.

Following a detailed evaluation against the pre-determined evaluation criteria and weightings, the tender evaluation panel recommend the awarding of the contract to Mad Cat Constructions (VIC) Pty Ltd for $ 257,427.50 (GST exclusive).


This project is being fully funded through Roads to Recovery Program funding.

Public tenders were sought to construct a gabion retaining wall based on the design provided to Council by independent engineering consultants. Ten responses were received ranging in price from $257,427.50 to $574,456.14.

The preferred tenderer has submitted a sum of $257,427.50 (GST exclusive) which is within the budget allocated for this project. This price includes construction of the gabion wall and a contingency.

In addition to this contract cost there will be additional costs including:

• Costs of legal agreement with the adjoining land-owner, as access will be required to their land to construct and maintain the structure.

• Project management costs.


6. Consultation

A comprehensive capital works development process was undertaken prior to the decision by Council to proceed with these works. This included consultation with the adjoining land-owner who is most affected by the works. The adjoining land owner is supportive of the solution to prevent erosion of the road.

A Tender Evaluation Panel was formed to plan the tender process, evaluate tender submissions received and make a recommendation to Council on the awarding of a contract. The panel included staff from Councils Infrastructure, Procurement and Governance Units.

7. Conclusion

Council invited tenders for the construction of a gabion retaining wall at Harcourt-Sutton Grange Road Harcourt. Ten conforming tenders were received by the closing time of 2.00pm, Friday 16 May 2016.

The ten conforming tenders were evaluated using predetermined evaluation criteria and weightings. This evaluation included a preliminary evaluation to shortlist tenderers, interviews of shortlisted tenderers and a final evaluation.

Following a detailed evaluation the preferred tenderer is Mad Cat Constructions (VIC) Pty Ltd for a contract price of $257,427.50 (GST exclusive).

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Award Contract M1260-2016 for Gabion Retaining Wall Construction Harcourt-Sutton Grange Road to Mad Cat Constructions (VIC) Pty Ltd for a contract price of $257,427.50 (GST exclusive); and

2. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to sign and affix the Common Seal to the contract documentation for Contract M1260-2016 for Gabion Retaining Wall Construction Harcourt-Sutton Grange Road Harcourt.


10. DELEGATES REPORTS

11. NOTICES OF MOTION

11.1. NOTICE OF MOTION 2016/06 – THANKS TO ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Moved Councillor Machin

That Council formally acknowledge:

1. The commitment and leadership that Director Sustainable Communities, Ms Vicky Mason, has shown and the support she has been offered by her team during the 15 weeks that Ms Mason was Acting Chief Executive Officer of Mount Alexander Shire Council; and

2. The work that all members of the Leadership Team have undertaken to ensure the smooth and efficient running of the organisation.

Rationale

Vicky Mason commenced the role of Acting Chief Executive Officer on 4 April 2016 and continued in that role until 17 July 2016. In welcoming our new Chief Executive Officer, Mr Darren Fuzzard, it is important to acknowledge the work that Ms Mason and the Leadership Team undertook to ensure the continued delivery of services and to ensure a smooth handover to the new Chief Executive Officer.

Councillors have welcomed the collaboration and progress made in the short time that Ms Mason led the organisation.

11.2. NOTICE OF MOTION 2016/07 - REQUESTING THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING TO PROGRESS AND FINALISE AMENDMENT C36 TO THE MOUNT ALEXANDER PLANNING SCHEME REGARDING TARRAN VALLEY.

Moved Councillor Telford

That Council:

1. Write to the Minister for Planning seeking the Minister progress and finalise Mount Alexander Planning Scheme Amendment C36 (Tarran Valley); and

2. Write to Maree Edwards MP, requesting that she urge the Minister for Planning to progress and finalise Mount Alexander Planning Scheme Amendment C36 (Tarran Valley).

Rationale

In March 2007 Mount Alexander Planning Scheme Amendment C36 was authorised. The amendment relates to a 125 hectare site, known as Tarran Valley, located approximately 2 kilometres south east of Maldon. The amendment seeks to rezone the land from Farming Zone to Rural Living Zone (RLZ) and apply a Development Plan Overlay to the subject land.


In March 2009, after a panel hearing, Council adopted the amendment and submitted it to the Minister for Planning for approval.

In February 2010 there was a Ministerial decision on Amendment C36 to defer consideration of the amendment until after the release of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission final report. This report was released in July 2010.

In May 2014 Amendment C36 was considered by the Bushfire Management Overlay Standing Advisory Committee (BMOSAC). In July 2015 the BMOSAC report was released by the Minister for Planning.

On 28 June 2015, the Minister for Planning established the Tarran Valley Rezoning Advisory Committee (the Committee) to examine the appropriateness of Amendment C36 to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme. Hearings were held in November 2015.

The Minister for Planning has received the Tarran Valley Rezoning Advisory Committee report. The report has not been publically released or the amendment progressed.

Council has supported the rezoning of the land since 2007, and has now presented this case at a panel hearing and two advisory committee hearings. Council’s formal role as decision maker ceased when it submitted the amendment to the Minister for Planning in April 2009.

It is appropriate that Council request the Minister for Planning to progress and finalise Amendment C36.

11.3. NOTICE OF MOTION 2016/08 – COALTION RETURN TO GOVERNMENT, FOLLOW UP ON PROMISED FUNDING BY COALITION DURING THE ELECTION.

Moved Councillor Machin

That Council write to the Honourable Malcom Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia:

1. Congratulating him on his return to government; and

2. Seeking an indication of when the promised funding for the Wesley Hill Sports Stadium, the eradication of cactus and the installation of solar panels will be received.

Rationale

During the Federal election campaign the Liberal Party Candidate, Ms Megan Purcell, promised that if the Coalition were to be returned to Government then Mount Alexander Shire would receive funding for improvements to the netball courts at the Wesley Hill Stadium ($1.9m), funding for the Green army to work for six months on cactus eradication and $15,000 for solar panels for community buildings.

The Coalition has formed Government and it would assist Council planning to know when those promises will be fulfilled.


12. URGENT SPECIAL BUSINESS

13. MEETING CLOSE


agenda for the ordinary meeting of council … · bet 10 contract extension m819-2011 management...

Documents