council meeting agenda 27 march 2013

AGENDA

Ordinary Meeting of

Council

6.00pm Wednesday 27 March, 2013

VENUE: Reception Room, Bendigo Town Hall, Hargreaves Street, Bendigo NEXT MEETING: Wednesday 17 April, 2013 Bendigo Town Hall

Copies of the City of Greater Bendigo Council’s Agendas & Minutes

can be obtained online at www.bendigo.vic.gov.au

Council will realise its vision by setting strategic objectives, strategies and committing to annual actions within four Goal Areas:

• Built and Natural Environment

• Economic Development

• Community and Culture

• Our People, Our Processes

Vision GREATER BENDIGO will be the best place to live work and visit, where:

• growth and living standards are managed to sustain and enhance quality of life

• a regional culture of learning, creativity and innovation allows people to flourish

• its rich natural and cultural heritage is conserved for today and tomorrow

• resilience, local spirit and identity are proudly celebrated.

Values Council will achieve its vision by working with the community and business, displaying leadership in its decision-making, operating in an open manner and basing decisions on sound information.

Goal Areas

ORDINARY MEETING WEDNESDAY 27 MARCH 2013 ORDER OF BUSINESS: ITEM PRECIS PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY 3

PRAYER 3

PRESENT 3

APOLOGIES 3

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 3

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 3

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS 4

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST 5

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 6

1. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS 6

2. BUILT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 7

2.1 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C160 - REZONING OF LAND IN DUNCAN COURT, JUNORTOUN - CONSIDER AUTHORISATION REQUEST

7

2.2 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C164 - REZONING OF 128 VICTORIA STREET, EAGLEHAWK TO INDUSTRIAL 3 ZONE

17

2.3 ADOPT PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C186 TO UPDATE THE PLANNING CONTROLS FOR THE FORMER CRYSTAL ICE AND GILLIES PIE FACTORY SITES

26

2.4 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE NBN FACILITIES 32

2.5 TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO/THREE STOREY DWELLING, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, EXTENSION AND ALTERATION TO EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF DETACHED GARAGE FOR EXISTING DWELLING - 308 BARNARD STREET, IRONBARK

64

2.6 SUBDIVIDE LAND INTO TEN LOTS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TEN DWELLINGS - LOT 18 OF PS 638645 T -15 WESLEY STREET/ 17 GRANTHAM TERRACE,

86

KANGAROO FLAT

2.7 CONSTRUCTION OF A CARPORT - 11 SHAMROCK STREET, GOLDEN SQUARE

103

2.8 GREATER BENDIGO RESIDENTIAL STRATEGY REVIEW ISSUES AND OPTIONS PAPER

109

2.9 PROPOSED INCREASES TO VCAT FEES 116

3. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 119

3.1 PRIORITIES FOR GREATER BENDIGO - ADVOCATING TO STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS

119

3.2 BENDIGO AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT

122

4. COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 125

4.1 COUNCIL PLAN 2013-2017 - DRAFT FOR EXHIBITION 125

4.2 DOMESTIC ANIMAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012-2016 12 9

4.3 KANGAROO FLAT AQUATIC LEISURE CENTRE - PROJECT UPDATE

135

5. OUR PEOPLE, OUR PROCESSES 138

5.1 CONTRACTS AWARDED UNDER DELEGATION 138

5.2 RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES 139

5.3 FIRE SERVICES PROPERTY LEVY 145

5.4 PROVISION OF LOAN BORROWINGS 149

5.5 PRICING POLICY 151

6. URGENT BUSINESS 162

7. NOTICES OF MOTION 163

7.1 NOTICE OF MOTION: FORTUNA 163

8. COUNCILLORS' REPORTS 164

9. MAYOR'S REPORT 164

10. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT 164

11. CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS 164

11.1 Any other matter which the Council or special committee considers would prejudice the Council or any person

164

____________________________

CRAIG NIEMANN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Ordinary Meeting - 27 March 2013

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

PRAYER

PRESENT

APOLOGIES

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

That Standing Orders be suspended to allow a presentation of the recently received Award from the Institute of Public Administration Australia for Innovation in Partnership presented to the City of Greater Bendigo, Public Records Office and Goldfields Library Corporation for the Bendigo Regional Archive Centre and the conduct of Public Question Time.

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Public Question Time Guidelines Public Question Time – Purpose Council has provided the opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of broad interest to Council and the community. Matters relating to routine Council works should be taken up with Council’s Customer Service Officers through its Customer Request System. By the time planning matters have reached the council agenda, they have been through an extensive process as required by the Planning and Environment Act. In addition, in most instances mediation has been held between the parties involved. Throughout the process there are many opportunities for the people to ask questions. Therefore, no questions relating to planning matters on the Agenda will be accepted. Public Question Time – Where, When And Who The public question time is held at every Ordinary Meeting of Greater Bendigo City Council. Meetings of Council commence at 6.00pm in the Reception Room, Bendigo Town Hall, Hargreaves Street, Bendigo. The public question time is held at the start of the meeting as close as practical to 6:00pm. A maximum of 30 minutes has been provided for registered and unregistered questions. Residents are encouraged to lodge questions in advance so that a more complete response can be provided.


PAGE 4

Questions will be put to the Council by the individual posing the question; the question will be answered by the Mayor or CEO, or where appropriate, Councillors or Council Officers. Acceptance of Questions Each person asking a question of Council is required to stand, state their name, and address the Mayor. Public Question Time is not an opportunity for making of statements or other comments. Council’s Meeting Procedure Local Law does not allow for other questions or comments during the remainder of the meeting. 1. An individual may only ask one question per meeting, a follow-up question may be

permitted at the discretion of the Mayor. 2. In the event that the same or similar question is raised by more than one person, an

answer may be given as a combined response. 3. In the event that time does not permit all questions registered to be answered,

questions will be answered in writing or referred to the next meeting if appropriate. 4. The Mayor and or CEO have the right to decline registration on basis of:

• Prosecution, summonses or any other litigation; • Most appropriately addressed by other means; • Vague, irrelevant, insulting or improper, defamatory; • Answer likely to compromise his / her position; • Confidential, commercial-in-confidence.

5. Each individual whose registration form has been accepted or declined will be

advised by the Friday of the week prior to the scheduled meeting. 6. In the event of a registration form being declined the registration form will be

circulated to the Mayor or Councillors for information.

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

That Standing Orders be resumed.


PAGE 5

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Pursuant to Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Local Gov ernment Act 1989 (as amended) direct and indirect conflict of interest m ust be declared prior to debate on specific items within the agenda; or in writing to the Chief Executive Officer before the meeting. Declaration of indirect intere sts must also include the classification of the interest (in circumstances wh ere a Councillor has made a Declaration in writing, the classification of the i nterest must still be declared at the meeting), i.e. (a) direct financial interest (b) indirect interest by close association (c) indirect interest that is an indirect financial interest (d) indirect interest because of conflicting duties (e) indirect interest because of receipt of an app licable gift (f) indirect interest as a consequence of becoming an interested party (g) indirect interest as a result of impact on resi dential amenity (h) conflicting personal interest A Councillor who has declared a conflict of interes t, must leave the meeting and remain outside the room while the matter is being c onsidered, or any vote is taken. Councillors are also encouraged to declare circumst ances where there may be a perceived conflict of interest.


PAGE 6

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Wednesday 6 March, 2013. The following items were considered at the Ordinary Council meeting held on Wednesday 6 March, 2013 at 6:00pm. • Adopt Planning Scheme Amendment C145 - New Catholic School, Maiden Gully • Planning Scheme Amendment C197 - Rezoning of 10-14 Mackenzie Street, Bendigo

(View Hill) to Business 5 and Amend Overlays to Facilitate Redevelopment, Consider Authorisation Request

• Planning Scheme Amendment C195 - Industrial C195 - Industrial 3 Rezoning - Consideration of Authorisation Request: 41-45 Ham Street, 47-65 Ham Street and 195 Allingham Street, Golden Square

• Planning Scheme Amendment C162 - Implementing the Former Marong Heritage Study (Heritage Policy Citations) Part 2

• Subdivision of the Land into 19 Lots - 51 Taylors Lane, Strathfieldsaye • Four Lot Subdivision and Construction of Two Dwellings - 1 Albion Street and 47

Condon Street, Kennington • Advertising Signs - 3 Kennedy Street, East Bendigo • Response to Long Gully Swimming Pool Petition • Fortuna - Proposed Sale of Property by the Department of Defence (Australian

Government) • Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2009-2013 • Record of Assemblies • Contracts Awarded Under Delegation • General Valuation of Rateable Land 2014 • Risk Management Framework • Awarding of Tender for Appointment of Consultants to Conduct the Independent

Review of Council • Notice of Motion - Golden Square Swimming Pool The unconfirmed minutes have also been posted on the City of Greater Bendigo website pending confirmation at this meeting. RECOMMENDATION That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Wednesday 6 March, 2013, as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed.

1. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS

Nil.

Built and Natural Environment - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 27 March 2013

PAGE 7

2. BUILT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

2.1 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C160 - REZONING OF LA ND IN DUNCAN COURT, JUNORTOUN - CONSIDER AUTHORISATION REQUEST

Document Information

Author Shannon Rosewarne, Senior Planner Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and D evelopment Director

Summary/Purpose

The proposal is a combined Planning Scheme Amendment and Planning Permit Application which seeks to rezone and subdivide land forming part of the McIvor Forest Estate, and rezone two reserves owned by Council to correct an anomaly in the Planning Scheme. The Amendment request has been made by Spiire on behalf of McIvor Forest Estate Pty Ltd. The key issues identified in the proposal are:

• Correction of zoning anomaly; • Removal of native vegetation; • Subdivision of land; • Combined Amendment and permit process. The purpose of this report is to recommend to Council that it request permission from the Minister for Planning to start the formal process of Planning Scheme Amendment C160.

Policy Context

City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2009 – 2013 (updated 2012)

1. Built and Natural Environment Strategic Objectives: • Value, conserve and enhance the rich built and natural heritage. • Achieve high quality outcomes in planning and policy activities. • Encourage and foster high quality design to create environments that support

public wellbeing and economic success.


PAGE 8

Background Information

Prior to the introduction of the current Planning Scheme, the subject land was proposed for a cluster development with smaller residential lots offset and surrounded by larger rural residential lots. When the Victoria Planning Provisions were introduced, Residential 1 Zoning was applied over the area proposed for conventional sized lots and Low Density Residential Zone was applied over the larger rural residential land. The unusual zone boundary follows the alignment of the proposed development at that time. The cluster development did not proceed and the land has since been developed in a more conventional subdivision layout. This has resulted in an anomaly with the zone boundary and a number of lots and two Council reserves now fall within two zones. The City was approached by Spiire on behalf of the landowners to change the zoning to allow for a conventional residential subdivision. The City recommended a planning permit application be combined with the Amendment so that one process would be required. Although the Council owned reserves are encumbered with power easements, Public Park and Recreation Zone is the most appropriate zone for these parcels, as they have been reserved for public open space and are used for informal walking tracks. There are four other parcels of privately owned land in two zones in nearby McIvor Forest Drive and Shetland Road. However, given the separation of the two areas and the combined permit and rezoning process to facilitate the proposed subdivision, it is recommended that these four additional properties not be included as part of this Amendment. Previous Council Decisions Planning Permit DS/1001/2003 – issued on 15 April 2004 and still current - Staged Subdivision of McIvor Forest Estate, also allows for the removal of native vegetation.

Report

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 allows for a Planning Scheme Amendment to be initiated by a municipal Council, or a Council can respond to a request for an Amendment by any person or body. When requesting authorisation from the Minister for Planning, an Explanatory Report must be submitted that discusses the purpose, effects and strategic justification for the Amendment. (Full copy attached). The key steps in the amendment process are summarised below:


PAGE 9

Land Affected by the Amendment The Amendment applies to: • Lot S PS645134 • Lot 92 PS539711, known as 6 Duncan Court • Lot 93 PS539711, known as 9-10 Duncan Court • Lot 94 PS539711, known as 11 Duncan Court • Res 1 CS1241, known as 1 McIvor Forest Drive (Council owned) • Res 2 CS1241, known as 1 McIvor Forest Drive (Council owned) • Part of the road reserve for McIvor Forest Drive


PAGE 10

The subject land is located south of Trotting Terrace and to the east of Cassinia Drive. Lot S is a superlot created as part of the McIvor Forest Estate. The land is relatively flat with a number of scattered trees throughout. Only the northern portion of this property is affected by the Amendment. Most of this property is already zoned Residential 1 Zone, except for the odd shaped area in the north zoned Low Density Residential. Lot 92 (8 Duncan Court) contains a dwelling and is predominantly zoned Residential 1 with the north west corner of the property falling within the Low Density Residential Zone. Lot 93 (9-10 Duncan Court) and Lot 94 (11 Duncan Court) are vacant and are predominantly zoned Low Density Residential with small sections along their eastern boundaries zoned Residential 1. The property known as 1 McIvor Forest Drive comprises two freehold parcels owned by Council. This land contains high voltage overhead powerlines and it is encumbered by an Electricity Transmission Easement. These properties also have dual zoning. A planning permit application (DS/539/2012), for subdivision of the two lots immediately south of the superlot, is currently being considered. To the east, conventional residential development exists, while to the north and west of the site there are low density residential allotments, most of which contain dwellings. Further to the west, opposite the adjacent low density residential area is the Greater Bendigo National Park.

Figure 1: Map identifying the subject land What the Amendment Does The Amendment proposes to: • Rezone the following land from Residential 1 Zone and Low Density Residential Zone

to Public Park and Recreation Zone: o Res 1 CS1241 o Res 2 CS1241


PAGE 11

• Rezone the following land from Low Density Residential Zone to Residential 1 Zone:

o Lot S PS645134 o Lot 92 PS539711 o Lot 93 PS539711 o Lot 94 PS539711 o Part of the road reserve for McIvor Forest Drive

• Remove Schedule 4 from the Development Plan Overlay from the following land:

o Lot S PS645134 o Lot 92 PS539711 o Lot 93 PS539711 o Lot 94 PS539711 o Res 1 CS1241 What the Planning Permit Does The planning application proposes a subdivision of 36 lots which range from 628-14,55 square metres in area. The proposed Outline Development Plan shows how the subdivision will fit within the estate and how it relates to the surrounding development.

Figure 2: Proposed McIvor Forest Outline Development Plan


PAGE 12

Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts The Amendment will have positive social and economic effects as it will result in the efficient use of underutilised parcels within an existing urban area. The Amendment will facilitate residential development at a range of lot sizes. Development of the land will deliver employment opportunities during the construction period. A Biodiversity Assessment was undertaken by ERM Australia Pty Ltd in 2003 for the entire McIvor Forest Estate, including the subject land. Planning Permit DS/1001/2003 allows for the removal of the remaining vegetation on the subject land and appropriate offsets have been provided to compensate for the removal of this vegetation. The Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) will remain in place over the western part of open space reserve Res 1 CS1241. The BMO is not required to be applied to any of the other land subject to this Amendment. The proposed subdivision will not increase the bushfire risk for the subject site and there is sufficient separation from vegetated areas. Strategic Justification in Planning Context The Amendment is consistent with the following policies contained within the State and Local Planning Policy Framework:

• Clause 11 Settlement • Clause 11.05-1 Regional settlement networks • Clause 11.05-5 Regional planning strategies and principles • Clause 13.05 Bushfire planning strategies and principles • Clause 12 Environment and Landscape • Clause 16 Housing • Clause 19 Infrastructure • Clause 21.05 Settlement • Clause 21.06 Housing • Clause 21.08 Environment • Clause 22.01 Development at Urban-Forest Interface policy The Amendment responds to strategies within the State Planning Policy and Municipal Strategic Statement which increase the supply of housing in existing urban areas by facilitating increased housing yield in appropriate locations, including under-utilised urban land. The Amendment will allow for increased residential density and more efficient use of land, with the subject site located in an area able to be serviced by existing infrastructure. The subdivision site is not located within a Bushfire Management Overlay, however the Amendment has demonstrated how bushfire risk will be addressed. The overall development of the McIvor Forest Estate followed the three step approach as set out by Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – a framework for action, in considering the loss of native vegetation. A biodiversity assessment was undertaken by ERM Australia Pty Ltd in 2003 for the McIvor Forest Estate, including land subject to this Amendment.


PAGE 13

The assessment did not identify any threatened species or viable habitats of those species previously recorded in the vicinity. Planning approval was granted to remove native vegetation and appropriate net gain offsets have been delivered to compensate for the removal of this vegetation. The site is located within the Urban Growth Boundary. The City of Greater Bendigo Residential Development Strategy (2004) encourages urban containment within existing residential areas.

Consultation/Communication

The planning application has been referred to all the relevant authorities including DSE, CFA, Coliban Water, Powercor, Tenix and Telstra, and internal departments including the City’s Engineering Unit. No concerns were raised about the proposed subdivision and conditions requested by the authorities will be included in the draft planning permit. CFA advised that the Explanatory report should be amended to address bushfire risk. The report has been amended accordingly. Comments were sought from internal departments regarding the rezoning of the two reserves. The proposal is supported by the City’s Building & Property and Parks & Environment Units. The Amendment documents will be publicly exhibited for a minimum of a month, as required under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The City must give notice of Amendments to all owners and occupiers who may be materially affected by an Amendment, together with prescribed Ministers and public authorities. The Amendment will also be exhibited in the Government Gazette and the Bendigo Advertiser newspaper. It is not anticipated that there will be significant interest in the Amendment from adjoining land owners.

Conclusion

Planning Scheme Amendment C160 proposes to rezone land for residential purposes due to changes in development expectations. The rezoning will facilitate residential development of the land and allow for a range of lot sizes, and will also rezone adjoining land reserved for public open space, to a more appropriate zone. It is recommended that Council seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the Amendment.

Options

Council has the option of: • Supporting the Amendment proposal and making a request to the Minister for

Planning to authorise preparation and exhibition of the Amendment. • Refusing the request to prepare an Amendment. Under the Planning and

Environment Act 1987 there is no right of review of a council's decision not to support preparation of an Amendment.


PAGE 14

Resource Implications

Officer time will be required to prepare the Amendment documentation for authorisation, exhibition, manage the exhibition process and liaise with the Minister for Planning. The proponent has agreed to pay for the statutory fees and extra costs incurred by the City as per the Policy for private Planning Scheme Amendments adopted by Council. It is not expected that the Amendment will have a significant impact on future resources.

Attachments

• Explanatory Report • Draft Planning Permit DS/594/2012

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to: 1. Request the Minister for Planning to authorise Council to prepare Amendment

C160 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. 2. When Authorised by the Minister, exhibit Amendment C160 to the Greater

Bendigo Planning Scheme giving notification as required for the minimum statutory exhibition period of one month.


PAGE 15


PAGE 16

Proposed Plan of Subdivision


PAGE 17

2.2 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C164 - REZONING OF 12 8 VICTORIA STREET, EAGLEHAWK TO INDUSTRIAL 3 ZONE


Author Shannon Rosewarne, Senior Planner Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and D evelopment Director

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the submissions received to Amendment C164 so it can make a final decision about whether to adopt the Amendment. Amendment C164 seeks to rezone land at 128 Victoria Street from Special Use Zone 1 (Private Educational or Religious Institutions) to Industrial 3 Zone, and apply an Environmental Audit Overlay and new schedule to the Design and Development Overlay, so that CVGT can sell the land. Public exhibition was carried out from 8 November to 13 December 2012 and six submissions were received, none of which object to the Amendment. The Albert Roy Recreation Reserve User Group, initially objected to the Amendment, however, after consultation with the City’s Statutory Planning and Recreation units, this submitter withdrew its objection. The Group instead requested that its concerns relating to the need for a master plan and for additional car parking facilities be noted by Council. The key issues relating to this Amendment are: • Consistency with the Eaglehawk Township Structure Plan; • Ensuring appropriate planning controls are in place to allow for a range of uses,

including sensitive uses; • The site’s interface with parkland; • The site’s interface with adjoining residential development and how amenity impacts

can be managed. It is recommended that Council adopt Planning Scheme Amendment C164 without changes, to complete Council's requirements in the planning scheme amendment process.

Policy Context


1. Built and Natural Environment Strategic Objectives: • Value, conserve and enhance the rich built and natural heritage.


PAGE 18

• Achieve high quality outcomes in planning and policy activities. • Encourage and foster high quality design to create environments that support



CVGT purchased this property in 1996 from the City of Greater Bendigo and since then has been using it to run training for apprentices and government-funded skill development programmes. CVGT has now expanded and changed its operations to more ‘on-the-job’ training and as a result, this site has become redundant to CVGT's future needs. A rezoning of the site will facilitate the sale of the property. A rezoning from Special Use Zone 1 (Private Educational and Religious Institutions) to Industrial 3 Zone will allow for a wider range of uses to be conducted from the site. Industrial 3 Zone was selected because it closer reflects the existing use and is designed to accommodate light industrial uses near residential areas and therefore, it will not compromise the existing adjacent Residential 1 Zone nor Industrial 1 zoned properties.


PAGE 19

Previous Council Decisions 4 September 2012 - Council resolved to request the Minister’s authorisation to prepare and exhibit the amendment for one month. 4 September 2012 – Council adopted the Eaglehawk Township Structure Plan.

Report

The attached Explanatory Report details the purpose and effect of the amendment and provides the strategic justification for the amendment. Key issues identified in the Explanatory Report are discussed below.


PAGE 20

Land Affected by the Amendment The Amendment affects land at 128 Victoria Street, Eaglehawk.

Figure 1 : Existing Zoning of the subject site and of its surrounds The total area of the land affected by the Amendment is approximately 1.95 hectares and is zoned Special Use Zone 1 - Private Educational or Religious Institutions (SUZ1). It is developed with a single storey building and surrounding car parking which takes up approximately one third of the site. In its south-eastern corner, is a storage shed of approximately 200 square metres. The land is generally flat but slopes slightly towards a creek line to its rear. The land does not contain any significant vegetation. The land has been used for mining in the past as indicated by the presence of former mine shafts on and around the site. The site was also used by the former Eaglehawk Municipal Council as a depot. The site is bounded by the Public Park and Recreation Zone (Albert Roy Recreation Reserve) to the west and south, Residential 1 Zone to the north and east and Industrial 1 Zone to the south-east. It has a frontage of approximately 150m with Victoria Street. Victoria Street is in a Road Zone Category 2 and it links the site to the Eaglehawk town centre located at approximately 500m to the north of the site. The Dahlia & Arts Festival Committee has been using the existing storage shed since prior to the sale of the land to CVGT in 1996. Although the shed was on the land at the time of its use as a depot, it is currently not on the City’s asset register. There was apparently a verbal agreement between the City’s Property Unit and CVGT that the Dahlia & Arts Festival Committee could continue to use the shed. However, there is no such written agreement on record. What the Amendment Does The Amendment proposes to:


PAGE 21

• Rezone the subject site from Special Use Zone 1 (Private Educational or Religious Institutions) to Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z); and

• Apply a Schedule of the Design & Development Overlay (DDO); and • Apply the Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to the site. Key Issues The social, economic and environmental effects of the Amendment have been considered in assessment of this proposal. The key issues relating to this amendment are: • Ensuring appropriate planning controls are in place to allow for a range of uses,

including sensitive uses • The site’s interface with parkland • The site’s interface with adjoining residential development and how amenity impacts

can be managed • Consistency with the Eaglehawk Township Structure Plan

The proposed IN3Z will allow a wider range of uses compared to the existing SUZ1 and so, will increase the potential of employment opportunities close to the town centre. Under the zone, offices would also be allowed subject to a permit. The IN3Z is intended as a buffer zone for Residential Zones and most uses within the zone will require planning approval. This will ensure that uses with off-site impacts are either prohibited or would be subject to strict scrutiny through a planning permit process. The proposed EAO is required because the site is potentially contaminated due to its former use as a municipal depot and for mining. There is anecdotal evidence that during its period as a depot, the site contained petroleum tanks, fuel bowsers and contaminated fill materials and this has exposed the site to significant risks of contamination. The application of an EAO to the site will ensure that before it can be used for any sensitive use permitted under the IN3Z, that it is audited and if required, cleaned up. Non-sensitive uses of the site will be permitted without the requirement for its clean-up or audit. To ensure that any future development of the site provides an attractive public interface to Victoria Street and to the surrounding park land, the schedule to the DDO will require the scale of future development to be appropriate to the surrounding area and will require a landscaped buffer along the southern boundary of the site. The other requirements of the DDO include controls on fencing and advertising and the transfer of a corner of the land (approximately 200m2) to Council to facilitate the creation of an open space linkage between the Eaglehawk town centre and the Albert Roy Recreation Reserve, as discussed in the Structure Plan. The proposed DDO requires that future developments must include measures that minimise adverse impacts on the residents in terms of visual presentation, noise and lighting. The Eaglehawk Township Structure Plan was adopted on 4 September 2012. The Structure Plan provides a broader context for this rezoning. The proposal is consistent with the Eaglehawk Structure Plan, which states that any future development on the CVGT site should be designed to provide an appropriate response to the park interface. The Design and Development Overlay will be applied to the site and provision has been made for future pedestrian links to the park.


PAGE 22


Exhibition Procedures Consultation occurred with external and internal departments before final documentation was lodged in March 2012 and prior to exhibition. The Amendment was formally exhibited between 8 November – 13 December 2012 with notification to: • 34 owners and occupiers of land affected by the amendment. • Exhibition of the Amendment was conducted for a one month period. • Notification of prescribed Ministers under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act. • Notification of all authorities and departments materially affected under Section

19(1)(a) of the Act. This included all usual departments and service authorities that are relevant to land use planning, as well as EPA, VicRoads and CFA.

• Publication of the notice of the Amendment in the Bendigo Advertiser on 3 and 10

November 2012. • Publication of the notice of the Amendment in the Government Gazette on 8

November 2012. Submissions Six submissions were received during the exhibition period. A summary of the submissions is provided below.

Submission Supports/Objects Recommendation

Department of Sustainability & Environment

Supports. No change to Amendment

North Central Catchment Management Authority

Supports. No change to Amendment

Country Fire Authority

No objection. No change to Amendment

VicRoads No objection. No change to Amendment.

Environment Protection Authority

No objection. Noted that Council will need to ensure that any proposed use of this site is suitable and there are site controls / methods to prevent / minimise environmental or human health impacts (i.e potential contamination issues). This

No change to Amendment. This issue will be addressed by the Environmental Audit Overlay which requires that a Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit


PAGE 23

Submission Supports/Objects Recommendation

especially applies to open spaces within the Amendment.

must be issued prior to any sensitive use of the site commencing.

Albert Roy Reserve User Group

No objection. The submitter initially objected to the Amendment; however after consultation with the City’s Statutory Planning and Recreation Units, the objection was withdrawn. The User Group’s concerns about the reserve did not directly relate to the rezoning of the subject land, but rather the future use and development of the Albert Roy Reserve, which can be addressed via other processes. The User Group requested that Council be advised of their concerns about the need for a master plan to be developed for the Albert Roy Reserve and for provision of additional parking.

No change to Amendment.

Conclusion

Given no submissions seek a change or object to the proposal, it is recommended that Council adopt the Amendment in its current form and seek approval from the Minister for Planning.

Options

Section 29(1) & (2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 states that a planning authority may adopt an amendment or part of an Amendment with or without changes. If a planning authority adopts part of an Amendment that part becomes a separate Amendment. Section 23(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires that in consideration of submissions received in relation to an amendment, the Council must either: • Change the Amendment in the manner requested by the submitters and adopt the

Amendment with changes; or • Refer the submission(s) to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister; or • Abandon the Amendment or part of the Amendment. No submissions have requested a change to the Amendment. It is therefore recommended that Council adopt the Amendment without changes.


PAGE 24


The amendment is not expected to have any adverse effects on the resources and administrative costs of the City of Greater Bendigo.

Attachments

• Explanatory Report • Submission from Albert Roy Reserve User Group

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to: 1. Adopt Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C164 without changes.

2. Forward the adopted Amendment to the Minister for Planning for Approval.

3. Note the concerns raised by the Albert Roy Reserve User Group.


PAGE 25

Aerial photo showing subject site.


PAGE 26

2.3 ADOPT PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C186 TO UPDATE THE PLANNING CONTROLS FOR THE FORMER CRYSTAL ICE AND GILLIES PIE FACTORY SITES


Author Philip DeAraugo, Activity Centres Place Mana ger Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and D evelopment Director

Summary/Purpose

This report informs Council of the submission received to Amendment C186 so that it can make a final decision about whether to adopt the Amendment. Amendment C186 seeks to update the planning controls that apply to the former Crystal Ice and Gillies sites to provide clarity and certainty as to what can be developed on the sites over time. The Amendment was publicly exhibited to neighbours and authorities with one supporting submission received. It is recommended that Council adopt Planning Scheme Amendment C186 without changes, to complete the Council’s requirements in the Planning Scheme Amendment process.

Policy Context

Council Plan 2009-2013 (Update 2012)

Built and Natural Environment 1.10. Provide clear planning policy direction and work to improve systems so that sound

decisions are made promptly for land use and sustainable development. The previous Council Plan (Update 2011) included an action relating to the Crystal Ice and Gillies sites and working towards development of a scale and type that would complement the remainder of the city centre and ensure heritage values are retained and interpreted when redeveloped. Strategy Reference.

The Bendigo CBD Plan 2005 is the guiding strategy for all projects in the Bendigo City Centre. The key aim of the Plan is to attract more people to the city centre for longer. The Plan includes a section on the former Crystal Ice and Gillies Pie Factory sites and refers to the combined sites as Precinct D. The Plan identifies the longer term vision for Precinct D as accommodating uses that are suited to large flat sites such as bulky goods, offices and residential, in a format that would be complementary to the remainder of the CBD.


PAGE 27


Up until around seven or eight years ago, the former Crystal Ice and Gillies sites were still being used for the production of ice and food manufacturing. The facilities were generally appropriate for these activities, as were the planning controls. However, with the closure of these businesses and the sale of the Crystal Ice site to a new owner there was a need to review the future uses of the site and to update the planning controls in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the precinct. The proposed updated planning controls are relatively simple in that they would: • Amend the schedule to the Business 2 Zone to increase the retail floorspace

limitation from 500sqm to 8,000sqm; • Apply the Heritage Overlay to five of the buildings across the site (generally the red

brick buildings at either end of the block fronting Garsed Street) • Amend the existing Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5 to identify that a

site specific control is now in place; • Introduce a site specific Schedule to the Design and Development Overlay based on

the agreed outcomes of the design workshops and heritage citations; • Amend Planning Scheme maps to reflect the above changes.


PAGE 28

Previous Council Decisions 17 December 2005 – Adoption of the Bendigo CBD Plan.

1 December 2010 – Council resolved to seek to apply heritage controls to Precinct D

26 September 2012 – Council resolved to request the Minister authorise the preparation of the Amendment and once prepared to exhibit the Amendment

Report

Precinct D of the Bendigo City Centre is held in two ownerships, the largest relating to the former Crystal Ice Factory and warehouses at 2/93, 95, 97 and 123 Garsed Street (approx. 21,800sqm), and the second being the former Gillies Pie Factory at 125-131 Garsed Street, Bendigo (approx. 3,600sqm). As can be seen in Figure 1, the site has street frontages to Garsed and Arthur Streets, and to a lesser degree to Myrtle Street. The site also has an interface with the Bendigo to Melbourne railway line along its southern boundary. Combined, the precinct has an area of just over 2.5ha.


PAGE 29

The precinct is currently zoned Business 2 Zone with a shop floorspace limit of 500sqm, is covered by Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5 (relating to the CBD Plan) and an Environmental Audit Overlay (in recognition of potential contamination of the site due to its former uses). Key stakeholder design workshops were held to understand the future potential of the site and the intentions of the landowners, the most recent in August 2011. The outcomes have heavily influenced the proposed updated planning controls and recognise the strategic importance of this major urban renewal site. If approved, the new controls will provide certainty for decision makers, investors and the community in regard to the land use mix, physical scale and requirement to include character and heritage elements when redeveloping the sites. To test the proposed controls an Economic Impact Assessment (Urbis April 2012) and Yield Analysis (MGS November 2012) were prepared. The economic analysis concluded that the Crystal Ice site provides a viable location for retail facilities within the Bendigo City Centre, with mixed commercial and residential use representing a positive regeneration of a currently inactive precinct. It is estimated that the site, once fully developed, is able to accommodate up to 8,000sqm of destination based and local generation retail floorspace. For example, destination based retail could include an Aldi, while local generation might be a café catering primarily to employees or residents in the new development. If 8,000sqm of retail floorspace was developed at the one time it is estimated that a one-off impact on CBD retailing of up to 5% could be expected. However, as the site is likely to be developed over several years including office and residential uses, the impact would be minimised and all retail precincts in the CBD would trade above current levels post development. The yield analysis confirmed that the site is capable of accommodating up to 300 apartments, 9,500sqm of office floorspace, 8,000sqm of retail floorspace and all the required car parking at these locations.


PAGE 30

Development of this scale is consistent with the floorspace projections included in the City’s Commercial Land Strategy 2005. Both landowners are currently working on preliminary redevelopment plans that are consistent with the controls proposed by Amendment C186.


The Amendment was exhibited between 17 January and 18 February 2013 in accordance with Section 19 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. During this time the landowners, surrounding landowners and occupiers, relevant authorities and prescribed Ministers were notified of the Amendment. A notice was published in the Bendigo Advertiser on Wednesday, 16 and Saturday, 19 January 2013 and in the Government Gazette on Thursday 17 January 2013. The Bendigo Weekly published a related story on Friday, 18 January and the City’s Place Manager was interviewed on ABC local radio on Thursday 24 January. At the close of submissions on 18 February 2013, one supporting submission had been received from the larger of the two landowners affected by the Amendment. The submission is from BMDA Development Advisory on behalf of their client and landowner of the former Crystal Ice site, Colonial First State Global Asset Management (CFSGAM). BMDA state that CFSGAM are relying on the approval of the Amendment so that they can proceed with the reinvestment and redevelopment of the site into a mixed-use area that includes retail, commercial and residential units. The submission also states that they believe it is imperative that the planning controls are updated in order to stimulate investor interest and attraction.

Conclusion

Planning Scheme Amendment C186 proposes to update the planning controls that apply to Precinct D of the Bendigo CBD Plan to facilitate its redevelopment in a format that landowners and key stakeholders have agreed to. The current planning controls are believed to be impacting on investor interest as they do not maximise the sites' potential or enable proposals that will ensure remediation and design outcomes while ensuring commercial viability. The proposed refinements to the planning controls will clearly articulate that the intent of landowners and the City is to work towards a development outcome that will benefit Greater Bendigo for many years to come. Given no submissions have been received that seek a change or object to the proposal, it is recommended that Council adopt the Amendment in its current form and seek approval from the Minister for Planning.

Options

Section 29(1) and (2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 states that a Planning Authority may adopt an Amendment or part of an Amendment with or without changes. The Planning Authority may abandon the amendment under Section 28 of the Act.


PAGE 31


Officer time will be required to finalise the Amendment documentation for approval. Officer time will also be required to assess future planning permit applications, however the clarity provided with the updated controls will ensure applications are lodged in accordance with the City’s expectations.

Attachments

• Submission from Colonial First State Global Asset Management

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to: 1. Adopt Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C186 without changes. 2. Forward the adopted Amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval.


PAGE 32

2.4 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE NBN FACILITIES


Author Peter O'Brien, Senior Planner Responsible Ross Douglas, Acting Director - Plannin g & Development Director

Summary/Purpose

The planning applications below are before Council as objections have been received:

• 17 Murphy Lane, LONGLEA - 5 objections. • 59 Travers Lane, HEATHCOTE - 5 objections. • 88 Redburns Lane, HEATHCOTE - 3 objections • 222 Wild Cherry Road, LOCKWOOD SOUTH – 13 objections. • 50 Francis Road, LOCKWOOD SOUTH – 7 objections.

All objections raise common issues including: perceived health impacts from electromagnetic radiation; visual impacts in rural landscapes, perceived potential for property devaluation; the existence of more suitable sites; potential for additional antennas being attached to the structure; potential impacts of lightning strikes and lack of need owing to already adequate internet service. In all cases a permit is required for the construction of the facility only, not for the use of the land for a telecommunications facility. The relevant considerations are limited to the matters found in Clause 52.19 of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme which include the effect of the proposal on adjoining land and the principles contained within the Code of Practice for Telecommunications Facilities in Victoria. In three cases a permit is also required for native vegetation removal which requires planning approval under Clauses 52.17 (Native Vegetation) and/or 42.02 (Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 2). Officer assessment of the proposal against relevant matters including State and Local Policy and Clauses, 52.17, 52.19 & 42.02 and concludes that all the facilities represent acceptable planning outcomes, subject to the recommended conditions. This report recommends that Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit, subject to conditions for each application.

Policy Context


1. Built and Natural Environment Strategic Objectives: • Value, conserve and enhance the rich built and natural environment.


PAGE 33

• Achieve high quality outcomes in planning and policy activities. • Encourage and foster high quality urban design to create environments that

support public wellbeing and economic success.


NBN Co is a wholly Federal Government owned company established to design, build and operate the National Broadband Network. 93% of Australia will be serviced via fibre optic cable. The applications before Council relate to the fixed wireless component of the rollout, which will serve around four per cent of the population or approximately 500,000 premises including

farms, homes and businesses. Premises where cable or fixed wireless is not available will be serviced with satellite technology. Fixed wireless is a service that is delivered over the air, instead of a fibre optic cable. The fixed wireless signal is delivered to the end user by way of a base station, which is visually very similar to a mobile phone base station/tower and the customer is required to have NBN antenna and network equipment at their premises to access the network. At the time the planning applications were received it was stated that peak speeds of 12 megabits per second were expected, however it has recently been announced that initial speeds will double that speed. The fixed wireless network has been engineered with a view of providing consistent and stable broadband as the number of users in a coverage area is known, as opposed to mobile broadband where the number of users varies and service may slow down at peak times as a result of unpredictable demand for service over the course of the day. Each of the applications is a stand-alone proposal in terms of the planning considerations, however it is important to note that the nature of the fixed wireless rollout and the technology required is such that they not only service their coverage area, but they also need to have line of sight to other facilities. The diagrams (Figures 1 and 2) show in general terms how the network operates.


PAGE 34

Figure 1 : Characteristics of the fixed wireless network. As can be seen, the network forms a ‘daisy chain’ of facilities that ultimately link back to the fibre optic cable network (at a telephone exchange) via a series of radio transmission dishes. The radio transmission dishes require a line of sight from tower to tower that takes into account the factors noted in Figure 2 & 3. A line of sight from the tower to the servicing premise is also required in order for the site to connect to the NBN.


PAGE 35

Figure 2 : Line of sight from facility to premises and from facility to facility. The site selection process is a rigorous multi stage process that firstly involved the identification of area that requires wireless coverage. From this a search area is identified which has regard to where premises to be serviced are located and importantly where other facilities are proposed in terms of the technical requirements of the network. Once the search area is identified the first step is to identify if any opportunities exist for co-location. Co-location is where an existing telecommunications facility or tall buildings/structure may be suitable to locate NBN infrastructure. This is a preferred option as in most cases co-location is cheaper, does not require planning approval and visual impacts are not increased by having additional facilities. If co-location opportunities do not exist, the scoping of a new site commences that considers factors such as visual amenity, a site owner willing to have a facility on their land, suitability of land (with regard to planning controls), access to the property for construction and maintenance purposes, getting services to the facility and environmental impacts. Additional Applications To date, the City has received a total of 16 planning applications (inclusive of the five covered by this report). Four applications have been determined under delegation as no objections were received. Two will be reported to Council at a future meeting. Five other applications (at Lockwood, Raywood, Woodvale, Sebastian and Huntly North) have either recently been advertised or will shortly commence advertising. For the information of Council, the NBN Co have been able to limit the number of new facilities proposed in the City of Greater Bendigo by identifying and securing co-location (locating NBN infrastructure on existing facilities) in Kennington (on One Tree Hill), 111A Mannix Lane, Mandurang South, 5431B Calder Highway, North Ravenswood and 89 Wilson Hill Road, Marong.

Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme

The following clauses are relevant in the consideration of each proposal: State Planning Policy Framework

• 19.03-4 – Telecommunications


PAGE 36

Municipal Strategic Statement

• 21.01 – Municipal Profile Other Provisions

• 52.19 – Telecommunications Facilities Public Notification All applications were advertised to owners and occupiers of land within a 500 metre radius of each proposed facility. Notice was also erected on each application site. Public Notice was placed in both the Bendigo Advertiser and the McIvor Times and the City also issued a press release which resulted in coverage on various media outlets. The extent of notification given has been the widest given for any telecommunications facility in this municipality for at least the preceding five years.

Report

17 MURPHY LANE, LONGLEA Proposal: Construction of telecommunciations facility and removal of native

vegetation for the purposes of the National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout.

Application No: DP/828/2012 Application Date: 1 November 2012 Applicant: Ericsson Australia P/L (on behalf of NBN Co.) Zoning: Rural Living Zone Overlays: Nil Subject Site and Surrounds

The application site is a rectangular lot of 4.2 hectare that has frontage of approx. 360 metres to Murphy Lane. The site is developed with a single dwelling towards the southern boundary of the site with the balance of the land containing two dams and in the northern half of the site, scattered vegetation amongst cleared land. In more recent times, an outbuilding (approved by a privately issued building permit) has been constructed, as has a second dwelling on the lot (yet to be constructed).


PAGE 37

Figure 3: Locality map showing location of tower site and objectors' properties (note, one property has two objectors). All adjoining and adjacent property is within the Rural Living Zone and the closest dwellings to the facility are located on adjoining and adjacent property at 48 and 51 Murphy Lane and are 150 and 170 metres from the facility respectively. The dwelling on the application site is approximately 270m from the facility. Proposal:

The application proposes the construction of a 35 metre high pole, equipment shelters and a 2.4 metre high chain mesh fenced compound of 7 x 10 metres. The facility is proposed to be located 19 metres from Murphy Lane and 15 metres from the northern adjoining property boundary. The site of the facility is on an elevated part of the site as Murphy Lane rises to the north. The application also seeks approval to remove an un-treed patch of native vegetation which is 70 square metres in size.


PAGE 38

Figure 4 : Elevation plan of tower.

Site Selection Process:

In this case, no suitable co-location opportunities were identified. Five properties were considered to be suitable for this facility, with two land owners indicating they were not interested in having a facility on their land. Three land owners were interested and they progressed to a full evaluation and from that a preferred candidate site was determined and the planning applications made. The two unsuccessful candidates were not selected variously owing to the locations being assessed as having a greater visual impact, a lengthy power run and requiring a greater level of vegetation clearance to establish the facility.

Assessment

Code of Practice: It is considered that the design and location of the tower will not compromise the orderly planning of the area; as the telecommunications tower has been assessed as meeting the principles for the design, siting, construction and operation of a telecommunications facility set out in A Code of Practice for Telecommunications Facilities in Victoria 2004 as follows: • A telecommunications facility should be sited to minimise visual impact.


PAGE 39

The height of the tower at 35 metres and being on an elevated section of Murphy Lane will mean that it is visible. Locating on an elevated parcel of land means that the overall height of the facility can actually be lower in order to reach the relative level required. The height is required in order to achieve line of sight both to premises to be serviced by the facility and to a proposed facility at Axedale (Sugarloaf Road) and the co-location existing site at Big Hill. The candidate site was selected as the existing vegetation both on the application site and adjoining/adjacent property offers the best screening opportunities for the most immediately affected residents, however there is no dispute the facility will be highly visible to persons driving/walking along Murphy Lane. The site has been assessed as meeting this principal; however the assessing officer is of the view that additional landscaped screening (around the compound) is required owing to the facility being located close to Murphy Lane. In the location proposed, most residents will pass the facility on most days. Screening the compound, will assist in minimizing the impact of the compound.

• Telecommunications facilities should be co-located wherever practical.

No suitable option existed in the search area. • Health standards for exposure to radio emissions will be met.

At a distance of 276.8 metres from the site the highest level of electromagnetic energy (EME) output from the facility will occur. The maximum output at this location will emit 0.023% of the allowable limit of EME in accordance with the Federal Government regulatory framework.

• Disturbance and risk relating to siting and construction should be minimised.

Construction activity and site location should comply with State environment protection policies and best practice environmental management guidelines.

The facility is located in an un-treed area of the site; however understory removal is required for the area occupied by the proposed compound. The recommended conditions include the requirement to plant suitable vegetation to screen the compound and to offset the removal of understory required. The facility will be constructed in accordance with best practice environmental management

Native Vegetation Removal: The Ecological Vegetation Class for the patch of vegetation to be removed is Grassy Woodlands and the conservation significance of the vegetation is Very High as it has a Bioregional Conservation Status of Vulnerable within the Goldfields bioregion The area of vegetation to be removed is 70 square metres and this is considered to be a ‘low risk’ application. As a result, the application does not require referral to the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE). The City has a formal agreement with the DSE with respect to non-referred applications that provides guidance for the offsets required in these instances should the vegetation removal of the application be determined favourably.


PAGE 40

The application has been considered against the decision guidelines at clause 52.17-5 which compels consideration of the three step approach of avoid (as a priority) minimise (where vegetation removal is unavoidable) and if the first two steps are met ultimately to offset the loss. Vegetation removal in this case is considered to be unavoidable as a result of the desirability to locate the facility in amongst a treed area in order to minimise its visual impact. A factor in the ultimate preference for this site over other proposed sites was that this site being close to a road required the least amount of vegetation disturbance with regard to obtaining access, power and the compound itself, thus the minimise step has also been satisfied. As the first two tests have been satisfied, the offset requirement is applicable and in this case as the level of clearing is under 1,000 square metres, the required offset is a ‘like for like’ area and this will be reflected in the appropriate permit conditions. Objections A consultation meeting was conducted on site on 26 February 2013 which was attended by objectors, representatives of the permit applicant, the assessing officer and Councillors Leach and Weragoda. The objections received are discussed below. • Impacts of electromagnetic radiation.

Objections relating to radiation and health concerns are not direct planning considerations; however, notwithstanding this the proposal is well within the Commonwealth mandated limits and no credible evidence exists that there is a link between health risks and facilities of this type.

• Visual impact.

This matter has been considered in the course of this report. The assessment of officers is that the visual impacts are not unreasonable, subject to a condition requiring the screening of the compound area close to ground level.

• Property devaluation.

Council and VCAT decisions have consistently held that, without valid evidence property devaluation is not a planning ground to warrant refusal of an application.

• The existence of more suitable sites.

As was outlined previously, alternate sites were evaluated as part of a rigorous site selection process with the proposal before Council seeking the application be determined on the site the applicant evaluated as being the most suitable.


PAGE 41

• Potential for additional antennas being attached to the structure.

If approved, potential does exist for another carrier to locate on the tower; however this would be driven by customer demand for telecommunications in the area. As has been outlined previously, co-location of carriers on existing infrastructure (thus limiting the number of new towers) is actively encouraged by both the industry code and Planning Scheme and in fact is exempted from the need to obtain further planning approval.

Conclusion

The Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme recognises the importance of provision of appropriate levels of telecommunications coverage to many aspects of modern life. The application should be supported as it is consistent with the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework including the Municipal Strategic Statement. The applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated compliance with the performance standards relating to design, siting, construction and operation of the facility as set out in the Scheme.

Recommended Conditions 1. LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIRED

Within 12 months of the development and native vegetation removal permitted by this permit, a landscape plan showing screening of the fenced compound with locally indigenous vegetation must be submitted and approved by the responsible authority. When endorsed, the plan must not be altered or modified (for any reason) except with the prior written consent of the responsible authority.

2. NO LAYOUT ALTERATION The development and native vegetation removal permitted by this permit as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified (for any reason) except with the prior written consent of the responsible authority.

3. SOUNDPROOFING All external plant and equipment must be acoustically treated or placed in soundproof housing to reduce noise to a level satisfactory to the responsible authority.

4. REMOVAL OF REDUNDANT FACILITY The facility approved by this permit shall be completely removed from the land (with the land being reinstated to its natural condition) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority within three (3) months of the telecommunications facility becoming redundant. The Responsible Authority may approve an extension to this time if an application is received three (3) months prior to the telecommunications facility becoming redundant.


PAGE 42

5. OFFSET REQUIREMENT In order to offset the removal of 70 square metres of native vegetation of Very High conservation significance in Grassy Woodlands ecological vegetation class approved for removal as part of this permit, the applicant must provide for: (a) The revegetation and/protection of a like for like area of vegetation to the

satisfaction of the responsible authority.

6. OFFSET PLAN To provide the required offset within 12 months of the vegetation removal, the applicant or the owner must either: (a) Provide to the responsible authority an Allocated Credit Extract issued by the

Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) Native Vegetation Credit Register which satisfies the required offset, or

(b) Commence management of an offset site in accordance with an offset plan endorsed by the responsible authority. The offset plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and submitted to and approved by the responsible authority, The offset plan must include: • A description of the site, including a plan of where the offset will be provided • A schedule of the works required to achieve the offset over a ten year

period, detailing: • The management actions to be performed (e.g. fencing, weed control, pest

control, revegetation) • The person(s) responsible for implementing the specified management

actions • The timeline for the implementation of the management actions • The method by which the management actions will be undertaken • The standard to which the management actions will be undertaken

7. PERMANENT PROTECTION OF OFFSET

Within 12 months of the vegetation removal: (a) The offset site must be permanently protected to the satisfaction of the

responsible authority, such as through an encumbrance on title.

8. EXPIRY This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: (a) The development is not started within two (2) years of the date of this permit; (b) The development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this

permit. 59 TRAVERS LANE, HEATHCOTE. Proposal: Construction of telecommunciations facility and removal of native


Application No: DP/812/2012 Application Date: 26 October 2012 Applicant: Ericsson Australia P/L (on behalf of NBN Co.) Zoning: Rural Conservation Zone Overlays: Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 3 (Eppalock


PAGE 43

Catchment) and Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 2 (Significant Vegetation)

Subject Site and Surrounds

The application site is an irregular shaped lot of 7.9 hectare that has frontage of approx. 280 metres to Nicholson and 260 metre to Travers Lanes. The site is developed for a single dwelling and outbuildings towards the southern (Nicholsons Lane) boundary of the site with the balance of the land vegetated. A second access/egress point to the property exists from Travers Lane.

Figure 5 : Locality aerial showing approximate location of tower site. Objector properties marked with a star. Note, one objector is not shown on the map as they reside in Knowsley, some distance from this site. All adjoining and adjacent property is within the rural conservation zone, and the closest dwelling to the facility is the existing dwelling on the application site being 60 metres from the facility. The nearest dwelling off the application site is at 113 Nicholsons Lane being approximately 170 metres from the facility. Proposal:

The application proposes the construction of a 40 metre high pole, an equipment shelter and a 2.4 metre high chain mesh fenced compound of 6 x 10 metres. The facility is proposed to be located approximately 45 metres from Nicholsons Lane to the south east and 60 metres from the dwelling on the application site. An area of 70 square metres of vegetation is required to be removed; this vegetation is viewed as being ‘degraded treeless vegetation’.


PAGE 44


Site selection process:

In this case, no suitable co-location opportunities were identified. Three properties were evaluated and considered to be suitable for the facility. The two non-preferred sites were not selected owing to greater visual impact in one case and a greater level of vegetation clearance required for the other.

Assessment

Code of practice: It is considered that the design and location of the tower will not compromise the orderly planning of the area as the telecommunications tower has been assessed as meeting the principles for the design, siting, construction and operation of a telecommunications facility set out in A Code of Practice for Telecommunications Facilities in Victoria 2004 as follows:


PAGE 45

• A Telecommunications facility should be sited to minimise visual impact.

This tower at a height of 40 metres is required in order to achieve line of sight both to premises to be serviced by the facility and to achieve line of sight a facility in Tooborac (Mitchell Shire). The height of the facility and the comparative low level of the existing vegetation will mean that a large portion of the tower will be visible to nearby residents and the wider area owing to the topography of the area. As has been outlined previously, the application site was selected ultimately as it was viewed as having a lesser visual impact and environmental impact than the other candidate sites. The assessing officer agrees that this site represents a location where visual impacts have been minimised and are not unreasonable.






The facility is located in an un-treed area of the site; however understory removal is required (albeit degraded) for the area occupied by the proposed compound. IN the case of degraded treeless vegetation, no offset is required under the planning scheme. The facility will be constructed in accordance with best practice environmental management

Native vegetation removal: The Ecological Vegetation Class for the patch of vegetation to be removed is Grassy Woodlands and the conservation significance of the vegetation is Very High as it has a Bioregional Conservation Status of Vulnerable within the Goldfields bioregion The area of vegetation to be removed is 70 square metres and this is considered to be a ‘low risk’ application as it involves removal of under 0.5 hectares (which is the threshold of referral in this instance referring back to the conservation significance). As a result the application does not require referral to the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE). The City has a formal agreement with the DSE with respect to non-referred applications that provides guidance for the offsets required in these instances should the vegetation removal of the application be determined favourably.


PAGE 46

The application has been considered against the decision guidelines at clause 52.17-5 which compels consideration of the three step approach of avoid (as a priority) minimise (where vegetation removal is unavoidable) and if the first two steps are met ultimately to offset the loss (if applicable). Vegetation removal in this case is considered to be unavoidable as a result of the desirability to locate the facility in amongst a treed area in order to minimize its visual impact. The second step of minimize is met, as a degraded, treeless area is proposed for the facility and the site can be accessed via the existing driveway to the site. As the first two tests have been satisfied, the offset requirement is applicable. In this case, the vegetation has been assessed as being degraded treeless vegetation (i.e. less than 25% of the area is understory) and in this case no offset is required. Objections A consultation meeting was conducted on site on 15 February 2013 which was attended by objectors, representatives of the permit applicant, the assessing officer and Councillor Campbell. The objections received are discussed below. • Impacts of electromagnetic radiation.


• Visual impact.

This matter has been considered in the course of this report.



• Provision of internet in the area is already adequate.

This issue is a relevant one and was discussed in some detail at the consultation meeting. Objectors indicated that the current copper cable service was adequate and questioned the actual need for this facility. The response offered by the applicant was that the purpose of the NBN is not simply to replicate existing services; rather it is intended to future proof Australia for as yet unknown technological advances that require the use of the internet. It was also noted that it is Commonwealth Government policy that 100% of Australia will have access to the network and in less densely populated areas such as this the fixed wireless network as opposed to cable.


PAGE 47

• Presence of lightning strikes in the area.

The tower is proposed to be earthed in accordance with the relevant Australian standards. In the consultation meeting, the applicant advised that it is likely that the height of the tower may actually draw lightning away from high vegetation or ridgelines as anecdotal evidence from residents is that the area is highly susceptible to lightning in strikes.

Conclusion


Recommended Conditions 1. NO LAYOUT ALTERATION

The development and native vegetation removal permitted by this permit as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified (for any reason) except with the prior written consent of the responsible authority.



4. EXPIRY This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: (c) the development is not started within two (2) years of the date of this permit; (d) the development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this

permit. 88 REDBURNS LANE, HEATHCOTE. Proposal: Construction of telecommunciations facility and removal of native



PAGE 48

Application No: DP/826/2012 Application Date: 1 Novemberr 2012 Applicant: Ericsson Australia P/L (on behalf of NBN Co.) Zoning: Rural Living Zone Overlays: Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 (Watercourse

Protection - Part) Subject Site and Surrounds

The application site is an irregular shaped lot of 9 hectares that has frontage of approx. 460 metres to Redburns Lane. The site is developed with a single dwelling and outbuildings and rises in the order of 25 metres from the entrance to the site to the dwelling location.

Figure 7 : Locality aerial showing approximate location of tower site. Objector properties marked with a star. Note, one objector is not shown on the map as they reside in Knowsley, some distance from this site. All adjoining and adjacent property is within the Rural Living Zone with land to the North West in the Farming Zone. The site is also close to the municipal boundary with Mitchell Shire (Peels Lane being the Boundary. The closest dwelling to the facility is the existing dwelling on the application site being 150 metres from the facility. The closest dwelling that is not on the application site is on the opposite side of the road at 111 Redburns Lane with the distance from the facility is in the order of 190 metres. Proposal:

The application proposes the construction of a 40 metre high pole, an equipment shelter and a 2.4 metre high chain mesh fenced compound of 6 x 10 metres. The facility is proposed to be located approximately 40 metres from Redburns Lane. The facility is to be located on a high, but not the highest point, of the property.


PAGE 49

An area of 70 square metres of vegetation is required to be removed; following inspection of the site it was concluded this vegetation is ‘degraded treeless vegetation’ as the area in question contains no trees and understorey coverage is less than 25% of the compound area.



In this In this case, no suitable co-location opportunities were identified. Four properties were considered to be generally suitable for the facility. The three non-preferred sites were not selected owing to greater visual impact owing to lack of natural screening opportunities, the need for the facility to be higher (at least 50 metres) and alternate sites being within key view lines of a number of dwellings.


PAGE 50

Assessment

Code of practice: It is considered that the design and location of the tower will not compromise the orderly planning of the area; as the telecommunications tower has been assessed as meeting the principles for the design, siting, construction and operation of a telecommunications facility set out in A Code of Practice for Telecommunications Facilities in Victoria 2004 as follows: • A Telecommunications facility should be sited to minimise visual impact.

This tower at a height of 40 metres is required in order to achieve line of site both to premises to be serviced by the facility and to achieve line of sight to a facility in Tooborac (Mitchell Shire). The specific location of the facility is sited in a manner where large (20-25 metre) trees help to screen the lower half of the facility from the closest, and thus most immediately impacted dwellings. The facility will be visible, however having inspected the site and locality the assessing officer is satisfied that the impacts have been minimized for this site and the impacts are reasonable.






The facility is located in an un-treed area of the site; however understory removal is required for the area occupied by the proposed compound. In the case of degraded treeless vegetation, no offset is required under the native vegetation framework. The facility will be constructed in accordance with best practice environmental management and once established will only be accessed periodically for maintenance.

Native vegetation removal: The Ecological Vegetation Class for the patch of vegetation to be removed is Box Ironbox Forrest and the conservation significance of the vegetation is high as it has a Bioregional Conservation Status of Depleted within the Goldfields bioregion


PAGE 51

The area of vegetation to be removed is 70 square metres and this is considered to be a ‘low risk’ application as it involves removal of less than 1 hectare (which is the threshold of referral in this instance referring back to the conservation significance). As a result the application does not require referral to the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE). The City has a formal agreement with the DSE with respect to non-referred applications that provides guidance for the offsets required in these instances should the vegetation removal of the application be determined favourably. The application has been considered against the decision guidelines at clause 52.17-5 which compels consideration of the three step approach of avoid (as a priority) minimise (where vegetation removal is unavoidable) and if the first two steps are met ultimately to offset the loss (if applicable). Vegetation removal in this case is considered to be unavoidable as a result of the desirability to locate the facility in amongst a treed area (although no trees require removal) in order to minimise its visual impact. The second step of minimise is met, as a degraded, treeless area is proposed for the facility and the site can be accessed without impacting other vegetation via the existing driveway to the site. As the first two tests have been satisfied, the offset requirement is applicable. In this case, the vegetation has been assessed as being degrade treeless vegetation (i.e. less than 25% of the area is understory) and in this case no offset is required. Objections A consultation meeting was scheduled on site on 15 February 2013. The consultation meeting did not proceed as both property owners reside overseas. The objections received are discussed below. • Impacts of electromagnetic radiation.


• Visual impact.

This matter has been considered in the course of this report, it is noted that both objector sites are over 400 metres from the site and do not contain dwellings. The tower has the potential to be visible from these dwellings however the focus of the assessment in terms of impact is on those most immediately affected by the facility in terms of their primary view lines and outlooks and these impacts are reasonable.




PAGE 52

Conclusion


Proposed Conditions 1. NO LAYOUT ALTERATION




4. EXPIRY This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: (e) the development is not started within two (2) years of the date of this permit; (f) the development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this

permit. 222 WILD CHERRY ROAD, LOCKWOOD SOUTH Proposal: Construction of telecommunciations facility for the purposes of the

National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout. Application No: DP/829/2012 Application Date: 1 November 2012 Applicant: Ericsson Australia P/L (on behalf of NBN Co.) Zoning: Farming Zone Overlays: Nil


PAGE 53

Subject Site and Surrounds

The application site is a battle axe shaped lot of 39.89 hectares that does not have a direct frontage to Wild Cherry Road, as it is accessed via a 20 metre wide and 289 metre long axe handle of 5729 square metres. Between the lot and its access is an unmade/named government road that crosses a seasonal creek. The site is developed with a single dwelling and outbuildings with the dwelling being 750 metres from Wild Cherry Road. From the Wild Cherry Road to the rear (western) corner of the lot is a rise in the order of 23 metres.

Figure 9 : Locality aerial showing approximate location of tower site. Objector properties marked with a star. Note not all objectors are shown owing to where they reside in relation to the application site and in some cases multiple objections have been received from properties.


PAGE 54

All adjoining property to the north south and west is within the Farming Zone, whilst to the east is the Spring Creek estate which is a Rural Living Zoned area. The closest dwelling to the facility is the existing dwelling on the application site being 428 metres from the facility. The closest dwelling that is not on the application site is on the adjoining property to the north at 79 Ellison Road which is over 700 metres away. Proposal:

The application proposes the construction of a 35 metre high lattice tower, an equipment shelter and a 2.4 metre high chain mesh fenced compound of 7 x 12 metres. The facility is proposed to be located 100 metres from the rear (western) property boundary on a ridge that continues to the north and south. The facility will be over 1 kilometre from Wild Cherry Road.



In this In this case, no suitable co-location opportunities were identified. Six properties were considered to be generally suitable for the facility. The applicant advises that most of the options were considered to have a similar landscape and visual impact; however options E and F were at a lower elevation and would require a height of 50 metres to achieve coverage objectives.


PAGE 55

The application site was selected as it is within the Farming Zone and the distance of 850 metres to the closest boundary of the Rural Living Zone and the majority of potentially impacted dwellings are over 1 km from the proposed site.

Assessment

Code of practice: It is considered that the design and location of the tower will not compromise the orderly planning of the area; as the telecommunications tower has been assessed as meeting the principles for the design, siting, construction and operation of a telecommunications facility set out in A Code of Practice for Telecommunications Facilities in Victoria 2004 as follows: • A Telecommunications facility should be sited to minimise visual impact.

This tower is a lattice tower; as opposed to the other applications before council which are concrete poles. 35 metres in height is required in order to achieve line of sight both to premises to be serviced by the facility and the site is an important site more broadly to the network as it links with other sites at Belvoir, Bet Bet, Laanecoorie, Mt Tarrengower, and Tarnagulla. The specific location of the facility is not sited in a treed environment, however the significant distance from adjoining dwellings, and in particular the Rural Living Zoned area with vegetation in between assists in screening the facility from nearby land. The facility will be visible in the local area; however the distance from dwellings decreases the visual impact.






The facility is located in an un-treed area of the site which requires minimal disturbance both in construction and ongoing access. The facility will be constructed in accordance with best practice environmental management and once established will only be accessed periodically for maintenance.

Objections A consultation meeting was conducted on site on 25 February 2013 which was attended by objectors, representatives of the permit applicant, the assessing officer and Councillor Lyons. The objections received are discussed below.


PAGE 56

• Impacts of electromagnetic radiation.


• Visual impact.

It is acknowledged that nearby residents will see the facility; however that visibility is a key need in terms of delivery of service to the widest number of premises. At the height required, it is neither possible nor practicable to screen the whole facility. Visual impact and the residents’ perception of impact will vary as obviously outlook to the site will vary depending on where the resident is situated relative to the application site. Having regard to the siting of this facility and the factors that led to its ultimate selection, the site has been assessed favourably with regard to the key planning consideration of visual impact.



• Noise from outdoor cooling unit.

The unit to be used is around the size of a small refrigerator and will only operate intermittently in period of peak demand and where the ambient temperature is highest. The applicant has supplied data that indicates the unit is likely to be inaudible from the nearest residence.

Conclusion


Proposed Conditions 1. NO LAYOUT ALTERATION



PAGE 57



4. EXPIRY This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: (g) the development is not started within two (2) years of the date of this permit; (h) the development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this

permit. 50 FRANCIS ROAD, LOCKWOOD SOUTH Proposal: Construction of telecommunciations facility for the purposes of the

National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout. Application No: DP/786/2012 Application Date: 16 October 2012 Applicant: Ericsson Australia P/L (on behalf of NBN Co.) Zoning: Farming Zone Overlays: Bushfire Management Overlay Subject Site and Surrounds

The application site is an irregular shaped lot of 22 hectares that has frontage of 871.3 metres to Francis Road. The site is developed with a single dwelling and outbuildings. From the southern edge of the property on the Francis Road frontage to its highest point approximately 150 to the north is 20 metres.


PAGE 58

Figure 11 : Locality aerial showing approximate location of tower site. Objector properties marked with a star. Note not all objectors are shown owing to where they reside in relation to the application site.

To the north, west and south adjoining/ adjacent property is within the Farming Zone, nearby zone includes Public Park (Crown Land), Low Density Residential and to the north Township Zone (centred around Happy Jacks on the Calder Alternate Highway).

The closest dwelling to the facility is at 49 Francis Road, which is approx. 190 metres to the south west of the facility. The dwelling on the application site is approximately 230 metres from the proposed site. Proposal:

The application proposes the construction of a 30 metre high pole, an equipment shelter and a 2.4 metre high chain mesh fenced compound of 6 x 10 metres. The facility is proposed to be located 5 metres from Francis Road and approximately 150 metres from the southern boundary of the site.


PAGE 59


Site selection process:

In this In this case, no suitable co-location opportunities were identified. Three locations were considered to be generally suitable for the facility. The two non-preferred sites were not selected owing to the lower elevation in the landscape requiring a taller (thus potentially more dominant) facility. The application site also enjoys the benefit of rising land that continues to the west which will assist to screen the facility further.

Assessment

Code of practice: It is considered that the design and location of the tower will not compromise the orderly planning of the area; as the telecommunications tower has been assessed as meeting the principles for the design, siting, construction and operation of a telecommunications facility set out in A Code of Practice for Telecommunications Facilities in Victoria 2004 as follows:


PAGE 60

• A Telecommunications facility should be sited to minimise visual impact.

The height of the tower at 30 metres and being on a hill with limited screening vegetation to the east will mean that it will be visible. As has been outlined earlier in this report, locating in an elevated position means that the tower itself can be lower in relative terms. The height is required in order to achieve line of sight both to premises to be serviced by the facility and to achieve line of sight to a co-location site on a facility at Big Hill. The candidate site was selected as land continues to rise to the west which will assist to minimize the visual impact of the facility when viewed from the east, north and south. The site has been assessed as meeting the principle to minimize visual impact ; however the assessing officer is of the view that additional landscaped screening (around the compound) is required around the compound (to the east, north and south) owing to the lower levels of the facility having a greater level of exposure from these viewpoints.



At a distance of 202 metres from the site the highest level of electromagnetic energy (EME) output from the facility will occur. The maximum output at this location will emit 0.049% of the allowable limit of EME in accordance with the Federal Government regulatory framework.



The facility is located in an un-treed area of the site and no tree/understory removal is required either for construction or ongoing access to the site. The facility will be constructed in accordance with best practice environmental management and once established will only be accessed periodically for maintenance.

Objections A consultation meeting was conducted on site on 25 February 2013 which was attended by objectors, representatives of the permit applicant, the assessing officer and Councillor Lyons. The objections received are discussed below. • Impacts of electromagnetic radiation.



PAGE 61

• Visual impact.

This matter has been considered in the course of this report. The tower will be visible; however vegetation to the west and proposed screening vegetation to the other aspects of the facility will assist to screen the screen the compound area.



• Provision of internet in the area is already adequate.

Objectors indicated that services are adequate and questioned the actual need for this facility. The response offered by the applicant was that the purpose of the NBN is not simply to replicate existing services; rather it is intended to future proof Australia for as yet unknown technological advances that require the use of the internet. It was also noted that it is Commonwealth Government policy that 100% of Australia will have access to the network and in less densely populated areas such as this the fixed wireless network as opposed to cable.

• Potential for additional antennas being attached to the structure.

If approved, potential does exist for another carrier to locate on the tower; however this would be driven by customer demand for telecommunications in the area. As has been outlined previously, co-location of carriers on existing infrastructure (thus limiting the number of new towers) is actively encouraged by both the industry code and Planning Scheme.

• Noise from outdoor cooling unit.

The unit to be used is around the size of a small refrigerator and will only operate intermittently in period of peak demand and where the ambient temperature is highest. The applicant indicated the unit would have a noise output the same as a domestic air-conditioning unit and will operate in accordance with environmental standards and is likely to be inaudible from the nearest residence.

Conclusion


Proposed Conditions 1. LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIRED

Within 12 months of the development permitted by this permit, a landscape plan showing screening of the fenced compound with locally indigenous vegetation


PAGE 62

must be submitted and approved by the responsible authority. When endorsed, the plan must not be altered or modified (for any reason) except with the prior written consent of the responsible authority.

2. NO LAYOUT ALTERATION The development permitted by this permit as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified (for any reason) except with the prior written consent of the responsible authority.



5. EXPIRY This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: (a) The development is not started within two (2) years of the date of this permit; (b) The development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this

permit.

Options

Council, acting as the responsible authority, may resolve to approve or refuse to grant a permit.

Attachments

• Search Areas for Each Site • Objections

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for: 1. The construction of telecommunications facility and removal of native vegetation (for

the purposes of National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout) at 17 Murphy Lane, Longlea subject to the conditions in this report.

2. The construction of telecommunications facility and removal of native vegetation (for the purposes of National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout) at 59 Travers Lane, Heathcote subject to the conditions in this report.


PAGE 63

3. The construction of telecommunications facility and removal of native vegetation (for the purposes of National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout) at 88 Redburns Lane, Heathcote subject to the conditions in this report.

4. The construction of telecommunications facility (for the purposes of National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout) at 222 Wild Cherry Road, Lockwood South subject to the conditions in this report

5. The construction of telecommunications facility (for the purposes of National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout) at 50 Francis Road, Lockwood South subject to the conditions in this report.


PAGE 64

2.5 TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO/THRE E STOREY DWELLING, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, EXTENSION AND ALTERAT ION TO EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF DETACHED GARAGE FOR EXISTING DWELLING - 308 BARNARD STREET, IRONBARK


Author Chris Duckett, Co-ordinator Land Use Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Dev elopment Director

Summary/Purpose

Planning permission is sought for a two lot subdivision, construction of a new dwelling, a two storey extension to the existing dwelling with an element of demolition and construction of detached double garage for the existing dwelling at 308 Barnard Street, Bendigo. The key issues are as follows;

• The principle of residential development in this location. • Whether the proposal will impact adversely on heritage and neighbourhood character. • Whether the proposal will adversely affect residential amenity.

Seven objections to the proposal were received from local residents. A consultation meeting was held with the residents, the applicant and two Ward Councillors. All relevant matters were discussed at the meeting but all objections have been maintained. The applicant was advised that before support could be given for the proposal a significant redesign would be required. The applicant has requested that a decision be made on the current plans. The proposal will have an adverse impact on existing neighbourhood character and heritage values in the area and does not present an acceptable outcome in the context of the City’s planning objectives. This report considers the permit application and recommends that the Greater Bendigo City Council issue a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit.

Policy Context


1. Built and Natural Environment Strategic Objectives: • Value, conserve and enhance the rich built and natural heritage.


PAGE 65

• Achieve high quality outcomes in planning and policy activities. • Encourage and foster high quality design to create environments that support



This application has been developed following a number of pre-application meetings with planning officers and heritage advisors. It is important to note that the applicant has sought to address comments and advice given by officers but ultimately the final design has not sufficiently overcome concerns regarding its impact on neighbourhood character and heritage.

Report

Application No: DSD/803/2012 Application Date: 24 October 2012 Applicant: Tomkinson Group Land: 308 Barnard Street, IRONBARK 3550 Zoning: Residential 1 Zone

Road Zone 1 Overlays: Heritage Overlay 11 Subject Site and Surrounds

The site comprises a sloping, irregular shaped block of land with an area of 986 square metres, located on the corner of Don and Barnard Streets. The site contains a Victorian weatherboard dwelling fronting Don Street and located towards the eastern (Don Street) boundary of the site. The surrounding area is wholly residential with the building typology largely characterised by single storey period dwellings on generous lots. The area is also characterised by a significant variation in the topography of land. The site is very prominently located at a busy intersection with an elevated position in relation to the road. At its closest point to Don Street the site is around 3 metres higher than the road and at the furthest point at the north-western corner it is around 8 metres higher. The site is accessed from a service road on Barnard Street.


PAGE 66

Figure 1 : Location map showing subject site. Objectors' properties marked with a star.

Proposal

The proposal involves a subdivision of the land into two lots and construction of a new dwelling, an extension to the existing dwelling, construction of a new double garage and some demolition works. The subdivision component of the proposal would provide a lot of 551m2 for the host dwelling and 342m2 for the new lot with a common property of 93m2. The new dwelling would be two/three storeys with the lower storey cut into the existing land and comprising a double garage with internal staircase to the ground floor. The cut in the land would mean that the dwelling, although having an overall height of 9.29m would be limited to a height above natural ground level of around 7m at the front reducing to 5m at the rear. The ground floor of the dwelling would comprise an open plan kitchen/meals area with three additional living areas and a laundry room. The first floor would comprise four bedrooms, an additional living area, two bathrooms and a separate toilet. The proposed extension to the existing dwelling is a two storey side extension fronting Don Street. The existing house has four bedrooms, a kitchen and two living areas. The extension would provide for a new kitchen/meals area and additional living area on the ground floor and a bedroom and bathroom at first floor level.


PAGE 67

A double garage is also proposed for the existing dwelling which will be partly cut into the site and have a shared access from the service lane with the new dwelling. An outbuilding and lean-to extension on the existing dwelling is proposed to be demolished. The new dwelling and extension would both be constructed in a modern style with flat roofs and would be articulated with a range of material and finishes. Private open space would be provided on the ground floor and on first floor balconies on the new dwelling and extended dwelling.

Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme The following clauses are relevant in the consideration of this proposal: State Planning Policy Framework

• 11.05 Regional Planning • 15.01 Urban environment • 15.02 Sustainable environment • 15.03 Heritage • 16.01 Medium density housing Municipal Strategic Statement

• 21.05 Settlement • 21.06 Housing • 21.08 Environment Local Planning Policies

• 22.06 Heritage Policy • 22.11 Central Bendigo Precinct 3 Overlay

• 43.01 Heritage Overlay Other Provisions

• 32.01 Residential 1 Zone • 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings • 56 Residential Subdivision • 65 Decision Guidelines A permit is required to subdivide land and construct a dwelling pursuant to the Residential 1 Zone. A permit is also required for the subdivision, all buildings and works and demolition under the Heritage Overlay.


Referrals The following internal departments have been consulted on the proposal:


PAGE 68

Referral Comment

Drainage No objections subject to conditions.

Traffic Some concerns raised regarding pedestrian sightlines, width of driveway and lack of on-site visitor parking.

Heritage Some concerns raised regarding the impact. This is discussed in greater detail below.

Public Notification The application was advertised by way of notice on the site and letters to adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers. As a result of advertising eight objections were received. The grounds of objection can be summarised as:

• Impact of development on neighbourhood character; • Design out of keeping with heritage and streetscape; • Amenity issues-overshadowing/overlooking; • Non-compliance with ResCode standards; • Noise; • Traffic; • Parking impacts; • Loss of view; • Lack of consultation with neighbours. Although a consultation meeting was held, discussions around reducing the scale of the development were not successful which meant that the parties were too far apart to resolve any issues. The objections are discussed below.

Planning Assessment

Principle of Residential Development Clause 11.05-4 Regional planning strategies and principles has the objective of developing regions and settlements which have a strong identity, are prosperous and are environmentally sustainable. Of particular relevance to this application is the strategy to limit urban sprawl and direct growth into existing settlements, promoting and capitalising on opportunities for urban renewal and redevelopment.


PAGE 69

Clause 16.01 Residential development has objectives which promote a diverse range of housing that meets community needs in locations that offer good access to services and transport and that is both water and energy efficient. The importance of energy and resource efficiency is also referenced in Clause 15.02 Sustainable development. The land is zoned Residential 1 and lies within the Urban Growth Boundary and in principle, is appropriate for an intensification of residential development. The proposal meets the overarching objectives of housing policies within the SPPF and the Residential Development Strategy as it would provide for urban consolidation in an area which has good access to local services and facilities. Whilst the location is appropriate for medium density infill development, it is important to balance this against other objectives in the Planning Scheme such as protecting heritage values and seeking to ensure developments achieve high standards of urban design and meet the identified neighbourhood character of areas. This is discussed further below. Heritage The site is within the Rowan Street Heritage Precinct which is fairly representative of Bendigo's inner suburbs of the gold era with predominantly timber construction and hillside topography. The site has no State-wide significance from a heritage perspective. Clause 21.08 Environment and Clause 22.06 Heritage Policy set out objectives which include the need to ensure that Greater Bendigo’s heritage assets are maintained and protected and to ensure developments are sympathetic with the appearance and character of heritage places. The purpose of Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay, relevant to this proposal is to ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places. The decision guidelines of the clause reflect this. Those relevant to this proposal are considered below. • The significance of the heritage place and whether the proposal will adversely affect

the natural or cultural significance of the place.

Comment: The City’s heritage advisor has some concerns the proposal will have an adverse effect on the significance of the heritage place and this is discussed further below. • Any applicable statement of significance, heritage study and any applicable

conservation policy.

Comment: The Bendigo and Eaglehawk Heritage Study 1993 rates the house at 308 Barnard Street as having local importance with a grading of C.

The study also grades the integrity of streetscapes from low to high in terms of integrity to a period. Level 3 streetscapes are described as of mixed period with level 1 and 2 having a high integrity to a period. Don Street and Barnard Street have a grading of 2 and therefore have high integrity. • Whether the demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect the

significance of the heritage place.


PAGE 70

Comment: The demolition of the outbuilding and lean-to extension to the existing building do not raise any concerns as they have no heritage significance.

• Whether the proposed subdivision will adversely affect the significance of the heritage

place.

Comment: The subdivision will create a new allotment with an area and frontage that should not adversely affect the pattern/rhythm of the streetscape and hence not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. • Whether the location, bulk form or appearance of the proposed building will adversely

affect the significance of the heritage place and is in keeping with adjacent buildings.

Comment: The City’s Heritage Architect / Advisor has some concerns that the bulk and form of the extension will have some negative impact on the significance of the house. It is suggested that the impact could be reduced through a reduction in the projection of the roof balcony.

Concerns are also raised over the bulk of the new dwelling and this will also have an adverse impact on the heritage precinct.

Regarding the design detail and materials, whilst not entirely in keeping with character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the precinct, there are no significant concerns with the principle of a modern in-fill design. In summary there will be some negative impacts on the heritage area relating to the bulk and form, although there are some factors which will offset the impact to a degree. The new dwelling will have a front setback of some 15m. Without this significant setback the dwelling would be much more dominant in the streetscape and be undisputedly unacceptable in heritage terms. Notwithstanding the setback, given the site’s elevated prominence the dwelling will be clearly visible from a number of vantage points in the area. The height, bulk and form of the dwelling would on balance have an adverse impact on the heritage significance of the place. There are similar issues with regard to the extension to the existing dwelling, particularly as it does not benefit from the setback that the new dwelling would have. Although the extension is slightly recessed behind the line of the dwelling at ground floor level and recessed by approximately 1.8m at first floor level, its form and siting will still be very dominant in terms of the host dwelling and surrounding streetscape. It is recognised that the applicant has responded to concerns raised with earlier designs of the extension and sought to address these concerns with an increased setback, there are still concerns that the impact of the extension on heritage values would be unacceptable. Neighbourhood Character Neighbourhood character is referenced as an important consideration throughout the Planning Scheme including Clauses 15.01 Urban Environment, 16.01 Residential development, 21.06 Housing, 22.11 Central Bendigo Residential Character Policy, 32.01 Residential 1 Zone, 43.05, 55 Two dwellings on a lot and 56 Residential Subdivision. In many regards the design issues discussed in the heritage section above are also relevant to neighbourhood character. However there are some additional considerations.


PAGE 71

Clause 22.11 Central Bendigo Residential Character Policy (Precinct 3) has the principal objectives of ensuring that development is responsive to the desired future character of the area in which it is located and to retain and enhance the identified elements that contribute to its character. The area is described as follows:

The area forms part of the inner ring of suburbs that exemplify the distinctive character of early Bendigo, but with development from the inter war and post war periods also. Most houses are closely spaced and close to the street, providing an intimate, pedestrian-friendly environment. The grid street pattern has adjusted to the alignment of main roads and topography. Some roadways are sealed only in the centre, leaving wide unsealed or grassed informal verges. Kerbs (sometimes bluestone) and footpaths are usually present on both sides. Some streets have mature avenues of trees, either exotic or native. Much of the area has heritage significance. The policy sets out how the desired future character is to be achieved by the following objectives and design responses.

Objectives Response

To retain buildings that contribute to the valued character of the area.

Retain and restore wherever possible, intact Victorian, Edwardian, Federation and Inter-war era dwellings. Alterations and extensions should be appropriate to the building era.

Comment: No significant demolition is proposed.

To encourage the consideration of the landscape setting of the dwelling.

Prepare a landscape plan to accompany all applications for new dwellings. Minimise paved areas, particularly in front of dwellings.

Comment: No landscape plan has been provided but this could be required by condition of any permit granted. There is a large area of hard standing in the common property but this could also be addressed through conditions of the permit.

To maintain the consistency, where present, of building front setbacks.

The front setback should be not less than the average setback of the adjoining two dwellings.

Comment: The setback exceeds the average of the two adjoining dwellings and is therefore acceptable.

To maintain the rhythm of dwelling spacing.

Buildings should be off-set from at least one side boundary.

Comment: Both dwellings would be offset from one side boundary and this objective would be met.

To minimise the dominance of car storage facilities

Locate garages and carports behind the line of the dwelling. Use rear access where available.


PAGE 72

Objectives Response

Comment: The suggested design response has not been followed as the garage projects 1.2m in front of the existing dwelling. However as the land will be excavated to construct the garage, only the upper part of the garage wall will be noticeable from the public realm. With appropriate landscaping in front of the garage the siting of the garage would be acceptable.

To respect the identified heritage qualities of the streetscape or adjoining buildings.

Where the streetscape contains identified heritage buildings, reflect the dominant building forms in the street, including roof forms, in the new building design.

Comment: The dominant roof form in the area is a traditional pitched roof. This is not to suggest that a design with a pitched roof is a mandatory requirement. It may be possible to design a flat roof dwelling which fits in with the heritage qualities of the streetscape but as discussed above the height and bulk of the dwelling would accentuate the impact of the development.

To ensure that buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape.

Respect the predominant building height in the street and nearby properties. Where there is a predominance of single storey, the height of the dwelling at the front of the dwelling should match the typical single storey wall height.

Comment: As discussed in the heritage section the extension and the new dwelling would have a dominant presence in the streetscape. From a neighbourhood character perspective the design of the dwelling in particular does not respect the predominant building height in the street. The highest point of the dwelling (front parapet wall) would be 1.2m higher than the adjoining dwelling at 312 Barnard Street and 2.85m higher than the existing dwelling.

To use building materials and finishes that complement the dominant pattern within the streetscape.

In streetscapes where weatherboard predominates, use timber or other non-masonry cladding materials where possible, and render, bag or paint brick surfaces.

Comment: It is proposed to use a variety of materials and colours and there are no major concerns with this element of the proposal.

To ensure front fences are appropriate to the era of the dwellings and maintain the openness of the streetscape.

Provide open style front fencing. Front fences should not exceed 1.2 metres other than in exceptional case.

Comment: No front fence is proposed.

So whilst most of the objectives of the residential character policy are met there are some elements that remain a concern. It is of note that the Residential Character Study which formed the basis of the policy included the following as threats to the desired character:

• Large, bulky buildings that dominate the streetscape; • Oversized / dominating extensions to original cottages / homes.


PAGE 73

It is difficult to conclude that this proposal does not comprise such a threat to the existing character. Clause 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings includes the need to achieve residential development that respects neighbourhood character. It is a requirement of Clause 55 that a development must meet all of the objectives of the clause and should also meet all of the standards. Neighbourhood character is therefore a key consideration in the ResCode assessment for developments of this type. As discussed above the proposal does not respect existing or preferred neighbourhood character due to its impact on the streetscape. Furthermore, in addition to the streetscape, the issue of how the proposal is viewed from adjoining properties is a widely recognised important consideration in assessing neighbourhood character. The impact on the ‘backyard-scape’ is of particular importance in areas where dwellings have relatively modest rear yards and surrounding development is low-scale. This is certainly the case with this area although it is accepted that the impact of the development would be negated somewhat by the fact that the dwelling will have significant cut to the rear of the site. Residential Amenity and other ResCode matters Clause 55 also seeks to ensure reasonable standards of amenity for existing and new residents. The majority of amenity objectives have been assessed as being met. The objectives not met and those relevant to the issues raised by objectors are considered below: B14 Access

The access provision includes the objective of ensuring the safe, manageable and convenient vehicle access to and from the development and also has a standard which seeks accessways that do not exceed 33% of the street frontage so as not to impact on the streetscape. The City's Traffic Engineer has assessed the proposal and has concerns regarding the access being too wide and inadequate pedestrian visibility. The accessway does exceed 33% of the street frontage, although it is noted that the frontage is to a service lane rather than the street itself so the streetscape will not be greatly impacted. Such issues from a traffic and access perspective could be addressed by a condition to reduce the width of the access and provide appropriate sightlines for pedestrian visibility. Reducing the width of the access would also allow for additional landscaping on site. B17 Side and Rear Setbacks

ResCode has a formula for creating set distances for buildings proximate to boundaries. The proposal has three areas in the range of 100-200mm which do not comply with the standard. Although these are minor areas of non-compliance, given the amount of development on site the design should take this into account and ensure full compliance.


PAGE 74

However this is a matter that could be dealt with by way of a condition requiring amended plans to show compliance with the standard. B21 Overshadowing

The objective is to ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing buildings. The standard requires that at least 40% of private opens space receives a minimum of 5 hours of sunshine measured between 9am and 3pm on September 22nd. The applicant has provided overshadowing plans which show that the proposal would comply with the standard. B22 Overlooking

The objective is to limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows. The development has been designed to meet the overlooking standard. All views to adjoining properties would be obscured either by existing and proposed fencing and/or obscure/high level windows. B24 Noise Impact

The objective is to protect residents from external noise and contain noise in developments. Of relevance to local residents' concerns is increased noise as a result of the increased density. Increasing residential population will have impacts such as increase in noise levels from traffic etc. This is an inevitable consequence of urban infill development and not regarded as a valid reason for a refusal of a planning permit.

Other issues

• Parking

Residents and the traffic engineers have commented on the inadequate level of on-site parking. The proposal provides for two spaces for each dwelling which is compliant with Planning Scheme requirements. In addition no visitor parking is required for developments of less than 5 dwellings.

• Loss of view and property values

The loss of a view and impact on property values are rarely a consideration in planning and there are no controls in the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme which protect existing views in the urban area. • Lack of consultation with neighbours

It is recognised good practice for developers to engage with local residents about development proposals and this is encouraged by officers but cannot be enforced.


PAGE 75

Conclusion

The proposal would result in an efficient use of an infill development site which is in an excellent location to provide new housing in terms of accessibility to employment opportunities, leisure and shopping facilities and public transport. However the benefits of the location must be balanced against other planning considerations as discussed in this report. It is recognised that the applicant has developed this proposal through the course of a number of discussions and meetings with two heritage advisors and officers. However the advice given at those meetings was given without prejudice to a final assessment of the proposal, taking into account all requirements including the input of local residents. The resulting proposal is unfortunately not an acceptable outcome from a heritage and neighbourhood character perspective. Both the extended existing dwelling and new dwelling will be very large buildings which due to their design and the elevated nature of the site will have an unavoidable and dominant presence in the streetscape of both Don and Barnard Streets. It is accepted that the site is entirely suitable for the subdivision and development of a dwelling and that the existing dwelling could also be extended. However before the proposal could be supported there would need to be significant redesign of the proposal.

Options

Council, acting as the Responsible Authority, may resolve to approve or refuse to grant a permit.

Attachments

• Objections

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to Section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue a Refusal to Grant a Permit for a two lot subdivision, construction of a new dwelling and extension and garage to the existing dwelling and demolition of outbuildings at 308 Barnard Street, Bendigo for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development would adversely impact on the significance of the

heritage values of the place by reason of the bulk, form and design contrary to Clauses 21.08, 22.06 and 43.01 of the City of Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.

2. The proposal would be harmful to existing and preferred neighbourhood character by reason of the bulk, form and design contrary to the objectives of Clauses 21.06 Housing, 22.11 Central Bendigo Residential Character Policy, 32.01 Residential 1 Zone and 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot of the City of Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.


PAGE 76


PAGE 77


PAGE 78


PAGE 79


PAGE 80


PAGE 81


PAGE 82

Extension to Existing Dwelling


PAGE 83

Extension to Existing Dwelling


PAGE 84

Proposed Dwelling


PAGE 85

Proposed Dwelling


PAGE 86

2.6 SUBDIVIDE LAND INTO TEN LOTS AND CONSTRUCTION O F TEN DWELLINGS - LOT 18 OF PS 638645 T -15 WESLEY STREET / 17 GRANTHAM TERRACE, KANGAROO FLAT


Author Peter O'Brien, Senior Planner Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Dev elopment Director

Summary/Purpose

Planning permission is sought for the above proposal. The application is before Council as one objection to the application was received. Issues raised by the application include:

• Whether the proposal accords with Planning Scheme policy relating to medium density infill housing;

• Whether the proposal represents an appropriate outcome with reference to Residential Character Policy and ResCode.

• Whether amenity concerns raised by the objection are reasonable. The policy, character and ResCode merits of this infill development on this site are appropriate and this report recommends the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit.

Policy Context





The process of this application has been a lengthy one largely as a result of the quality of the applications plans that resulted in several requests for further information. A major reason for the delay was the fact that this application proposes to further subdivide Lot 18 of PS 638645 T, which was approved by permit DS/85/2007. The further subdivision of a lot created by an earlier permit cannot be permitted until it has clear title. The subject site received its individual title on 2 January 2013.


PAGE 87

Report

Application No: DSD/610/2010 Application Date: 11 October 2010 Applicant: Tomkinson Group Land: Lot 18 of PS 638645 T

15 Wesley Street, KANGAROO FLAT Zoning: Residential 1 Zone Overlays: Environmental Significance Overlay 1 Subject Site and Surrounds

Figure 1 : Aerial photograph showing subject site. The objector's property is marked with a star. Aerial was flown in November 2012. The subject site is an irregular shaped lot of 4,686 square metres in size being Lot 18 of PS 638645 T. The lot was created as a 'super lot' under planning permit DS/85/2007. A feature of the lot is provision of access to the lot between 15 and 19 Grantham Terrace. The lot is 166.11 metres long running on the northeast, southwest axis and is 29.33 metres deep at its deepest point being the northeastern boundary adjoining 27 Grantham Terrace. The subject site is vacant, with the works associated with the 2007 subdivision permit having also permitted native vegetation removal. As was noted in the background section of this report, the subdivision has only recently been completed; hence lots in Grantham Terrace are undeveloped as they formed part of the same subdivision that created the subject site.


PAGE 88

It is noted that a building permit has recently been issued at 13 Grantham Terrace, however at the time of the preparation of this report construction had not commenced. To the west of the site (Victoria Avenue) are a number of dwellings that are complete with only 21 not containing dwellings. To the south of the site are three dwellings that front Sovereign Gardens that either adjoin or partly adjoin the subject site. Proposal

Subdivide land into ten lots and construct ten dwellings:

• Lot 1 is proposed to be 327 sqm in size and contain a single storey three bedroom dwelling with double attached garage.

• Lot 2 is proposed to be 233 sqm in size and contain a double storey three bedroom dwelling with single attached garage with a tandem second space in front of the garage.

• Lot 3 is proposed to be 294 sqm in size and contain a single storey two bedroom dwelling with single attached garage.


• Lot 5 is proposed to be 266 sqm in size and contain a double storey three bedroom dwelling with single attached garage with a tandem second space in front of the garage.



• Lot 8 is proposed to be 287 sqm and contain a single storey three bedroom dwelling with single attached garage with a tandem second space in front of the garage.

• Lot 9 is proposed to be 300 sqm and contain a double storey three bedroom dwelling with single attached garage with a tandem second space in front of the garage.

• Lot 10 is proposed to be 444 sqm in size and contain a single storey three bedroom dwelling with double attached garage.

• Common property will consist of an area of 1691 sqm to enable vehicle access and manoeuvring within the development.

Each of the single storey dwellings are proposed to be contemporary in style with hipped roof and face brickwork. The upper level of the two storey dwellings will be weatherboard with face brick at the lower level.


The following clauses are relevant in the consideration of this proposal: State Planning Policy Framework:

• Open space (clause 11.03). • Regional development (clause 11.05). • Sustainable development (clause 15.02). • Residential development (clause 16.01). • Housing form (clause 16.02). • Integrated transport (clause 18.01).


PAGE 89

• Movement networks (clause 18.02). Municipal Strategic Statement:

• Municipal profile (clause 21.01). • Key issues and influences (clause 21.02). • Vision - strategic framework (clause 21.03). • Strategic directions (clause 21.04). • Settlement (clause 21.05). • Housing (clause 21.06). • Infrastructure (clause 21.09). • Reference documents (clause 21.10). • Monitoring and review (clause 21.11). Local Planning Policies:

• Kangaroo Flat Character Policy (clause 22.18). Zone:

• Residential 1 Zone (clause 32.01). Other Relevant Provisions:

• ResCode (clauses 55 & 56). • Decision guidelines (clause 65). • Referral and notice provisions (clause 66).


Referrals The following authorities and internal departments have been consulted on the proposal:

Referral Comment

Powercor No objection subject to conditions

Coliban Water No objection subject to conditions

Telstra No objection subject to conditions

Tenix No objection subject to conditions

Country Fire Authority No objection, no conditions.

Department of Sustainability & Environment

No objection, no conditions.

North Central Catchment Management Authority

No objection, no conditions.

Goulburn Murray Water No objection subject to conditions

Traffic & Design No objection subject to conditions


PAGE 90

Referral Comment

Drainage No objection subject to conditions

Public Notification The application was advertised by way of notice on the site and letters to adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers. As a result of advertising 1 objection was received, with the grounds of objection being:

• Units behind larger lots yet to be developed (Grantham Terrace) will not be in keeping within the appearance and character of the existing neighbourhood.

• Two units are 2 storey which create overlooking issues.

• Unusual location of common property (being between two dwellings)

• The increased traffic noise due to the access road that will need to be built.

• The proximity of the dwellings to the fence line of the objector is close (being 1 metre) and the difference in levels between the existing and proposed dwellings may create drainage issues.

The objections are discussed below.

Planning Assessment

Does the proposal accord with Planning Scheme policy relating to medium density housing? Clause 11.05-4 (Regional planning strategies and principles) has objectives to limit urban sprawl and direct growth into existing settlements, promoting and capitalising on opportunities for urban renewal and redevelopment. The objective of Clause 15.01 (Urban environment) aims to create urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identity and subdivisions that are attractive, liveable, walkable, cyclable, diverse and are sustainable neighbourhoods. Clause 15.02 Sustainable development seeks to achieve energy and resource efficiency in development proposals and encourages development that is consistent with the efficient use of energy and the minimisation of greenhouse gases. Clause 16.01 Residential development has objectives which promote a diverse range of housing that meets community needs in locations that offer good access to services and transport and that is both water and energy efficient. With respect to local provisions of the Planning Scheme, Clause 21.06 (Housing) and the referenced Bendigo Residential Development Strategy 2004 identifies the site as being within existing urban zoned land (being residential) hence policy support for some form of medium density development on this site exists.


PAGE 91

The State and Local Policy framework of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme lends support for an intensification of development on well serviced sites which are in proximity to a full range of urban services. Does the proposal represent an appropriate outcome with reference to Residential Character Policy and ResCode? The site is not subject to a specific overlay that relates to controlling built form (for example a Heritage or Neighbourhood Character Overlay). Despite this, character remains an important consideration being the first objective and standard of ResCode. The City’s Residential Character Policy further guides consideration of the appropriateness or otherwise of a new development’s response to character. The site is within the Kangaroo Flat character precinct 4 which the policy describes as:

‘An area of housing built since the 1950s, in which consistency of setbacks within particular streetscapes is important. Roof shapes are also often important as they provide a consistent theme. The horizontal emphasis of the dwelling form results from the long, low elevations of the buildings in relation to their height.’

The statement of desired future character is that the ‘The horizontality and articulation of the dwellings will be maintained’. The desired future character is to be achieved by the following objectives and design responses:

Objective Design Responses

To maintain and strengthen the garden settings of the dwellings.

Prepare a landscape plan to accompany all applications for new dwellings. Retain large, established trees and provide for the planting of new trees wherever possible.

Comment: A landscape concept plan was submitted with the application; however a more detailed plan prepared by a suitably qualified landscape architect is required as part of the proposed permit conditions. The configuration of the common property and the fact that it runs to the rear of lots 10-17 (inclusive) means that it is advisable to have landscaping in the common property at this interface. The condition requiring this specific detail on the landscape plan forms part of the recommended conditions.

To maintain the consistency, where present, of building front setbacks.

The front setback should be not less than the average setback of the adjoining two dwellings.

Comment: This is not applicable as no dwellings exist in the immediate (and relevant) context of this site. The setbacks from the common property are generally over five metres as this is required in order for a second car space behind the garage to be provided.

To reflect the rhythm of dwelling spacing.

Buildings should be setback 2 metres from at least one side boundary.


PAGE 92

Objective Design Responses

Comment: All dwellings have setbacks off one side boundary of at least one metre. As the dwellings will not front a formal street, instead are accessed via common property and sited between dwellings fronting Victoria Avenue and eventual dwellings fronting Grantham Terrace these setbacks are deemed as being appropriate.

To ensure that buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape.

Respect the predominant building height in the street and nearby properties. Where there is a predominance of single storey, the height of the dwelling at the front of the dwelling should match the typical single storey wall height. Use low pitched roof forms.

Comment: Two of the ten dwellings proposed are two storey (Lots 2 and 5). The predominant building height in the area is single storey. The upper levels are articulated, and in both cases, the front wall (closest wall to the common property) is a single storey height garage. This meets the objective as the upper levels are then setback further than the single storey garage front wall.

To use building materials and finishes that complements the dominant pattern within the streetscape.

In streetscapes where weatherboard predominates use timber or other non-masonry cladding materials, where possible, and render, paint or bag brick surfaces.

Comment: The dominant dwelling cladding is face brick and or render. All dwellings propose face brick, with the two storey dwellings employing weatherboard on the upper facades.

To maintain the openness of the streetscape.

Provide open-style or low front fencing to a maximum of 1.2 metres.

Comment: The applicant has not definitely shown whether front fences are proposed or not, however their submission noted that if fences were to be used they would be low and open style.

In addition to character, the proposal has also been assessed as being in general accordance with the majority of ResCode standards and objectives in terms of providing internal and external amenity consideration and complying siting. The proposed dwellings are considered appropriate in a character sense. Some minor modifications with regard to minimum floor levels (imposed by the 2007 permit); the requirement for the dwelling on Lot 9 to have its setback increased marginally and the provision of visitor parking spaces are outstanding ResCode issues to be addressed by a modified plan condition. Residents’ Objections • Units behind larger lots yet to be developed (Grantham Terrace) will not be in not

keeping within the appearance and character of the existing neighbourhood.


PAGE 93

In terms of this concern, the officer assessment disagrees with this proposition and has assessed the proposal as providing a suitable character outcome in accordance with policy and the actual site context.

• Two units are 2 storey which create overlooking issues.

The submitted plans show all upper level widows as being either set at 1700mm or obscured glazed, which complies with ResCode.

• Unusual location of common property (being between two dwellings).

It is agreed that medium density development is not usually configured or accessed in the manner proposed, however this does not mean that the proposal is flawed as a result. The access has been considered by the City’s Traffic Engineer who confirms it will appropriately serve the residences that are accessed by it.

• The increased traffic noise due to the access road that will need to be built.

It is agreed that there will be some increase in noise from both traffic and new residences. It is noted that in terms of the objector's property, that the common property is buffered from that property as the dwellings are sited between the common property and the residences fronting Victoria Avenue. As the access to the dwellings is a common property, not a through road no excessive vehicle noise impacts are expected.

• The proximity of the dwellings to the fence line of the objector is close (being 1 metre).

The concern related to the setbacks from part of the rear boundary (Lot 9) adjoining the objector property, are supported in part. Because there are windows on this elevation, these windows need to have a minimum of 1 metre clear to sky beyond the guttering of the dwelling, meaning the setback will need to be increased marginally to comply with ResCode and this change is in the recommended conditions.

• The difference in levels between the existing and proposed dwellings may create drainage issues.

The objector is actually on the high side of the application site; hence any runoff from this development will not impact the objector property. The City’s Drainage Engineer has requested a drainage plan be prepared for the development which will address the drainage impacts of this proposal in accordance with established standards.

Resource Implications • If the permit applicant or objector disagrees with the Council decision, either party

may request the decision be reviewed by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Costs associated with an appeal of this nature would be in the vicinity of 10,000.00 to $15,000.00 dollars.


PAGE 94

Conclusion

The housing policy directions in the State Policy (Clauses 11.02 and 16.01) and the Municipal Strategic Statement of the Planning Scheme generally support medium density housing in appropriate locations such as this. This proposal has been assessed as representing an appropriate response to character where the impacts of the proposal have been limited to reasonable levels which are what ResCode seeks to achieve. The proposal is recommended for approval.

Options


Attachments

• Objection

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit to subdivide land into ten lots and construct ten dwellings at Lot 18 of PS 638645 T, 15 Wesley Street / 17 Grantham Terrace, Kangaroo Flat, 3555 subject to the following conditions:

1. MODIFIED PLAN REQUIRED Before the subdivision and development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and two copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show: (a) Minimum floor level in accordance with Restriction 18 on PS 638645T in

relation to minimum floor levels for dwellings. (b) The rear wall of the dwelling proposed for Lot 9 increased to be a

minimum of 1.2 metres to comply with ResCode standard B-27. (c) Provision of visitor parking in accordance with Table 1 of Clause 52.06.

2. LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIRED Before the development starts, a landscape plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape architect, submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and two copies must be provided. The plan must show: (a) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways; (b) Details of landscaping in the common property on the boundary abutting

Lots 10-17 (inclusive) of PS 638645T &


PAGE 95

(c) Planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant.

3. NO LAYOUT ALTERATION The subdivision and development permitted by this permit as shown on the endorsed plans 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.

4. LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

5. COMPLETION OF LANDSCAPING Before the occupation of the development starts or by such later date as is approved by the responsible authority in writing, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

6. GENERAL EXTERIOR TREATMENT The exterior treatment of the buildings permitted by this permit including all exterior decoration, materials, finishes and colours must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The exterior treatment of the building(s) must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

7. REFRIGERATION & AIR-CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT Any equipment required for refrigeration, air-conditioning, heating and the like must be suitably insulated for the purpose of reducing noise emissions and must be located so as to not be highly visible from the street to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

8. CONSTRUCTION PHASE All activities associated with the construction of the development permitted by this permit must be carried out to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and all care must be taken to minimise the effect of such activities on the amenity of the locality.

9. DETAILED DRAINAGE PLANS Prior to the certification of the plan of subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and then will form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions. The plans must include: (a) direction of stormwater run off (b) a point of discharge for each lot (c) independent drainage for each lot


PAGE 96

10. STORMWATER DETENTION Before the use or development is commenced, the owner or applicant must provide onsite surface and stormwater detention to pre-development levels in accordance with plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Or The responsible authority may deem this condition satisfied by a development contribution towards the acceptance of surface and stormwater discharge from the approved subdivision, building and/or works, whether or not such new drainage infrastructure has been or will be situated within the boundaries of the subject land. Such amount is assessed as $ 9,000 or such amount applying at the time of payment.

11. STORMWATER QUALITY Before the use or development commences, the owner or applicant must provide a stormwater treatment system to achieve the “Best Practice Environmental Guidelines” storm water quality (Victorian Stormwater Committee, 1999) in accordance with plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

12. DRAINAGE WORKS Prior to the issue of the Statement of Compliance for the subdivision, drainage works must be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the responsible authority in conditions above.

13. SECTION 173 AGREEMENT – ON SITE DETENTION SYSTEM Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the applicant/owner must enter into an agreement under section 173 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987.

Such agreement must covenant that: (a) The on-site detention system and/or treatment system shall be designed

by a qualified engineer and must be approved by the responsible authority prior to construction.

(b) Each detention system and/or treatment system must be constructed either prior to, or currently with, the construction of any dwelling on the specified lots. Each system must be completed prior to connection to the responsible authority’s drainage system.

(c) The owner will maintain each on-site detention system and/or treatment system and not modify without prior written approval from the responsible authority.

(d) The owner shall allow duly authorised officers of the responsible authority to inspect the systems at mutually agreed times.

(e) The Owner will pay for all costs associated with the construction and maintenance of each on-site detention system and/or treatment system.


PAGE 97

14. CITY OF GREATER BENDIGO ASSETS Before the development starts, the owner or developer must submit to the responsible authority a written report and photos of any prior damage to public infrastructure. Listed in the report must be the condition of kerb & channel, footpath, seal, street lights, signs and other public infrastructure fronting the property and abutting at least two properties either side of the development. Unless identified with the written report, any damage to infrastructure post construction will be attributed to the development. The owner or developer of the subject land must pay for any damage caused to any public infrastructure caused as a result of the development or use permitted by this permit.

15. VEHICLE CROSSINGS Vehicular access to the subject land from any roadway or service lane (and vice versa) must be by way of a vehicle crossing(s) constructed at right angles to the road, to suit the proposed driveway(s) and vehicles that will use the crossing. A Works within Road Reserves permit must be obtained from the City of Greater Bendigo Asset Planning & Design Unit prior to any work commencing in the road reserve.

16. SEALED CAR PARK Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles together with the aisles and drives must be properly formed to such levels that they can be utilised in accordance with the endorsed plan and must be drained and provided with an impervious all weather seal coat. The areas must be constructed, drained and maintained in a continuously useable condition to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

17. USE OF CAR PARKING AREAS Areas set aside for the parking and movement of vehicles as shown on the endorsed plan must be made available for such use and must not be used for any other purpose.

18. PEDESTRIAN SIGHTLINES The minimum sight line for pedestrian safety must be provided at the exit lane frontage so as to accord with Clause 52.06-8 of the City of Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.

19. FENCING OF SITE The fence(s) as shown on the endorsed plans(s) must be erected and maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

20. NO MUD ON ROADS In the event of mud, crushed rock or other debris being carried onto public roads or footpaths from the subject land, appropriate measures must be implemented to minimise the problem to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.


PAGE 98

21. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE CONTRIBUTION The applicant or owner must pay to the City of Greater Bendigo an amount equivalent to 5% of land in the subdivision. This payment must be made before a Statement of Compliance is issued and may be varied under section 19 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

22. GOULBURN MURRAY WATER (a) All works within the subdivision must be done in accordance with EPA

Publication 960 “Doing It Right on Subdivisions, Temporary Environmental Protection Measures for Subdivision Construction Sites”, September 2004.

(b) Each lot must be provided with connection to the reticulated sewerage system in accordance with the requirements of Coliban Water.

(c) All stormwater discharged from the site must meet the urban run-off objectives and Standard C25 as specified in Clause 56.07-4 of the Victorian Planning Provisions. All infrastructure and works to manage stormwater must be in accordance with the requirements of the Responsible Authority.

23. TELSTRA

The plan of subdivision submitted for certification must be referred to Telstra in accordance with section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

24. TENIX The plan of subdivision submitted for certification must be referred to SP AusNet (Gas) in accordance with section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

25. POWERCOR (a) The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision

Act 1988 shall be referred to Powercor Australia Ltd in accordance with section 8 of that Act.

(b) The applicant shall provide an electricity supply to all lots in the subdivision in accordance with Powercor’s requirements and standards, including the extension, augmentation or re-arrangement of any existing electricity supply system, as required by Powercor.

(c) The applicant shall where buildings or other installations exist on the land to be subdivided and are connected to the electricity supply, they shall be brought into compliance with the Service and Installation Rules issued by the Victorian Electricity Supply Industry. The applicant shall arrange compliance through a registered electrical contractor and provide to Powercor Australia Ltd a completed Electrical Safety Certificate in accordance with Electricity Safe Victoria’s Electrical Safety System.

(d) The applicant shall provide to Powercor Australia Ltd, a copy of the version of the plan of subdivision submitted for certification, which shows any amendments that have been required.

(e) Any buildings must comply with the clearances required by the Electricity Safety (Network Assets) Regulations.

(f) Any construction work must comply with Energy Safe Victoria’s “No Go Zone” rules.


PAGE 99

26. COLIBAN WATER (a) The owner is required to provide reticulated water and sewerage

services to each of the lots within the subdivision. Services are to be provided in accordance with our specifications.

(b) All Coliban Water assets within the subdivision, both existing and proposed, are to be protected by an easement in favour of Coliban Region Water Corporation

Telstra Note Approval does not cover alterations to existing Telstra plant or network. Locations of existing network can be obtained from Dial Before You Dig – Ph: 1100 For co-ordinated Telstra plant reticulation in this development, please refer to www.telstrasmartcommunity.com to register your development and apply for reticulation. City of Greater Bendigo Asset Planning & Design Note A Works within Road Reserves permit must be obtained from the City of Greater Bendigo Asset Planning & Design Unit prior to any work commencing in the road reserve. CONSENT FOR WORK ON ROAD RESERVES The applicant must comply with: (a) The Road Management Act 2004, (b) Road Management (Works and Infrastructure) Regulations 2005, and (c) Road Management (General) Regulations 2005 with respect to any requirements to notify the coordinating authority and/or seek consent from the coordinating authority to undertake “works” (as defined in the Act) in, over or under the road reserve. The responsible authority in the inclusion of this note on this planning permit is not deemed to have been notified of, or to have given consent, to undertake any works within the road reserve as proposed in this permit.


PAGE 100


PAGE 101


PAGE 102


PAGE 103

2.7 CONSTRUCTION OF A CARPORT - 11 SHAMROCK STREET, GOLDEN SQUARE


Author Frank Casimir, Statutory Planner Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Dev elopment Director

Summary/Purpose

This application seeks planning approval for the construction of a carport at 11 Shamrock Street, Golden Square. At its ordinary meeting of 23 January 2013, Council resolved to defer this application to allow for further discussion with the applicant to seek an amendment to the plan of the carport that fits with the neighbourhood character (ie no closer to the street boundary than the front of the dwelling, which is approximately 4.4 metres). The discussion resulted in an amendment to the site layout plan of the carport which provides a 1.5 metre setback (amended from zero) with the front lot boundary. This report recommends that the City of Greater Bendigo refuse the application.

Policy Context





The site is one of the resulting lots of a 2-lot subdivision (and construction of one dwelling) approved under permit DS/755/2004. The permit was issued under delegated authority on 28 April 2005.


PAGE 104

Report

Application No: DG/1018/2011 Application Date: 29 December 2011 Applicant: A F Pannell and L M West Land: 11 Shamrock Street, GOLDEN SQUARE Zoning: Residential 1 Zone Overlays: Neighbourhood Character Overlay 1 Subject Site and Surrounds

The site is developed with a dwelling constructed around the 1950s and measures approximately 276 square metres. The dwelling is constructed with a front setback of approximately 4.5 metres and side setbacks of approximately 3 metres and 1.5 metres respectively. The site also has a front fence consisting of a hedge, pickets and low lying brick wall and colorbond side fences. There is an existing crossover and driveway to access the site along its north-western boundary. The site is abutted on both sides by residential lots that have already been developed with single storey dwellings. The construction dates of these dwellings vary but most of them were constructed either during the inter-war period or around the 1950s. A common feature of these dwellings is that they all have their car storage facilities constructed either to their sides or at the rear. Shamrock Street has footpaths on either side constructed along the lot boundaries/fences and does not contain any significant trees.

Figure 1 : Aerial photo (dated 2010) showing location of subject site.


PAGE 105

Proposal

The proposal is for the construction of a 6-metre long, 2.95-metre wide and approximately 4-metre high carport to the front of the existing dwelling. The proposed carport has a pitched roof, will be of galvanised iron and will be constructed along the north-western lot boundary. Its setback with the front lot boundary has now been amended from zero to 1.5 metres.


The following clauses are relevant in the consideration of this proposal: A permit is required to construct a carport in the Residential 1 Zone if the lot is less than 300 square metres. State Planning Policy Framework

• Clause 15.01-5 Cultural identity and neighbourhood character Municipal Strategic Statement

• Clause 21.06 Housing (Urban design and neighbourhood character) Local Planning Policies

• Clause 22.15 Golden Square Residential Character Policy Other Provisions

• Clause 32.01 Residential 1 Zone • Clause 54 One Dwelling on a lot


Planning officers have originally consulted with the applicant verbally and in writing to advise that the construction of the carport to the front of the dwelling is not consistent with the provisions of the Planning Scheme because this will have an adverse impact on the neighbourhood character of the area. It was proposed to the applicant to locate the carport to the side of the dwelling but the applicant rejected the proposal. After further discussion with the applicant, they agreed to locate the carport with a 1.5 metre setback from the front lot boundary. This is still not consistent with the Planning Scheme requirement for the construction of carports in the Neighbourhood Character Overlay. Referrals The Transportation Engineer of the City Engineering and Public Space Department was verbally consulted. The verbal advice of the Transportation Engineer was that if a permit is issued for this proposal, the safety of pedestrians using the adjoining footpath must be ensured by providing adequate clear view at the exit of the driveway onto the footpath.


PAGE 106

This would only be achieved by lowering the height of the existing lot boundary fences to 0.9 metres on a distance of at least 2.5 metres on either side of the driveway/carport. However, it is noteworthy cars are already exiting from this driveway onto the footpath. Public Notification The proposal will have an adverse impact on the existing neighbourhood character of the area but has little potential to cause material detriment to the adjoining property owners or occupiers. This is because there is a driveway adjacent to it on the adjoining lot and its setback with the existing dwelling on that lot is approximately 10 metres. The current application has been publicly advertised to the adjoining property owners and occupiers. At the end of the advertising period and to this date, no objection to the application has been received.

Planning Assessment

Neighbourhood Character Clauses 15.01 (Urban environment), 15.01-1 (Urban Design) and 15.01-5 (Cultural identity and neighbourhood character) are the clauses from the State Planning Policy Framework which are relevant to this proposal. These clauses principally provide that urban developments need to preserve and protect the existing neighbourhood character. This is translated at the local level at Clause 22.15 (Golden Square Residential Character Policy, Golden Square Precinct 1). The statement of the desired future character for this residential neighbourhood is that the heritage qualities and the distinctive characteristics of each streetscape will be maintained and strengthened. One of the objectives set to achieve this is that car storage facilities should be located behind the line of dwelling. This proposal is relatively minor in scale but will have a negative impact on the existing character of this residential neighbourhood. One distinctive and existing character of this neighbourhood is that there are no car storage facilities that have been constructed to the front of dwellings in this section of Shamrock Street. The short distance of this section of Shamrock Street makes this character even more obvious and distinctive. The verbal comments received from the City's Transportation Engineer also do not support the proposal in its current form because of its potential to create a traffic hazard for pedestrians using the abutting footpaths. Through consultation and discussion with the applicant, their only reason to locate the carport to the front of the dwelling is because they are using the area to the side of the dwelling as their private open space. However, at the subdivision stage of the site, private open space was provided for at the rear of the dwelling. This is therefore a situation where an owner may not have sufficiently considered their site constraints while incrementally developing their property. It would appear from existing records that after the subdivision of the site, the existing and original dwelling has been extended to the rear and that the extension has taken up most of the area set aside for private open space.


PAGE 107

An assessment of the proposal against Clause 54 (Rescode) shows that the proposal fails to meet the objectives set for neighbourhood character and for front street setback. On the other hand, it generally meets the remaining relevant objectives of Rescode.

Conclusion

This proposal is minor in scale but it does not meet the requirement of the Planning Scheme because of its siting although it now has a front setback of 1.5 metres. There are currently no carports to the front of dwellings in this streetscape and the construction of the carport to the front of this dwelling will have an adverse impact on the character of this neighbourhood. The construction of the carport to the side of the dwelling, but no closer to the street than the front of the dwelling, would be the desired planning outcome for this neighbourhood.

Options


RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to Refuse to Grant a Permit for the construction of a carport to the front of the dwelling at 11 Shamrock Street, Golden Square on the following grounds: � The proposal would result in an adverse impact on the existing neighbourhood

character by reason of the siting of the carport contrary to clauses 21.06, 22.15 and 32.01 of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.


PAGE 108

Figure 2 : Amended site layout plan for proposed carport


PAGE 109

2.8 GREATER BENDIGO RESIDENTIAL STRATEGY REVIEW ISS UES AND OPTIONS PAPER


Author Andrew Cockerall, Coordinator Strategic Plan ning Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and D evelopment Director

Summary/Purpose

The report updates Council on the progress of the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy Review, summarises the Issues and Options Paper and recommends that the Issues and Options Paper be released for community comment.

Policy Context

Council Plan Reference:

Strategy 1.10.2 states “Complete the review of the Residential Development Strategy 2004 and commence implementation” Strategy Reference:

Bendigo Residential Development Strategy 2004 http://www.bendigo.vic.gov.au/News/Publications/Documents_listing/Residential_Development_Strategy


The current Residential Development Strategy is now 8 years old. During this time there has been a significant amount of development in Bendigo, accelerated population growth and a number of other changes, such as the recommendations of the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission that have impacted on the most effective residential development response for Greater Bendigo. It is therefore timely to review the Residential Strategy to ensure that it aligns with community expectations and current planning regulations and practice. Previous Council Decision(s) Date(s): 15/06/11 Council endorsed the brief for the review.

29/02/12 Council adopted the Audit of the Residential Development Strategy


PAGE 110

Report

Introduction The Bendigo Residential Development Strategy (BRDS) was adopted in 2004 and provides a framework for identifying what Bendigo's future housing needs will be and how they can be accommodated up until 2030. The strategy identified 5 components to accommodate Bendigo's future growth. The 5 components are: • Urban Containment - encouraging better use of existing residentially zoned infill sites. • Core Development - higher density housing around the Bendigo CBD, Hospital and

University precincts. • Community Focussed Development - higher densities along transport corridors. • New Development Areas - "greenfield" areas that include Jackass Flat, Huntly,

Strathfieldsaye and Maiden Gully North East. • Satellite Development - growth and expansion of Marong as a satellite township. The following graph indicates the stages of the Residential Strategy Review. Stage 1, the Audit has been finalised. The Issues and Options Paper being considered by Council represents Stage 2 of the project.


PAGE 111

Audit The first stage in the review of the BRDS was to audit the existing document, which involved extensive research and analysis. The purpose was to assess whether the existing principles and objectives of the BRDS remain relevant, how the implementation of the growth components is progressing and what has changed in legislative or policy context since the BRDS was finalised in 2004. The Audit found that the current strategy "has not failed; it is not fundamentally flawed or out dated in terms of principles". The Audit did find that a more detailed review of the BRDS is required in order to identify current priorities, clarify areas of responsibility, regain community and stakeholder support and to respond to current and emerging trends.

Audit -Completed

• Identification of issues and options that impact on the future growth of Greater Bendigo

Issues & Options - Draft Completed

• There will be a series of community information sessions, workshops and listening posts as well as updates of the website

Exhibition of Issues and

Options

• Preparation of final review document following community feedback on the issues and option.

• Further stakeholder engagement required.

Revised Residential

Strategy

• Draft available for public comment following consideration by Council

Exhibition of Revised Strategy

• Implement the recommendations of the Review into the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.

Adoption and Planning Scheme

Amendment


PAGE 112

The Audit report detailed various findings and recommendations. Included among the key findings of the Audit: • That "minor infill" or subdivisions of less than 4 lots within existing residential areas

account for 80% of all subdivisions and 30% of all lots. • Need to look beyond a 15 year land supply. • On average the size of new lots created has been decreasing and this has resulted in

yields greater than anticipated in 2004. • There is a need to create communities that decrease reliance on the car and promote

pedestrian and cyclist movements. • Promoting housing affordability continues to be a challenge. • The need to create sustainable communities continues to gain momentum. • There is a need to better manage growth in heritage areas. • There is a need to better promote housing around key activity centres. • Managing vegetation within and proximate residential areas continues to be a

challenge, especially in light of perceived bushfire risks. • Future planning needs to consider risks associated with changing weather patterns. • Need to better promote community health and wellbeing. In addition to this there has been significant policy and legislative change which must be considered has part of the reviews of the BRDS. These changes include various revisions to State Planning Policy, the Transport Integration Act and changes resulting from the Bushfire Royal Commission. Background Reports Planning for future residential growth in Bendigo is an intricate task. Strong population growth, the ring of forest surrounding the city, bushfire risk, flooding, transport and a number of other factors combine to make Bendigo a complex landscape when planning for growth. In order to get a better understanding of these matters a series of background reports were prepared that have been distilled into the draft Issues and Options Paper. These technical background papers provide the more in depth analysis and discussion of these issues and options. Specifically these background papers include: • Planning and Transport Background Paper, CoGB • Demographic Background Paper, CoGB • GIS Analysis and Mapping, CoGB • Bushfire Hazard Identification, Terramatrix • Physical Infrastructure Identification, SKM • Natural Features Identification, SKM • Land Supply Analysis, Spatial Economics


PAGE 113

Issues and Options Based on the research undertaken to date and feedback received from stakeholders, 5 key issues for future residential development have been identified. These issues are: 1. Bendigo’s Role as a Regional City – building on our significant role within the region

and State. 2. A growing and changing community – planning for a sustainable and liveable

community. 3. Moving around Greater Bendigo – creating accessible communities. 4. Our Community, Our Environment – balancing the needs of the environment with the

growth of our community. 5. More Efficient Use of Land – maximising development opportunities in a sustainable

way. Each of these issues includes discussion on topics such as the Regional Growth Plan, demographic information, planning for health, housing needs, heritage, affordable housing, linking transport and land use, achieving higher density housing in activity centres, vegetation and biodiversity, bushfire, the Urban Growth Boundary, promoting the use of surplus crown land and more. Various options are put forward within the document are intended to form the basis for community discussion. Some of these options are likely to trigger healthy debate, these include: • Do we need to promote a compact urban form or continue to sprawl? • Should the City take a more active role in promoting housing diversity or let the

market decide? • Should the City be insisting that new developments be accessed by a variety of

transport modes or continue our reliance on the car? • Is there still a need for an Urban Growth Boundary and if so is it in the right location? • Should the City identify sites that are environmentally constrained and shouldn’t be

developed or continue to respond on a site by site basis? Finally, the Issues and Options Paper presents a series of scenarios as to how future growth might be accommodated. These include: • Consolidation – This scenario proposes no change to the UGB and that we maximise

the use of existing residential land and investigate other sites within the UGB, such as former mining sites.

• Greenfield – There are a number of sites where there is developer/landowner interest in residential development. No judgements are made as to whether one particular greenfield site is more appropriate than another.

• Transit Oriented Development – Encouraging higher densities around activity centres and along major transport corridors.

These growth options are put forward for community discussion. The final preferred option is likely to be a combination of all three growth scenarios.


PAGE 114

Next Steps The next stage is to release the Issues and Options Paper for community comment for a period of six weeks. During this time there will be a number of targeted workshops, at least 5 community workshops, a listening post as well as a project bulletins and webpage updates. After this there will be a further report to Council and work will commence on preparing the final review document that will be reported to Council in July. Priority/Importance: This project is a high priority. The current Residential Strategy is now over 8 years old and is due for a review. There is a pressing need to ensure that future growth aligns with current statutory and policy requirements as well as changing community expectations. Options/Alternatives: Given the critical nature of this project no other options are considered feasible. Timelines: The Issues and Options Paper will be on exhibition from 30 March until 13 May 2013. Risk Analysis: The options being put forward are intended to trigger community discussion on the future growth of Greater Bendigo. Some aspects of these options are likely to result is differing opinions within the community. This is intended to happen.


Internal Consultation: Internal departments consulted with during the preparation of the Issues and Options Paper including the Planning, Economic Development and Sustainable Environment. External Consultation: During the preparation of the Issues and Options Paper a number of targeted consultation sessions were held. These include a session with representatives of the Urban Development Institute of Australia, the Positive Aging Committee working group on housing, Natural Environment Advisory Committee, Bendigo Sustainability Group and various government and serving agencies. During the exhibition period of the Issues and Options Paper it is intended to re-engage with these groups and others.


PAGE 115


Budget Allocation in the Current Financial Year: $40,000

Previous Council Support: There was an allocation in the 2011/12 financial year of $40,000.

External Funding Sources: A grant of $50,000 was received from the State Government through the Planning for Tomorrow fund and a further $50,000 was received to prepare the Bushfire Hazard Identification report.

Current Estimate or Tender Price: Due to the specialised nature of a number of the background reports these were prepared by specialised consultancies. These reports were all within the current budget allocation.

Any known or anticipated variance to budget: None anticipated.

Projected costs for future financial years: An allocation of approximately $45,000 will be required in 2013/14 to finalise the review and commence the Planning Scheme Amendment process.

Any ongoing recurrent expenditure required: None anticipated.

Conclusion

The Issues and Options Paper for the Residential Strategy Review has been drafted and is now ready for community comment. The Paper provides options for accommodating residential growth, it does not provide the solution. The research and feedback received to date together with the feedback to be received during the exhibition period will inform the final review document. The draft of this document will be presented to Council in July.

Attachments

1. Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy Review Stage 2 – Issues and Options Paper.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve: • To endorse the draft Residential Strategy Issues and Option Paper; • To place the Issues and Options Paper on exhibition for community comment for six

weeks; • That during the exhibition period a number of workshops be held to facilitate

community comment on the Issues and Options Paper.


PAGE 116

2.9 PROPOSED INCREASES TO VCAT FEES


Author Peter O'Brien, Senior Planner Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and D evelopment Director

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of this report is to advise Council on the recent release of a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) released by the Department of Justice which proposes options relating to fees payable when proceedings at VCAT occur. Although the City is occasionally before VCAT on matters such as land valuations or dangerous dogs; this report pertains to the impacts on Planning and Environment List fees. Submissions to the review closed on 15 February 2013 and staff have made a submission to the review. The submission advised that the views expressed were subject to Council endorsement and that an amended submission may follow depending on Council’s views.

Policy Context


3.1 Advocate effectively to government to further the interests and needs of Greater Bendigo and its communities.

Report

VCAT has a mission statement to provide ‘Victorians with a low cost, accessible, efficient and independent tribunal delivering high quality dispute resolution’. Users of Victorian courts and tribunals make contributions to the operating costs through a range of fees which have recently been updated in 2012 for the Magistrates, County and Supreme Courts. The legal jurisdiction for which VCAT is most reasonably compared recently adopted a level of 50% cost recovery. At the present time, VCAT operates at a level of 14% cost recovery. The fees currently charged by VCAT are under review and are proposed to change to better reflect the jurisdictions and services provided by VCAT, the increase in complexity, time and resource demands of cases and to align with cost recovery principles associated with other Victorian court structures. It is proposed to stagger fee increases over a 3 year period.


PAGE 117

With reference to the Planning and Environment List, some of the main aspects of the proposed changes are: • Most commencement fees (applications for review of Council decision) increasing

from $322.00 to $1,007.40 over 3 years. • Enforcement / declaration commencement fee increasing from $38.80 to $1,007.40

over 3 years. • A widening of the types of applications that will attract hearing fees per day (these are

in addition to commencement fees). • A new ‘complex cases’ hearing fee calculated to recover 45% of the calculated cost

of the hearing. • Removal of the $5 million development value threshold for the Major Cases List – this

list seeks to achieve cost neutrality i.e. 100% cost recovery. • Establishment of ‘mediation fees’ calculated to recover 45% of the calculated cost of

the mediation. • Staggered increase in fees to take cost recovery from 14.1% this year to

approximately 44.4% in year 3 of the proposed regulations. The proposed fee review has garnered extensive media coverage and it is understood that a large number of submissions have been made by various groups which include various Councils, the Planning Institute of Australia (Victorian Division), Municipal Association of Victoria, the Environment Defender Office, Members of Parliament, Community Legal Centres and Resident Groups. The City's submission to the review that was lodged with the Department of Justice is the Planning Department view only and does not purport to represent a broader community view of Greater Bendigo. This was owing to the short timeframe (and time of year) that the review period was open. The submission included the following points:

• Agreed that for cases on the Major Cases List it is appropriate to seek to achieve cost neutrality. This list provides major developments with certainty as to the timing of Tribunal decisions and frees up resources that would otherwise be consumed if the case remained on the regular list.

• Supported the staggered increase of fees taking cost recovery from 14.1% this year to approximately 44.4% in year 3 of the proposed regulations.

• Expressed concern with the increases to ‘mediation’ fees. The City is of the view that all hearing/mediation fees should be captured by the lodgement fee or that the party bringing the proceeding be responsible for the payment of the fee, not a responding party.

• Expressed concern that the increase may be perceived as cutting community members who have objected to planning applications out of the process as the cost may be prohibitive however note that:

o VCAT will maintain the ability to waive fees in cases of financial hardship, meaning justice will remain accessible and affordable to all;

o Respondents/objectors pay no fee unless the proceeding is initiated by them; o Despite the increase, the fees remain a reasonable price to pay for a

community member to have an independent and impartial review of a decision that they believe may adversely impact their amenity and interests and

o VCAT will retain its position as providing the cheapest / most accessible dispute resolution function when compared with other jurisdictions.


PAGE 118

• As the City faces increased fees in initiating various VCAT (primarily enforcement) proceedings, the City would like to see the economic impacts offset by increases to the Planning and Environment (Fees) Regulations. Our suggestion is that these fees be reviewed to achieve a similar level of cost recovery for fulfilling statutory functions as the responsible authority.


Internal Consultation: Planning staff. External Consultation: Nil


Increased costs for: • Initiating enforcement proceedings; • Attending VCAT ordered mediation and • Hearings.

Conclusion

The City recognises that the current resourcing situation at VCAT is untenable which has led to significant delays in proposals being finally determined one way or the other. VCAT is clearly underfunded by Government, which has resulted in the need to amend fees to achieve greater cost recovery to address this issue. The fee increases may discourage vexatious appeals, however the Council should be rightly concerned that the current user pays principle (i.e. the party bringing the appeal pays the fees) is being eroded which has resource implications for Council.

Attachments

• The City's submission.

RECOMMENDATION

That Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to endorse the Planning Department submission lodged on 15 February 2013.

Economic Development - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 27 March 2013

PAGE 119

3. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

3.1 PRIORITIES FOR GREATER BENDIGO - ADVOCATING TO STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS


Author Stan Liacos - Director, City Futures Responsible Craig Niemann, Chief Executive Offic er Director

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council support and adopt the attached (circulated separately to Councillors) booklet: A snapshot of priorities for the Greater Bendigo community requiring Victorian and Australian Government support 2013-2017. As Councillors are aware, the booklet has been prepared to help Council, its Executive and the communities they represent pro-actively advocate and seek support from the Australian and Victorian Governments for its most important policy priorities and major projects. This is particularly timely given forthcoming respective elections later this year and next year. Once adopted by Council, the booklet will be well publicised and distributed in a personalised targeted manner.

Policy Context

Council Plan 2009-2013: 3.1 Advocate effectively to government to further the interests and needs of Greater

Bendigo and its communities


At its Forum meeting on 16 January 2013, Councillors were presented with a report outlining the purpose and proposed format of the attached booklet. Councillors approved the content/wording of the document and agreed to proceed with the development of a concise booklet that encapsulates a summary of our community’s most significant and obvious local priorities that require support from the Australian and/or Victorian Governments.


PAGE 120

This method of communication has proven effective in the past, with many local, state and federal political representatives and heads of government departments and agencies commenting that they have found our prior similar endeavours useful in helping them and other decision-makers understand our priorities and directions. This understanding in turn led to us achieving impressive funding and policy support in recent years, so much so in fact that many other local government authorities appear to be emulating our approach. Priorities for Greater Bendigo This important advocacy booklet has been drafted by drawing on our appreciation of existing or aspired high-level projects and issues in our community; our knowledge of existing government programs and policy agendas; our regular liaisons and trusting relationships with representatives of major institutions and companies in the region; and through discussions with local parliamentary representatives and candidates in our region. The booklet covers the following major priority areas: • Health • Education and Training • Water • Economic Development • Transport • Community Safety and Justice • Recreation, Leisure and Fitness • Major Events, Arts and Tourism • Our Living Heritage • Environment and Conservation • Small Townships • Community Services and Local Government The booklet does not aim to be exhaustive, but rather only provide a quick easy-to-read list of priorities. The booklet will be personally presented to all parliamentary representatives in our region and regional media, and more generally distributed to: • All major political party representatives • Community and business associations and leaders in and around Greater Bendigo • Neighbouring local government authorities • State and Federal Government Leaders, Ministers and Shadow Ministers,

Departments and agencies The booklet has been designed to be concise given that its primary target audiences are, by nature of their positions, busy and time-poor. The underlying objectives of the initiative are to: 1. Advocate confidently and respectfully on behalf of our community


PAGE 121

2. Seek publicity of our policy formulation on important advocacy and regional representation

3. Be professional, well considered and consistent in conduct, intent and delivery of key messages.


The booklet was drafted internally by our Director – City Futures (Stan Liacos) and Communications Coordinator (Tom Laurie), with the assistance of the CEO, and other Director colleagues. Printing and graphic design costs will amount to approximately $6,000 which can be absorbed within existing budgets.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council support, adopt and publicly release the booklet: "A snapshot of priorities for the Greater Bendigo community requiring Victorian and Australian Government support 2013-2017".


PAGE 122

3.2 BENDIGO AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - RECOMMENDA TIONS FOR APPOINTMENT


Author Bridget Conroy - Bendigo Airport Manager Responsible Stan Liacos, Director City Futures Director

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of this report is to recommend membership of the Bendigo Airport Advisory Committee for the next four-year term.

Policy Context

Council Plan 2009-13 Built and Natural Environment – 1.1.3 - Prepare planning documentation for Bendigo Airport Development, including design of the new runway and changes to the planning controls to enable contemporary airport services and associated activities. Built and Natural Environment – 1.6.4 - Prepare and progress Planning Scheme Amendment to implement the Airport redevelopment. Regional Strategic Plan Priority Action 2.2: Continue to invest in major infrastructure in Bendigo as the Regional Centre including the redevelopment of the Bendigo Hospital, arts, cultural and recreational precincts and facilities, Convention Centre and Bendigo Airport to boost liveability to support and encourage future growth in the region.


The Bendigo Airport Advisory Committee exists for the purpose of commenting and advising Council and relevant staff on the following matters: (1) General advice on airport matters and issues in line with growth and proposed future

redevelopment;

(2) Advising on the development of strategy, policy and advocacy in relation to Bendigo Airport; and

(3) Advising on current and emerging aviation issues as it relates to Bendigo Airport.


PAGE 123

Advisory Committee members should desirably be drawn from the following sectors and disciplines: • Private business sector; • Public sector emergency services; • Aviation industry; • General community; • Marketing and communications; with City of Greater Bendigo representatives: • Cr James Williams (Whipstick Ward); • Cr Mark Weragoda (Eppalock Wark); • Director - City Futures; • Manager, Major Projects; and • Airport Manager.

Report

An expression-of-interest process inviting interest commenced with Public Notice in both the Bendigo Advertiser (9 February 2013) and Bendigo Weekly (15 February 2013). The notice specifically sought interest from people with the following perspectives: • A commitment to redevelop Bendigo Airport in the foreseeable future; • An interest and experience in aviation business and business development; and • A willingness to be a pro-active participant. Expressions-of-interest closed on 20 February with 11 submissions received. A panel consisting of Cr Mark Weragoda, Cr James Williams, Stan Liacos (Director- City Futures), Rachel Lee (Manager Major Projects), and Bridget Conroy (Airport Manager) considered all submissions and unanimously concluded to recommend to Council the appointment of the following seven people to the Advisory Committee: Herbert Hermens – CEO of Keech Australia and several local company Boards. Ken Belfrage –Ken previously sat on the Airport Advisory Committee and is a semi-retired CPA Chartered Accountant. Patrick Falconer – Patrick has a sales and professional marketing background and is Executive Officer of the Bendigo Business Council representing near-on 300 Bendigo companies. Trevor Budge – Latrobe University and planning practitioner. Grant Welling – Grant is a Qantas A380 pilot with a long association with Bendigo Airport.


PAGE 124

Rob Jarvis – Rob is associated with emergency services from Parks Victoria, DSE and State Aircraft Unit. Rob is respected in his field of air emergency management and coordination and disaster relief. Rob is strategically focussed seeing Bendigo Airport develop further as a regionally significant asset. Ray Walters – Ray previously sat on the Airport Advisory Committee. Ray is a member of a number of aviation clubs and groups and a member of Recreational Aviation Australia. Ray is currently an airport tenant operating a recreational flying school at Bendigo Airport. The recommended Airport Advisory Committee members are all committed to redevelop Bendigo Airport for the economic prosperity of Greater Bendigo. The skills and aptitude they bring range from business, aviation industry, community and marketing to in-depth local knowledge which will be helpful in advancing the long-awaited development at the airport. Commencement Date: The newly constituted Bendigo Airport Advisory Group will meet in April 2013 and then quarterly over the next two years.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to appoint the following persons to its Bendigo Airport Advisory Committee:

• Herbert Hermens • Ken Belfrage • Patrick Falconer • Trevor Budge • Rob Jarvis • Grant Welling

together with the following Councillors and staff:

• Cr James Williams (Whipstick Ward) • Cr Mark Weragoda (Eppalock Ward) • Director - City Futures • Manager, Major Projects • Airport Manager

Community and Culture - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 27 March 2013

PAGE 125

4. COMMUNITY AND CULTURE

4.1 COUNCIL PLAN 2013-2017 - DRAFT FOR EXHIBITION


Author Dr Lyn Talbot, Corporate and Community Plann er Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and D evelopment Director

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of this report is to present the second draft of the Council Plan 2013-2017 for Councillors' consideration and to resolve to advertise the draft Plan for 28 days to allow for public submissions.

Policy Context

In accordance with Section 125 of the Local Government Act 1989 a new Council Plan for the 2013-2017 period is being prepared. It is a requirement under the Act that the draft plan is made available for public feedback by submission for a period of 28 days, followed by the opportunity for submitters to make a verbal presentation in support of their submission. This draft enables Councillors to review whether their intentions with regards the Vision and Strategic Directions have been encompassed, and whether the draft actions for the 2013-2014 year are the short term priorities warranted over and above all of the competing demands and needs. In this period of development a number of other influences need to be considered, including especially the ongoing Council budget development that is occurring in parallel, and issues of regional and Statewide significance.


To date:

• A new Code of Conduct was developed and agreed to. Councillors set a Vision for this Council Plan period which encompasses their plans for good quality service delivery and maintenance as well as undertaking detailed planning for the anticipated changes in Greater Bendigo.

• Councillors have taken part in a number or workshops to develop strategic objectives, priorities and proposed actions.

• Councillors and senior staff have identified issues of current and future importance for Greater Bendigo that are foreshadowed in the Council Plan.


PAGE 126

• Community members’ priorities, preferences and concerns were gathered using a range of community engagement activities and these have been considered in the preparation of this draft.

• Community feedback on this draft is also currently being sought as part of the broad community-wide consultation for the development of the new Municipal Health and Wellbeing Plan and also with specifically targeted meetings with community and advisory groups. Feedback from these activities will be incorporated with information from submitters presented to Forum on Wednesday May 1st.

Previous Council Decision(s) Date(s): • The Council Plan 2009-2013 (Revised 2012) was adopted by Council at its meeting

of 23 June 2012.

• Development of the 2013-2017 Council Plan commenced with a formal transition process that started soon after Council elections.

• On 12 November 2012 Councillors were presented with a range of demographic data and research evidence about Bendigo and they were facilitated to discuss emerging issues and their future priorities.

• Two community forums were held in late November and early December 2012.

• Councillors and senior staff participated in workshops in January and February 2013 to discuss the common themes, strategic directions and priority actions.

• The first complete draft of the Council Plan 2013-2017, along with proposed design concept was presented to Council Forum on 27 February, 2013

Report

This draft builds on the demographic data, initial community and Councillor priorities and incorporates changes that have been recommended by Councillors and senior staff. Draft indicator statements have been developed and these will be further refined before the final version is prepared. Reporting requirements are being reviewed and increased by the Victorian Auditor General's Office (VAGO) and Local Government Victoria. As government advice becomes more specific further refinements to the City's indicator statements may be required. The Financial Resource statements have been included, and these will be updated again in future following further budget deliberations and advice from the Finance Manager. Priority/Importance: The project is high priority due to the statutory, functional and budgetary requirements associated with the Council Plan. Timelines: This draft of the Council Plan 2013-2017 will be advertised on Thursday, 28 March 2013 and be on formal exhibition for 28 days, until Friday, 26 April 2013.


PAGE 127

In accordance with the Act the Council Plan must be adopted by Council prior to 30 June 2013. It is anticipated that Council will consider formal adoption of the 2013-2017 Council Plan at its meeting of 19 June, 2013. Risk Analysis: By providing the draft Council Plan for community consultation and submission at this early stage, there is sufficient time to give full consideration for any changes that are recommended, and to consider the budget and staffing implications of any changes.


Internal Consultation: Following the detailed community consultation outlined above and in the earlier report to Council, the first draft of the Council Plan was provided to Councillors and senior staff for feedback. External Consultation: Since preparation of the first draft community consultation has also been conducted, as set out in the table below.

Community / Group Date Number of Participants Type of Engagement

General community Throughout February

>200 so far Workshops / community meetings / informal consultation / social media

Positive Ageing Advisory Group

14 February 9 Discussion

Bendigo Loddon Indigenous Network Council (BLINC)

26 March Discussion

Strathfieldsaye Community Enterprise

4 March Small group workshops

Manufacturers Group Forthcoming


Preparation of the new Council Plan has been undertaken using internal staff resources. Discussions with Councillors and staff were facilitated by an experienced external consultant.


PAGE 128

Conclusion

Development of the new Council Plan for a four-year Council term is an important process because it expresses the philosophy that will guide the Council and sets out the strategic directions and priorities for the term, and the actions for the first year of the term. Council Plan development is an iterative process where the priorities of the full range of people affected by it are considered and incorporated where they fit with the stated priorities. The directions, initiatives and yearly actions drive the Council budget. The draft Council Plan 2013-2017 and the activities described in this report form an important part of the development process.

Attachments

1. Draft Council Plan 2013-2017

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to commence a formal exhibition and advertising period for the draft Council Plan 2013-2017 from 28 March until 26 April 2013.


PAGE 129

4.2 DOMESTIC ANIMAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012-2016


Author Neville Zimmer, Manager Parking & Animal Con trol Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and D evelopment Director

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval to release the draft Domestic Animal Management Plan 2012-2016 (DAMP) for public comment.

Policy Context

The DAMP has been developed in accordance with the legislative requirements of the Domestic Animals Act 1994. City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2009 - 2013 Objectives: � Work with the community to ensure Greater Bendigo continues to be a great place to

live � Work collaboratively to promote community safety and healthy living.


The DAMP is a review of the previous plan adopted by Council in 2008. The Plan has a different format as the Bureau of Animal Welfare has requested that all Victorian Councils develop their plan using their preferred template to enable improved auditing against the Domestic Animals Act requirements mentioned below.

Report

Section 68A of the Domestic Animal Act 1994 (DAA) requires Councils at 4 year intervals to develop a DAMP that addresses the following:

• “Set out a method for evaluating whether the animal control services provided by the Council in its municipal district are adequate to give effect to the requirements of this Act and the regulations; and

• Outline programs for the training of Authorised Officers to ensure that they can properly administer and enforce the requirements of this Act in the Council’s municipal district; and

• Outline programs, services and strategies which the Council intends to pursue in its municipal district; and

• To promote and encourage the responsible ownership of dogs and cats; and


PAGE 130

• To ensure that people comply with this Act, the regulations and any related legislation; and

• To minimise the risk of attacks by dogs on people and animals; and • To address any over-population and high euthanasia rates for dogs and cats; and • To encourage the registration and identification of dogs and cats; and • To minimise the potential for dogs and cats to create a nuisance; and • To effectively identify all dangerous dogs, menacing dogs and restricted breed dogs

in that district and to ensure that those dogs are kept in compliance with this Act and the regulations; and

• Provide for the review of existing orders made under this Act and local laws that relate to the Council’s municipal district, with a view to determining whether further orders or local laws dealing with the management of dogs and cats in municipal district are desirable; and

• Provide for the review of any other matters related to the management of dogs and cats in the Council’s municipal district that it deems necessary; and

• Provide for the periodic evaluation of any program, service, strategy or review outlined in this Plan”.

Every Council must:

(a) Review its Domestic Animal Management Plan annually and if appropriate, amend the Plan; and

(b) Provide the Secretary with a copy of the Plan and any amendments to the Plan; and (c) Publish an evaluation of its implementation of the Plan in its annual report. Risk Analysis: Council must have its Plan in place by 30 June 2013 or risk not being in compliance with the Act. There is significant risk if Council does not have rigorous management processes to deal with dog attack and other nuisance issues, with relevant delegations in place. This has been an area of focus over the past 4 years. There is also significant risk if Council does not have competent and trained enforcement staff dealing with dog attack issues. With several new staff, this will be an area of focus over the next 12 months.


Consultation with the community and relevant stakeholders is the key to the successful implementation of any plan. The following consultation took place in the development of the draft DAMP:

• A DAMP working group was established early 2012. • Staff attended Bureau of Animal Welfare Workshops throughout 2012. • Networking and data comparison was undertaken with other like Councils during

June - December 2012. • Listening posts were held in November & December 2012 at Heathcote, Harcourt

Park, Hargreaves Mall and Lake Weeroona.


PAGE 131

• Meetings were held with Lost Dogs Home and RSPCA throughout November and December 2012.

• Several meetings and workshops were held with various City departments throughout the 12 month process. A copy of the draft Plan was forwarded to several staff for comment.

• An animal management survey was completed by 200 persons during November and December 2012. The information gathered has helped validate the data and inform the actions within the Plan.

Consultation has been ongoing and will continue with community members, stakeholder and staff from other City departments throughout the implementation and life of the plan. The table below identifies a number of key issues and initiatives which were obtained from the consultation process, survey and internal reviews. The DAMP working group discussed all the issues and initiatives mentioned below. All feedback has contributed to the development of the draft plan.

Issue/Initiative/Objective: Raised by: Supported:

Introduce an order to prohibit dogs from entering the playing surface of the QEO.

Parks and Recreation staff Yes

Reason: Public health issues and disruption to sporting and recreation activities. Except for assistance and police dogs. This initiative can be implemented immediately with the adoption of the Plan.

Reduce the number of dogs entering the pound.

RSPCA and internal review Yes

Reason: Cost burden on community. Greater efforts will be made to return dogs to their owners.

Develop processes for dealing with animals in emergencies.

Internal review/ workshop Yes

Reason: The 2009 Black Saturday fires and 2010/2011 flooding events in the region and surrounding districts has highlighted the need for consideration to be given on how to cater for domestic animals during and after emergencies relating to fire or flood.

Undertake a pet expo in the Bendigo region.

Internal review/workshop Yes

Reason: Positive initiative that Council could consider supporting through future budget funding.

Introduce laws requiring that dogs be under “effective control” at all times on public land.

Community Yes

Reason: Reduce risk of dog nuisance and attack. The City has already introduced


PAGE 132


laws to address this concern.

Establish additional dog parks.

Community Yes

Reason: Well documented health, leisure and social benefits. Will be addressed in Open Space Strategy. 15% of survey respondents did not support Council providing off leash areas for dogs to exercise.

Introduce laws requiring dogs be on-leash at all times.

Community No

Reason: Until such time as Council has sufficient areas/dog parks for owners to exercise their dogs it is not proposed to introduce a blanket on-leash requirement.

Extend current cat curfew to 24/7.

Community No

Reason: Cost burden to residents, majority of cat problems occur at night, welfare consideration for cats. Would require a strong commitment from owners. 65% of survey respondents did not support this.

Decrease costs to register cats and dogs as incentive for more people to register their pets.

Community No

Reason: Registration fees are consistent with other like Councils and are used to fund the Animal Service program. Part of each registration is collected for the State Government to fund their education programs.

Increase fines for offenders. Community No

Reason: Penalty amounts are set by State Government and are consistent throughout Victoria.

Establish procedures to provide support to victims of family violence in relation to managing their pets.

Internal review Yes

Reason: To align with the recently developed City of Greater Bendigo Violence Prevention Plan.

Increase proactive patrols by Animal Management Officers

Internal review/Community Yes

Reason: Continuous improvement initiative. It is planned to increase patrols at popular dog walking locations and Harcourt Park.

Introduce mandatory desexing of all cats.

Community No

Reason: No established need. Would provide a disincentive to register. This was


PAGE 133


addressed in previous plan. 97% of survey respondents have their cat desexed

Provide more education towards responsible pet ownership.

Community Yes

Reason: Continuous improvement initiative. It is planned to increase the visits to more schools and community groups to deliver the Be Safe around Dogs & Responsible Pet Ownership programs.

The issues where there is likely to be strong differences in opinion are: • Cat Curfew. There are mixed views on extending the curfew to 24 hour confinement.

This is addressed in the Plan. • Mandatory desexing. This was addressed in the previous Plan. The position of the

Working Party is not to support mandatory desexing. • Dog on leash at all times. This is not supported at this time but will be reviewed when

Council sets aside additional dedicated areas for dogs to exercise. The new Open Space Strategy will provide clear vision and direction regarding the future provision and distribution of open spaces.

Where to from here The DAMP does not implement all the actions but will establish the direction and set in place timeframes for research, evaluation and implementation of actions. The next step in the process is to release the draft Plan for public comment for a period of four weeks. The draft Plan will be reviewed based on comments received. The final Domestic Animal Management Plan will then proceed to Council for adoption. The adopted Plan will then be sent to the Department of Primary Industries.


The Parking & Animal Control operating budget had an allocation of $14,000 for consultancy works associated with the Plan, however as part of the commitment to achieving a 1% efficiency gain the Plan has been developed in-house by the Parking and Animal Management Team. The majority of objectives within the Plan fall within the animal management operating budget. The following aspects of the Plan would require funding through the budget process in future years: • Provision of additional dog parks; • Development of a plan to deal with animals in emergencies;


PAGE 134

• Training of staff (majority of animal services team are new to the role); • Undertaking a pet expo; • Continuing with the Be Safe Around Dogs and Responsible Pet Ownership Programs; • Continuing with dog and cat desexing vouchers and subsidised microchipping.

Conclusion

Much of the Plan will be business as usual. The Act is quite prescriptive in the strategic areas of animal management that Council must address; hence the Plan has been structured in a way to capture these requirements. In addition to the mandated requirements listed in the body of the report, the Plan will have a focus on planning for animals in emergencies and providing access to public places for dogs to exercise. The Plan will also consider the recently released City of Greater Bendigo Violence Prevention Plan and in particular Council's leadership role in looking at practical ways to support victims of family violence in relation to managing their pets.

Attachments

1. Draft Domestic Animal Management Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to release the draft Domestic Animal Management Plan 2012 - 2016 for the purpose of seeking community comment for a period of 4 weeks, with a view to considering adoption of the final plan prior to 30 June 2013.


PAGE 135

4.3 KANGAROO FLAT AQUATIC LEISURE CENTRE - PROJECT UPDATE Document Information Authors Rachel Lee, Major Projects Manager Stan Liacos, Director- City Futures Responsible Stan Liacos, Director City Futures Director Summary/Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide Council and the community with an update on the current status of the proposed Kangaroo Flat Aquatic Leisure Centre project and to recommend the public release of concept plans developed and favourably considered by the Project Team and Council appointed Community Reference Group. Policy Context Council Plan: 1.1 Plan and implement identified City projects 1.1.6 Continue planning, design and seeking funding for the proposed Aquatic Leisure Centre in Kangaroo Flat Background Information In February 2012, Council resolved to continue planning, design and commence attracting funding for the development of the proposed Kangaroo Flat Aquatic Leisure Centre. Council invited tender submissions from suitably qualified consortia of architects, engineers, cost planners and associated advisors in March 2012 and went on to subsequently appoint Peddle Thorp Architects and their specialist team.

The consortia of designers and engineers, led by Peddle Thorp, report to the in-house Project Team led by Project Director Stan Liacos. Expressions of interest were invited from community members to join a Community Reference Group to advise the project team on project planning and design, community input and engagement, and help Council with the all-important task of attracting support and funding from government, corporate and community sources over the next few years. The 16 member Community Reference Group, consisting of representatives from swimming, aged care, business and health sectors as well as members of Kangaroo Flat community and the three relevant ward councillors, was appointed by Council in December 2012.


PAGE 136

Report Since their appointment, the Design Team have been working to a specific brief (previously agreed to by Council) that incorporated the following elements:

• Development of the Centre on the site of the existing Kangaroo Flat Community

Centre on Browning Street; • 50 metre swimming pool; • Learn to Swim Pool / Leisure Pool / Toddlers Pool; • Adventure Splash Park (if possible); • Children's beach entry splash/play pool; • Water Slides (if possible); • Program Pool / Warm Water Exercise Pool / Spa; • Wellness centre and allied professional suites; • Gymnasium; • Multi-purpose , flexible program rooms; • Creche (if deemed necessary); • Café; • Wet and Dry change rooms and group / multi-use change rooms; • Reception and entry areas; • Landscaping and landscape interfaces with Browning Street Reserve and Gateway

Park; • Car parking and bus access; and • An indicative project budget of $28 million (2011 dollars). A number of studies have been undertaken to determine the site constraints and opportunities that the development should take into consideration. These included Arboricultural, Flora and Fauna, Cultural Heritage, Flood Analysis, Geotech and a Feature Survey. What became clear early on was that what was thought to be a well-sized development site had in fact become significantly smaller and somewhat constrained once vegetation, flood plain, nearby oval retention, car parking and existing CFA leased land constraints were accounted for. The Design Team were asked to evaluate the potential adaptive re-use (or demolition) of the existing building on-site and to assess it against the following criteria: • Building and Materiality; • Services; • Site Orientation; • Access; and • Cost savings (if any) It was determined that the advantages of retaining the existing building on-site included being able to use some of the original spaces as program spaces, creation of a second floor due to existing high volume and a potential (minor) cost saving in retaining the 'superstructure' and some services. Outweighing these however was that once all those elements were upgraded or replaced, little if any, of the original building could cost effectively be re-used.


PAGE 137

In addition, the existing building adversely dominates the street frontage and site and is not at all "inviting" in its current form. Its re-use adversely hinders the effective design of the proposed new Aquatic Centre. Importantly, the existing also building occupies a large amount of north facing frontage which would lead to longer term operational costs and severe design constraints. The draft concept plans were presented to the Community Reference Group at their meeting in February 2012 and incorporated most, if not all, of the elements requested in the original project brief adopted by Council. Approximately 160 car parks can be created directly adjacent to the Centre including disabled parking and including the current car park across the road from the existing building. Nearby, an "overflow car park" to service the centre, oval users and nearby Dower Park could also be built in Neal Street, if necessary. The Community Reference Group as a whole was impressed and supportive of the plans developed by the Project Team. Their endorsement preceded a presentation from the Project Team to all Councillors and the CEO at a Council Forum on 20 February 2012. Resource Implications The Project Team will continue to adhere to an agreed project budget of $28 million (expressed in 2011 dollars). Conclusion The concept plans are considered an efficient and professional response to Council's project brief and the chosen development site. It would be desirable to release the plans to: • Encourage community response and positive momentum; • Help generate interest in funding support from the State and Federal Governments;

and sponsorship and corporate tenancies (potentially). RECOMMENDATION That Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to publicly release the design concept plans for the proposed Kangaroo Flat Aquatic Leisure Centre.

Our People, Our Processes - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 27 March 2013

PAGE 138

5. OUR PEOPLE, OUR PROCESSES

5.1 CONTRACTS AWARDED UNDER DELEGATION


Author Leeanne Taig, Administration Assistant, Pro ject Coordination Responsible Marg Allan, Director Organisation S upport Director

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide information on contracts recently awarded under delegation.

Policy Context

Provide high quality professional services by undertaking responsible business planning to ensure long-term sustainability.

Report

The following contracts subject to public tender, have been issued under delegation by the officer as listed (Instrument of Delegation - August 5, 2009):

RECOMMENDATION

That the Contracts Award Under Delegation, as outlined in this report, be endorsed by Council.

Contract No Project Successful Contractor Value

(GST Excluded) Delegated

Officer Date

Signed

CT000026 Residential Land Supply Assessment

Spatial Economics Pty Ltd

21,818.18 Richard Morrison

27/02/2013

CT000017 Huntly Equine Toilet Shower Facility

Walsh & O'Meara Pty Ltd

164,280.00 Ross Douglas (A/Director)

05/03/2013

CT000020

Shoulder Widening - Axe Creek between Abbotts Road and Houlahan Road

VH & HM Drechsler 345,243.00 Brett Martini (A/Director) 06/03/2013

CT000025

Design & Construct Footbridge over Campaspe River at Axedale

Civil Bridge & Warf Pty Ltd

280,780.00 Brett Martini (A/Director

06/03/2013


PAGE 139

5.2 RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES


Author Peter Davies, Manager Executive Service Responsible Craig Niemann, Chief Executive Offi cer Officer

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide the record of any assembly of Councillors, which has been held since the last Council Meeting, so that it can be recorded in the Minutes of the formal Council Meeting.

Policy Context

The purpose of this report is to provide the record of any assembly of Councillors, which has been held since the last Council Meeting, so that it can be recorded in the Minutes of the formal Council Meeting.


The Local Government Act provides a definition of an assembly of Councillors where conflicts of interest must be disclosed. A meeting will be an assembly of Councillors if it considers matters that are likely to be the subject of a Council decision, or, the exercise of a Council delegation and the meeting is: 1. A planned or scheduled meeting that includes at least half the Councillors (5) and a

member of Council staff; or 2. an advisory committee of the Council where one or more Councillors are present. The requirement for reporting provides increased transparency and the opportunity for Councillors to check the record, particularly the declarations of conflict of interest.


PAGE 140

Report

Meeting Information Meeting Name/Type

Councillors' Forum

Meeting Date 20 February, 2013 Matters discussed 1. Kangaroo Flat Aquatic Centre

2. Youth Strategy Discussion Paper 3. Fortuna 4. Superannuation regional forum 5. Adaptive stormwater reuse 6. Bendigo Creek/Leans Road 7. California Gully main drain 8. Flood study 9. Extension of Porter Drive 10. 28 Eaglehawk Road 11. Peter Krenz Leisure Centre 12. Parking at Kangaroo Flat railway station 13. Redesdale Oval 14. Masons' non-compliance 15. Drainage - Strathdale 16. Former Rolling Mill site, Maiden Gully 17. Former Blueline Office Supplies 18. Athletics Centre 19. Council Meeting furniture 20. Public transport to Marong and small towns 21. Cable Reel Company 22. Food security 23. Rosalind Park Master Plan 24. Defined Benefits Superannuation 25. Australia Day 26. Easter Festival 27. Innovation Park 28. Heathcote Pool 29. Street trees 30. Over-dimensional route 31. Nissan Huts - Specimen Hill 32. Notice of Rescission - Golden Square Swimming Pool 33. Community events 34. Nightclub venues 35. Presentation on Marong Business Park 36. Council Priorities for State and Federal Government Funding 37. Forward Agenda: Budget dates; Forum items open to the public

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Lisa Ruffell Cr Rod Campbell Cr Elise Chapman Cr Peter Cox


PAGE 141

Cr Rod Fyffe - part Cr Helen Leach Cr Barry Lyons Cr Mark Weragoda Cr James Williams

Staff/ Community Representatives

Craig Niemann Pauline Gordon Stan Liacos Prue Mansfield Peter Davies Alison Campbell Apologies: Marg Allan Darren Fuzzard

Conflict of Interest disclosures

Matter No.

Councillor/officer making disclosure Councillor/officer left meeting

35. Cr Elise Chapman Yes


Heritage Advisory Committee

Meeting Date 21 February, 2013 Matters discussed 1. Expenditure of HAC budget

2. HAC briefing to Council 3. HAC Terms of Reference 4. Planning update/Applications for Demolitions 5. Design Guidelines 6. Strategy Update: Residential Strategy Review 7. Thematic Environmental History 8. White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage Study 9. Heritage Awards 2013 10. Boundary stones 11. Bendigo Mine decommissioning 12. Five-year plan

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Peter Cox Cr Mark Weragoda


Emma Bryant Dannielle Orr Helen Ashby David Bannear Laurie Brown Elaine Doling Jordan Grenfell Kay MacGregor


PAGE 142

Megan McDougall Di Smith Rod Spitty Norm Stimson Darren Wright Apologies: Peter Ellis David Mulqueen


Matter No.

Councillor making disclosure Councillor left meeting

Nil


Presentation to Councillors by Daryl McClure and Rick Walduck

Meeting Date 27 February, 2013 Matters discussed 1. Fortuna

Attendees/Apologies Councillors Cr Lisa Ruffell

Cr Rod Campbell Cr Elise Chapman Cr Peter Cox Cr Helen Leach Cr Mark Weragoda Cr James Williams Apologies: Cr Rod Fyffe Cr Barry Lyons


Craig Niemann Stan Liacos Prue Mansfield Alison Campbell


Matter No.

Councillor/representative making disclosure

Councillor/representative left meeting

Nil


PAGE 143

Meeting Information

Meeting Name/Type

Councillors' Forum

Meeting Date 27 February, 2013 Matters discussed 1. Planning matters and draft Ordinary Meeting

agenda review 2. Big Hill and Mandurang Valley Landscape Assessment Project 3. Composting application at Bagshot 4. Bunnings development 5. Villawood development, Strathfieldsaye 6. Mediation with Golden Square pool group 7. Masons restaurant 8. Fortuna 9. Cattery, Maryborough Road 10. Bendigo Exhibition Centre 11. Travel Plan 12. Fountains in Bull Street and the Hargreaves Mall 13. Recognition at Council Meetings 14. Clarity of actions at Forums 15. Notice of Motion - Golden Square Pool 16. Works in the Hargreaves Mall 17. Trucks in a residential area 18. Healthy communities 19. Food security 20. Deputy Mayor 21. Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Day 22. Acting CEO 23. Australian Services Union and Independent Review of Council 24. Acceptance of invitations 25. Canterbury Gardens Open Space Precinct 26. Review of Early Childhood Services 27. First Draft of the Council Plan for Review 28. Health and Wellbeing Strategy 29. Long Gully Pool Report

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Lisa Ruffell Cr Rod Campbell Cr Elise Chapman Cr Peter Cox Cr Rod Fyffe Cr Helen Leach Cr Barry Lyons Cr Mark Weragoda Cr James Williams


Craig Niemann Pauline Gordon Prue Mansfield


PAGE 144

Marg Allan Darren Fuzzard Peter Davies Alison Campbell Apologies: Stan Liacos


Matter No.


Nil


Meeting to discuss Golden Square Pool with Red Strategic Planning

Meeting Date 4 March, 2013 Matters discussed 1. Golden Square Swimming Pool

Attendees/Apologies Councillors Cr Lisa Ruffell - part

Cr Elise Chapman Cr Peter Cox Cr Rod Fyffe Cr Helen Leach Cr Barry Lyons Cr Mark Weragoda Cr James Williams Apologies: Cr Rod Campbell


Stan Liacos


Matter No.


Nil

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse the record of assemblies of Councillors as outlined in this report.


PAGE 145

5.3 FIRE SERVICES PROPERTY LEVY


Author Neal Wrigley, Manager Rating and Valuation S ervices Responsible Marg Allan, Director Organisation Suppo rt Director Summary/Purpose To advise Council of the impacts of the implementation of the Victorian Fire Services Property Levy. Policy Context Council Plan Reference 2009-2013 (Updated 2012) 4.1 Delivery of responsible financial management and business planning practices to

ensure long term sustainability. Background Information The State Government has passed legislation which requires Local Government to collect the Victorian Fire Services Property Levy (the Levy). Prior to the introduction of the Levy, Victoria’s fire services were funded by financial contributions from insurance companies, the State Government and metropolitan councils. Insurance companies recovered the cost of their contributions by imposing a fire services levy on insurance premiums. One of the key findings of the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission was that due to the additional cost the levy imposed on premiums, this model for fire services funding was inequitable, lacked transparency and discouraged some owners from insuring, or fully insuring, their property. As a result, the Commission recommended that the insurance-based fire services levy be replaced with a property-based levy, which would require all property owners to contribute to fire services funding, not just those with adequate insurance. On 28 August 2012, the Victorian Government announced that it would implement the Commission’s recommendation. The Fire Services Property Levy Act 2012 (the Act) was developed to establish the legal framework for the new Fire Services Property Levy. The Act received Royal Assent on 16 October 2012. The levy on land in Victoria will be imposed from 1 July 2013.


PAGE 146

Report The Act provides that all land in Victoria is subject to the Levy, and that the owner is liable to pay the Levy, unless it is exempt as provided in the Act. This means that properties that are deemed to be non-rateable under the provisions of the Local Government Act (LGA), eg. Churches, Council owned properties, etc, may be liable to pay the Levy. Exempt land includes land owned by the Commonwealth Government and State Government owned public bodies, and lands that have a specific use such as major infrastructure including freeways, major water conduits, railway lines, etc. In 2013/14, the State Government will contribute 12.5 per cent of the operating costs of the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board (MFB), and 22.5 per cent of the operating costs of the Country Fire Authority (CFA). The remainder of the annual fire services budget will be met through the Levy. The Act specifies six land use classifications for Levy purposes:

- Residential (including vacant residential land) - Commercial - Industrial - Primary Production - Public Benefit - Vacant land (excluding vacant residential land)

The Levy is made up of two components, a fixed charge component, plus a levy rate calculated against the Capital Improved Value of a property. In 2013/14, the fixed charge component of the Levy will be $100 for residential properties and $200 for each of the other five classifications. These figures are subject to annual adjustment in line with the Victorian Consumer Price index. The Levy rate, in addition to the fixed charge component, applied to each of the six classifications will be set by the State Government annually by 31 May, having regard to the annual funding requirements for the following year for both the MFB and CFA. The Levy must be included on Council rate notices. Public Benefit type properties, the category into which the majority of Council owned properties fall, will be subject to the fixed charge component only. Committee of Management properties are exempt from the Levy in 2013/14, however no announcement has been made in relation to this exemption being carried forward into future years. Eligible pensioners will receive a $50 concession on the Levy, however the Act does not make reference to the indexation of the concession in future years.


PAGE 147

Single Farm Enterprise properties, which consist of multiple farm properties operated by the same occupier, will be exempt from the fixed charge component of the Levy. This is similar to the manner in which they are treated are under the provisions of the LGA (which grants an exemption of payment of the Municipal Charge on all but one of the properties). This exemption is available to all farm properties, but one, occupied by the same farmer across the State, whereas the Municipal Charge exemption is only available within a municipality. Where a rates notice is paid in instalments, the Act requires the payment to be allocated proportionally against the municipal rates and charges, and the Fire Services Property Levy. Interest on overdue Levy amounts will be calculated in the same manner as overdue Council rates and charges. Payment of the Levy cannot be waived or deferred unless the municipal rates and charges are also waived or deferred. Ratepayer requests to waive or defer the Levy are to be dealt with in accordance with the Revenue and Debt Collection Policy, and treated in the same manner as a request to waive or defer municipal rates and charges. Councils must pay the Levy collected to the State Revenue Office (SRO) four times a year, within 28 days after the due date of each instalment. Any interest earned on payments held in Council’s bank account prior to payment to SRO can be retained by the Council. To ensure consumers are informed and their interests are protected during the transition to the property-based model, the State Government has appointed Professor Alan Fels as the Fire Services Levy Monitor. The role of the Fire Services Levy Monitor is to provide advice to consumers, and receive and investigate complaints about insurance companies in relation to the collection of the insurance-based model. Councils may refer insurance-based levy enquiries to the Fire Services Levy Monitor. Consultation/Communication The State Government will commence a public information campaign in June 2013 aimed at educating the public about the property-based levy model prior to the issuing of the 2013/14 rates notice. Information will also be provided to the community through COGB media sources. Council staff members will attend the next meeting of the Rural Advisory Committee which will outline the implications for the rural community. Resource Implications The amount of the levy that COGB will be required to pay on its own properties will not be known until further advice is received from the State Government. Other resource implications include:


PAGE 148

- Upgrading of CoGB's Pathway Rate Collection software, which is fully funded by the State Government. CoGB will be one of three test sites for the new software.

- Set up and ongoing funding will be made available to Councils, however the extent of

the funding has not yet been announced. - CoGB will be required to undertake extensive data verification and take up to be able

to raise the Levy early in the new financial year. The Rating and Valuation Services Unit will require one additional staff member to undertake this work.

RECOMMENDATION That the Greater Bendigo City Council: 1. Acknowledge the impact of the introduction of the Fire Services Property Levy. 2. Endorse the distribution of information regarding the Levy to the community prior to

the issuing of the 2013/14 Rates Notices.


PAGE 149

5.4 PROVISION OF LOAN BORROWINGS


Author Travis Harling, Manager Finance Responsible Marg Allan, Director Organisation Su pport Director

Summary/Purpose

To authorise the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate a contract for loan borrowings

Policy Context

Council Plan 2009-2013 (2012) 4.1 Delivery of responsible financial management and business planning practices to

ensure long term sustainability. Council Policy Reference: Borrowing Policy


The Local Government Act gives Council the power to borrow funds. The Council has previously borrowed money to meet its annual Capital Works budget. The Council last borrowed funds in the 2011/12 financial year totalling $10,240,000. Council’s budgeted debt balance at 30 June 2013 is $24,145,244.

Report

The 2012/13 annual budget includes new loan borrowings of $11,300,000 which were approved by Council to fund the 2012/13 Capital Works program. The end of year result forecast at 31 January 2013 indicates that the original budgeted loan amount of $11,300,000 will be required for Council to meet its future commitments. COGB has the approval to borrow $11,300,000 granted under the Local Government Victoria Borrowing Assessment Policy. The loan amount is also within Council's Loan Borrowing Policy. The Policy requires that the Debt Commitment Ratio (total loan principal and interest payments as a percentage of rate revenue) not be more than 10%. The revised loan borrowing forecasts the Debt Commitment Ratio as 4.70% (based on a 15 year term at 5.84%). Debt repayments for this loan are included in the Council's Strategic Resources Plan.


PAGE 150

Tenders will be called for from lending institutions for the loan borrowing in the coming months. To enable the funds to be drawn down by 30 June 2013, the Chief Executive Officer requires authorisation to accept a tender and award a contract.


The tender will be publicly advertised in the near future. With monthly forecast being prepared the required loan amount will be continually monitored up to the point of advertising for the loan. Should favourable forecasts be reported in the remaining months of the financial year, consideration will be given to reducing the required funds to be borrowed.


The estimated annual cash contribution of $1,132,581 will be required to service the loan ($11,300,000 based on a 15 year fixed interest rate of 5.84%).

Conclusion

The loan tender will be advertised and a decision to accept a tender is required in time to enable the funds to be received by 30 June 2012. To meet this deadline, it is recommended that Council endorse the tender for loan borrowings and authorise the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate the loan and award the contract.

Attachments

1. Nil.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate a loan of up to $11,300,000 and award the contract.


PAGE 151

5.5 PRICING POLICY


Author/Responsible Marg Allan, Director Organis ation Support Director

Summary/Purpose

To adopt the Pricing (Fees and Charges) Policy.

Policy Context

4.1 Delivery of responsible financial management and business planning practices to ensure long term sustainability.


There is existing guidance in regard to the setting of User Fees and charges by Council as follows: 1. The Local Government Act - Section 3C of the Local Government Act provides

some guidance on the pricing of Council services and facilities. In addressing Local Governments, under its primary objective of endeavouring to achieve the best outcomes for the local community, Council must ensure that resources are used effectively and efficiently and that services and facilities provided by Council are accessible and equitable. Council must minimise the burden on customers or ratepayers by pricing services at a level which maximises return, but also recognises the service user’s ability to pay.

2. The National Competition Policy (Federal Government) and Competitive Neutrality

Policy (State Government) also provides requirements regarding pricing. Council is required to price services that compete in the open market on a ‘level playing field’ basis and to be transparent in regard to any decision to depart from a commercial basis for pricing. Competitive neutrality requires that government business activities should not enjoy net competitive advantages over their private sector competitors simply by virtue of public sector ownership. Council must consider and justify any subsidy in the case of significant services which compete with the private sector.

3 Council at its meeting on February 13, 2013, adopted its Budget Principles for

2013/14 financial year. Included in the Budget Principles is the following principle that relates to User Fees and Charges:

Progress toward achieving full cost recovery for the major non-statutory fees and charges for services unless justification for another method is provided. Fees and charges (other than the major fees and charges), are to be increased in line with CPI or market levels, unless an alternative business case is approved.


PAGE 152

To consolidate the existing requirements outlined above, and to provide further guidance in the setting of fees and charges, it is appropriate for a Pricing (Fees and Charges) Policy to be established for Council.

Report

Fees and Charges are an important source of revenue to CoGB. In 2012/13, Fees and Charges represent 16.25% of the annual budgeted income. CoGB's Fees and Charges have two distinct categories: 1. Statutory Pricing - These fees are set by legislation, providing no discretion for

Council to influence the amount charged. 2. Non Statutory Pricing - Council has the ability to set fees in this category at the level

it determines. A draft policy has been prepared for Council consideration, based on the following objectives:

• Efficiency - the fees are simple to understand and administer. • Equity - the fees are fairly applied across a range of users considering users

capability to pay. • Effectiveness - the fees provide appropriate signals to users, value for money and

ensure that everyone contributes appropriately to the delivery of services (promoting both efficiency and equity).

• Transparency - the method of determining pricing is consistent. The draft policy provides guidance in setting the appropriate level of non-statutory fees and charges, taking into account community benefit, user groups and corporate objectives, and to provide for regular reviews within the overall service and financial planning process. It encourages pricing that is simple to administer, equitable, easily understood and provides value for money. The policy identifies 4 types of non-statutory fees:

a. Full Cost Pricing which is applied where the objective is to achieve a financial return for CoGB.

b. Accessible Pricing which is a discount on the full cost of providing the service. The discounted rate is determined based on the community benefit or social good, and can be set between 100% discount up to full cost recovery.

c. Incentive Pricing is utilised where certain behaviours are encouraged by pricing above full cost recovery.

d. Full Cost Plus Margin Pricing or Market Pricing is applied to services considered discretionary and is without strong social benefit, or ancillary to the social benefit of the service.

The Policy provides guidance as to when the different types of fees should be applied, along with details of the annual review process.


PAGE 153


Fees and Charges represent a significant component of Council's income. In 2012/13, it is budgeted to receive $24M from this source. The application of the Policy will require all fees and charges to undergo a rigorous review. As the 2013/14 budget is currently being prepared, there is insufficient time to enable the policy to be fully implemented for the forthcoming budget, however progressive work can commence with a view to full implementation in 2014/15 budget.

Conclusion

A sound pricing policy will ensure decision making in respect to the setting of fees and charges is consistent across Council services and over successive years. It also provides a level of transparency to the community in regard to how the level of fees are determined.

Attachments

1. Draft Pricing Policy.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council adopts the Pricing Policy.


PAGE 154

PRICING POLICY

Approval Date:

Review Date:

Author: Manager Finance

Responsible Officer: Director Organisation Support

PURPOSE

Fees and Charges represent an important source of income for the City of Greater Bendigo (CoGB). This policy provides guidance for CoGB's approach in setting appropriate levels of fees and charges, taking into account community benefit, user groups and corporate objectives, and to provide for regular reviews of fees and charges within the overall service and financial planning process. It encourages pricing that is simple to administer, equitable, easily understood, and provides value for money.

2. SCOPE

This policy applies to all fees and charges that are listed in the Fees and Charges Schedule which is published annually as part of the budget. This policy also applies to any new fee and charge that the CoGB is eligible to charge under the Local Government Act, but has not previously been included in the Fees and Charges Schedule.

3. OBJECTIVES

This policy seeks to ensure that the following key objectives are met: • Efficiency - the fees are simple to understand and administer. • Equity - the fees are fairly applied across a range of users, considering users

capability to pay. • Effectiveness - the fees provide appropriate signals to users, value for money and

ensure that everyone contributes appropriately to the delivery of services (promoting both efficiency and equity).

• Transparency - the method of determining pricing is consistent. 4. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Local Government Act - Section 3C of the Local Government Act provides some guidance on the pricing of Council services and facilities. In addressing Local Government’s its primary objective of endeavouring to achieve the best outcomes for the local community, Council must ensure that resources are used effectively and efficiently and that services and facilities provided by the Council are accessible and equitable. Council must minimise the burden on customers or ratepayers by pricing services at a level which maximises return, but also recognises the service user’s ability to pay.


PAGE 155

National Competition Policy (Federal Government) and Competitive Neutrality Policy (State Government) also provide requirements regarding pricing. Council is required to price services that compete in the open market on a 'level playing field’ basis and to be transparent in regard to any decision to depart from a commercial basis for pricing. Competitive neutrality requires that government business activities should not enjoy net competitive advantages over their private sector competitors simply by virtue of public sector ownership. Where there are significant competitors in the marketplace, CoGB must consider and justify any subsidy in the case of significant services which compete with the private sector. Examples of significant services that CoGB provides that fall within the scope of the Competitive Neutrality Policy. • Child Care Centres • Building Surveying services • Waste disposal fees, eg. asbestos disposal

How does it apply to the Council Plan or any other particular strategy or document? 5. PRICING METHODS

5.1 Statutory Pricing Price at level set by legislation For some fees and charges CoGB's role is to administer services and apply fees set or controlled under statute or funding agreement. These fees may only provide a partial recovery of the cost of providing the service. CoGB will set prices at the maximum available. Examples include: specified Environmental Health and Statutory Planning Fees.

5.2 Non Statutory Pricing

In determining fees and charges not regulated by statute, CoGB will consider the following factors in selecting the pricing method to meet its objectives for the service: • Balancing individual and community benefit • Users’ ability to pay • Market pricing - the pricing of comparable services offered by other providers • Competitive neutrality (where relevant) • Budget implications The reason for the subsidy or return will assist in determining the method of pricing to select. Example - Is the fee to: Create a financial return to Council (Full Cost Pricing) or Subsidise access by certain customers or recognise benefit is shared between private and public (Partial Cost Pricing) or To provide an incentive for certain desired behaviours (Incentive Pricing). The four types of non-statutory pricing are:


PAGE 156

a. Full Cost Pricing

Price to cover direct and overhead costs. These are services provided by Council that benefit individual customers specifically, rather than the community as a whole. The aim is to recover the direct and overhead costs associated with providing these services: • Provision of Information - This type of service involves the CoGB giving

access to information, subject to compliance with information privacy and freedom of information.

• Damage to CoGB property - This involves the making good loss or damage to CoGB property.

Example: Livestock Exchange fees.

b. Accessible Pricing Price between full CoGB subsidy (no charge) to full cost pricing (covering direct and overhead costs). Accessible Pricing may be used where there are benefits to the community, including making a service accessible to low-income or disadvantaged users. As part of the annual review of these services, maintaining the overall net cost to CoGB for providing the service should be considered. Fees and charges are subsidised by CoGB and fees and charges are set to recover only part of the direct cost (as defined above), e.g. a service may be provided with fees set to recover 75% of direct costs. Appropriate situations for partial pricing may be: • Where the service benefits the community as a whole as well as the

individual customer. • Short term approach to stimulate demand for a service. • Where charging prices at full cost may result in widespread evasion or

inappropriate adoption. • Where the service is targeted at those with an inability to pay. In this case,

concession fees may be considered depending upon the type of service being provided and the needs of the customer.

• Where there is a low number of other service providers or insufficient quantity to meet the need, or at prices that would make the service accessible to the community.

Prices can be set from full CoGB subsidy (no charge) to full cost recovery with various levels of subsidisation in between. Partial cost pricing will always be based on knowledge of the full cost of providing a service and subsidies will be based on a percentage of the cost of the service. Example: Recreation facilities fees and charges.

c. Incentive Pricing Price above full cost recovery (covering direct and overhead costs at a minimum). Fees and charges are set at a level to encourage certain behaviours, and to reflect the effort on COGB’s behalf to collect the fee.


PAGE 157

Example: Charging more for late health premise registration.

d. Full Cost plus Margin Pricing (Market Pricing)

Price above full cost recovery (covering direct and overhead costs at a minimum) in line with benchmarked market prices. This category includes services that provide discretionary activities without strong social policy objectives. These activities may provide revenue support and compliment other social policy actions. Fees and charges are set based on benchmarking of similar services offered by other service providers or based on current market pricing. The reason for selecting this method of fee setting is that if fees are out of alignment with market it may result in a loss of patronage or sales that would reduce the overall level of income for the service. Ideally, the price should be greater than full cost recovery and a market based price. The price charged by competitors depends upon the marketing strategy that has been adopted and can be determined through benchmarking. If a price, less than full cost recovery is contemplated, CoGB should review whether it should provide the service, or reconsider whether there is a community service obligation. Otherwise, ratepayers are subsidising a service for which no community service obligation has been identified. Examples: Sale of goods through retail outlets, eg. Visitor Information Centre, Art Gallery. A flowchart in Appendix A outlines the principles.

6. PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

6.1 Final review All prices are subject to a final review as part of the budget process to ensure that the prices determined according to the factors and pricing method above are practical.

6.2 Annual review Non-statutory fees and charges will be reviewed as part of the annual Budget development process. The process is outlined in the flowchart provided as Appendix B.

7 RESPONSIBILITIES

Position Responsibility Councillors To take into account the Policy when considering fees and charges

set by Council. Directors Ensure that the Policy is used as part of the Budget development

process to review fees and charges within each Directorate. Managers Undertaking an annual review of all fees and charges they are

responsible for, in accordance with the Policy To identify any new fees and charges that should apply.

Manager Finance Ensure that the non-statutory fees and charges are identified during


PAGE 158

Position Responsibility the Budget development process and to ensure implementation of this policy. Advise and support Managers in the application of Competitive Neutrality and the determination of the full cost of services.

Employees Administering the fees and charges as contained in the Fees and Charges Schedule. Providing accurate information to facilitate an annual review of all fees and charges in accordance with the Policy.


PAGE 159

Schedule 1

Alignment of CoGB User Fees and Charges with Pricin g Methods

CoGB User Fee and Charge

Review Date

Pricing Method

If subsidised

% of subsidy

Next Review

Date


PAGE 160

Appendix A

Pricing Policy Principles - Flowchart

Does Statutory or Non-Discretionary pricing apply?

Statutory or Non- Discretionary Pricing

Eg. Specified Environmental Health and Statutory

Planning Fees

Does the National Competition apply? National Competition Policy Pricing (i.e. Full cost recovery to MARKET PRICING or

else Community Benefit Test required).

Is the service providing information? OR Does this involve damage to Council

property? OR Is this a regulatory function of Council

with no social policy objective?

Full Cost Recovery Pricing Eg. Livestock Exchange Fees

Are the Council social policy objectives that require controlled pricing that apply?

Accessible Pricing (Full Council Subsidy to Full Cost Recovery)

Eg. Recreation facilities fees and charges.

Are there Council policies objectives that require controlled pricing that apply?

Incentive Pricing Eg. Charging more for late health premises

registration.

Market Pricing Eg. Sale of goods through retail outlets, ie. Visitor

Information Centre, Art Gallery.

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No


PAGE 161

Appendix B

Review Process of Non Statutory Fees and Charges

Identify fees and charges as part of the

Budget process

Review cost of providing the service

Determine which pricing method is to

be used

Document (as applicable):

• reasons for method used

• cost recovery/subsidy calculations

Proposed Fee or Charge submitted to fees and charges schedule for Executive

consideration

Councillor Review and adoption This occurs in advance of the annual budget

adoption to enable service users to be informed of the fee increase in a timely

manner


PAGE 162

6. URGENT BUSINESS

Nil.


PAGE 163

7. NOTICES OF MOTION

7.1 NOTICE OF MOTION: FORTUNA CR JAMES WILLIAMS That Council provide in principle support for a Fortuna Commission and the contribution of up to $4 million over a ten year period, to the Commission. This is to enable the Commission to establish a fund created from the development of the land gifted to the Commission and by developing that land to create a model development that is innovative and creates a truly suburban landscape that enhances the future use and recognition of Fortuna and its historical importance to all Australians; and (a) That the State Government agree in principle to establish the Fortuna Commission

and contribute an amount of crown land of commensurate size to enable the commission to achieve its aims of generating a capital fund to support the maintenance and ongoing use of Fortuna by the public.

(b) That the Federal Government transfer the Fortuna property and buildings with a

one-off grant to the commission to act as seeding funding for the Commission. (c) That a sound business case is developed by the Fortuna Commission and provided

to all interested parties. That the business plan include the justification for the contributions received from all contributing parties.

Officer comment (Stan Liacos, Director City Futures ): The future ownership and re-use of Fortuna has been a matter of consideration and conjecture for many years now. Efforts continue to be made to try broker dialogue with and between all three levels of government with the objective being to try reach agreement on the establishment of a creative collaborative alliance that will hopefully keep the property in public ownership at minimal cost to ratepayers and taxpayers for one or more desirable purposes. This objective will only work if all three levels of government bring to the table a sense of goodwill and agreement to all inject seed funding into the establishment of a Development Trust, or equivalent entity, be that a public owned company or legislated public commission/authority, that is in turn given a specific charter and strong mandate to act in the best interests of all concerned and along sound property redevelopment business lines. These efforts are continuing.


PAGE 164

8. COUNCILLORS' REPORTS

9. MAYOR'S REPORT

10. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT

11. CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS

11.1 Any other matter which the Council or special committee considers would

prejudice the Council or any person

RECOMMENDATION

That the meeting be closed to the public to consider reports in accordance with Section 89(2)(h) of the Local Government Act 1989, as amended, relating to any other matter which the Council or special committee considers would prejudice the Council or any person.


PAGE 165

council meeting agenda 27 march 2013

Documents

greater bendigo advocating

proposed construction

bendigo town hall copies

hargreaves street

victoria street

wesley street

shamrock street

barnard street